weight question

[bluezfolk]

When it comes to weight, some folks spend really big bucks to save a
few grams here and there. Is there any differance between weight
saved on the bike as opposed to weight saved on the rider? Would
dieting and losing five pounds be the same as having a bike that
weighs 5 pounds less, or is there some other factors involved?

Eric

[Claus Assmann]

bluezfolk wrote:
> When it comes to weight, some folks spend really big bucks to save a
> few grams here and there. Is there any differance between weight
> saved on the bike as opposed to weight saved on the rider? Would

The amount of money left in your account :-)

> dieting and losing five pounds be the same as having a bike that
> weighs 5 pounds less, or is there some other factors involved?

What if the rider can't lose weight anymore (without compromising
her/his ability to ride fast, i.e., losing muscles)?

For those people who are really lean it makes sense to have a light
bike (especially in a hilly area).

[DennisTheBald]

On Oct 8, 11:55 am, bluezfolk > wrote:
> When it comes to weight, some folks spend really big bucks to save a
> few grams here and there. Is there any differance between weight
> saved on the bike as opposed to weight saved on the rider? Would
> dieting and losing five pounds be the same as having a bike that
> weighs 5 pounds less, or is there some other factors involved?
>
> Eric

uh, I'm sure the tech forum guys would go off on this like a chicken
on a june bug...

Heavy tires have more of an impact on bicycle speed than a heavy
frame, certainly.

But I suspect that within the context that I infer from your OP, not
just no but hell no - in fact losing weight might produce a more
significant performance improvement than buying a lighter bicycle;
particularly if there was a P50 shift precipitated by whatever you did
to lose the weight.

Other than that, why does it weigh more? Is it more fluffy stuff that
also increases the wind resistance and/or drag (some 'bent riders have
data that tends to indicate that drag is actually a bigger issue than
resistance - but I ain't trying to go there). I mean to say that
hanging 20lbs of panniers that also act as sails would seem to be
worse than dropping 20lbs of spare spokes, cables, and batteries down
your seat & down tubes. But it's kinda inconvenient to try to pack
your work clothes down your seat tube every day.

And which 5 lbs are we talking about losing, cutting off your toes to
save weight would seem to be a very bad idea. As would intentionally
dehydrating yourself before you measure your performance. I've heard
that muscle tissue weighs more than fat and I've come to believe that
some weight loss programs involve practices that might cause a
decrease in muscle mass, I know that some involve dehydration. Still
most folks I know could drop a few pounds without losing muscle or
dehydrating ourselves.

On the other hand there are some differences between a RoadMaster and
Cannondale other than weight and you might just plain be happier with
the better bike. It's pretty hard to beat the materialistic joy that
comes from owning a good bicycle. It feels good to be fit too, tho.
And those two ideals aren't diametrically apposed either. At the end
of the day there are things that are just more important than how fast
you go and how much either you or your bike weighs. Get a bike that
you have fun riding, and have fun riding it.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
bluezfolk > writes:
> When it comes to weight, some folks spend really big bucks to save a
> few grams here and there. Is there any differance between weight
> saved on the bike as opposed to weight saved on the rider? Would
> dieting and losing five pounds be the same as having a bike that
> weighs 5 pounds less, or is there some other factors involved?

I don't think it matters.

I think in practice, bike-&-rider naturally tend to
attain a certain optimum equilibrium of respective
weights. IME, bikes tend to gain weight (locks,
accessories, etc) and the rider adapts. If it's
better for the rider to become lighter, the rider
will just naturally become lighter, if the rider
rides enough. The human body seems to possess an
amazing capacity to adapt to whatever it does.

Anyway, that's just my hypothesis, based upon my own
personal experience as a lightweight, bike-ridin' guy,
and nothing more. Would you like a grain of salt with
that? Here y'go. I ain't stickin' to it, myself; that's
just how it seems to me.

As long as one can make a bike go at all, life is good.

One of the fastest ways to lose weight is castor oil.
Or one too many smoothies, which pretty much amounts to
the same thing. But then that's riding time lost.

It always boils down to pay-off/trade-off.
Equilibrium is success.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[[email protected]]

On Oct 8, 3:57*pm, DennisTheBald > wrote:

<snip>

> On the other hand there are some differences between a RoadMaster and
> Cannondale other than weight and you might just plain be happier with
> the better bike. It's pretty hard to beat the materialistic joy that
> comes from owning a good bicycle. *It feels good to be fit too, tho.
> And those two ideals aren't diametrically apposed either. *At the end
> of the day there are things that are just more important than how fast
> you go and how much either you or your bike weighs. *Get a bike that
> you have fun riding, and have fun riding it.

Very true. I often have people who own wal-mart mogooses or
roadmasters ride one of my bikes, even the less expensive ones, and
they're usually amazed at how different a "real bike" is. One of my
favorite examples of this is what happened when my dad "tried a real
bike". He usually has trouble riding around the block on his bike
(walmart Mongoose BST), just over 1 mile all paved with some hills.
The first time I
got him to try mine we did almost 5 miles, more than half of which was
off-road, including the same 1 mile with hills that normally wears
him
out. At the end of the ride on my bike his complaint wasn't being
worn out, but saddle soreness.

[Art Harris]

bluezfolk (Eric) wrote:
> When it comes to weight, some folks spend really big bucks to save a
> few grams here and there. *Is there any differance between weight
> saved on the bike as opposed to weight saved on the rider? *
>

Weight (within reason) really only matters when climbing hills, and to
a lesser extent, when accelerating.

Would
> dieting and losing five pounds be the same as having a bike that
> weighs 5 pounds less, or is there some other factors involved?
>

Yes, 5 pounds is 5 pounds either way. But there are other differences
between good bikes and crappy bikes besides weight.

Art Harris

[bluezfolk]

On Oct 8, 11:55*am, bluezfolk > wrote:
> When it comes to weight, some folks spend really big bucks to save a
> few grams here and there. *Is there any differance between weight
> saved on the bike as opposed to weight saved on the rider? *Would
> dieting and losing five pounds be the same as having a bike that
> weighs 5 pounds less, or is there some other factors involved?
>
> Eric

Thank you all for the answers. My reason for asking is that I'm an
MTB guy looking to get a road bike, and its not easy for me to justify
the extra expense for a really lightweight bike. Guess I'll just work
on loosing those few extra pounds I've been carrying for a long time,
and save many dollars.

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:39:33 -0700, bluezfolk wrote:

> On Oct 8, 11:55Â*am, bluezfolk > wrote:
>> When it comes to weight, some folks spend really big bucks to save a
>> few grams here and there. Â*Is there any differance between weight saved
>> on the bike as opposed to weight saved on the rider? Â*Would dieting and
>> losing five pounds be the same as having a bike that weighs 5 pounds
>> less, or is there some other factors involved?
>>
>> Eric
>
> Thank you all for the answers. My reason for asking is that I'm an MTB
> guy looking to get a road bike, and its not easy for me to justify the
> extra expense for a really lightweight bike. Guess I'll just work on
> loosing those few extra pounds I've been carrying for a long time, and
> save many dollars.

If you're running on the road almost all the time, then you might want to
consider buying some slick tires. MTB knobbies squirm on the road,
create rolling resistance, and waste energy. Slick tires will make you
feel like you're riding a whole new bicycle.

Also, if you can find a reasonably priced secondhand road bike that fits,
there's no reason not to go that way, either.



--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Art Harris wrote:
> bluezfolk (Eric) wrote:
>> When it comes to weight, some folks spend really big bucks to save a
>> few grams here and there. Is there any differance between weight
>> saved on the bike as opposed to weight saved on the rider?
>>
>
> Weight (within reason) really only matters when climbing hills, and to
> a lesser extent, when accelerating.
>
> Would
>> dieting and losing five pounds be the same as having a bike that
>> weighs 5 pounds less, or is there some other factors involved?
>>
>
> Yes, 5 pounds is 5 pounds either way. But there are other differences
> between good bikes and crappy bikes besides weight.
>
The fastest double metric century I ever rode was on a bike that was 42
pounds before adding fluids and tools. See
<http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/images/Sherman1.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate.

[bluezfolk]

On Oct 9, 4:21*pm, Luigi de Guzman > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:39:33 -0700, bluezfolk wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 11:55*am, bluezfolk > wrote:
> >> When it comes to weight, some folks spend really big bucks to save a
> >> few grams here and there. *Is there any differance between weight saved
> >> on the bike as opposed to weight saved on the rider? *Would dieting and
> >> losing five pounds be the same as having a bike that weighs 5 pounds
> >> less, or is there some other factors involved?
>
> >> Eric
>
> > Thank you all for the answers. *My reason for asking is that I'm an MTB
> > guy looking to get a road bike, and its not easy for me to justify the
> > extra expense for a really lightweight bike. *Guess I'll just work on
> > loosing those few extra pounds I've been carrying for a long time, and
> > save many dollars.
>
> If you're running on the road almost all the time, then you might want to
> consider buying some slick tires. *MTB knobbies squirm on the road,
> create rolling resistance, and waste energy. *Slick tires will make you
> feel like you're riding a whole new bicycle.
>
> Also, if you can find a reasonably priced secondhand road bike that fits,
> there's no reason not to go that way, either.
>
> --
> Luigi de Guzmanhttp://ouij.livejournal.com

Currently on the road I'm using a 1992 Diamondback Allure hybrid,
fitted with 700x28 WTB slicks. Its getting a bit old and its just
time to get something better. I'm not looking for a $200 bike, but
under $1000 sounds reasonable for my needs.

Eric

[DennisTheBald]

On Oct 10, 8:30 am, bluezfolk > wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:21 pm, Luigi de Guzman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:39:33 -0700, bluezfolk wrote:
> > > On Oct 8, 11:55 am, bluezfolk > wrote:
> > >> When it comes to weight, some folks spend really big bucks to save a
> > >> few grams here and there. Is there any differance between weight saved
> > >> on the bike as opposed to weight saved on the rider? Would dieting and
> > >> losing five pounds be the same as having a bike that weighs 5 pounds
> > >> less, or is there some other factors involved?
>
> > >> Eric
>
> > > Thank you all for the answers. My reason for asking is that I'm an MTB
> > > guy looking to get a road bike, and its not easy for me to justify the
> > > extra expense for a really lightweight bike. Guess I'll just work on
> > > loosing those few extra pounds I've been carrying for a long time, and
> > > save many dollars.
>
> > If you're running on the road almost all the time, then you might want to
> > consider buying some slick tires. MTB knobbies squirm on the road,
> > create rolling resistance, and waste energy. Slick tires will make you
> > feel like you're riding a whole new bicycle.
>
> > Also, if you can find a reasonably priced secondhand road bike that fits,
> > there's no reason not to go that way, either.
>
> > --
> > Luigi de Guzmanhttp://ouij.livejournal.com
>
> Currently on the road I'm using a 1992 Diamondback Allure hybrid,
> fitted with 700x28 WTB slicks. Its getting a bit old and its just
> time to get something better. I'm not looking for a $200 bike, but
> under $1000 sounds reasonable for my needs.
>
> Eric

You should be able to find a bike that seems to be a pretty
significant upgrade for $500-600. I suspect that there is one for
$350 at a LBS near you that you would be happy with (maybe not - I
hardly know you). There is more at play here than just the weight.
The single biggest factor is that the bike fits you, and not be one
that is too large or too small and has the seat and stem tweaked
around so that you can fit on it (it seems that there are always
people looking to sell one that way tho). Keep in mind that
lightweight usually (not always, but usually) means a decrease in
durability too - them Tour guys get new wheels half way through the
ride. If you're willing to spend as much as a grand you should be
able to find a bike that will give you a boner. And for a $1000 bucks
it better be that exciting.

If you're handy with a wrench you can probably find a nice older frame
and hook up brand new components with brand new bearings and cables
and stuff for about 2-250 - but that's figuring that the labor is
entertainment and not worthy of compensation.