# Thread: Interesting study on bike weight vs. performance

1. ## Interesting study on bike weight vs. performance

I dont spend a lot of time in here, so if this is a repost, please disregard and accept my apologies. I just thought it was interesting.

Power development in hill climbing as a function of bicycle weight

General Conclusion: A 2 lb reduction in bike weight resulted in a 22 sec advantage for racers over a 1.8 mile steep climb.

2. Great info!

3. A light bike certainly feels faster. Interesting reading

4. Makes my wallet feel a lot lighter which in turn motivates me to pedal harder. Instant performance increase. As the Canadiens call it, "a win-win."

5. Originally Posted by Stumpjumpy
General Conclusion: A 2 lb reduction in bike weight resulted in a 22 sec advantage for racers over a 1.8 mile steep climb.
It may just be semantics, but it actually says that a 2lb increase resulted in a 21 second disadvantage.

I agree that a light bike feels better but I wonder what the true result of removing an addition 1kg from their standard bike would be. I assume that since they were racers they were already on fairly sorted out bikes.

I guess wonder what the point of diminished returns are, and what are the variables that factor into that; bike weight, rider weight, rotating/non-rotating weight, course type, etc.

6. Keep in mind, that the study makes some pretty rough assumptions.

Pedaling efficiency for one, is not going to be equal on a noodle 2 lbs frame, and on a super rigid 4 lbs frame.
The same could be said about many other components.

Another assumption would be the loss of power due to the condition of the trail is not playing a part, which is also highly questionable.

So if two bikes perform exactly equal, under the conditions of the trail and so forth, yes, the lighter bike is faster.

To need a study to reach that conclusion, well, ahem, is pretty much a joke.

So if we can have components and frames, that performs equal, but are lighter, all is good.
If not, the 22 seconds mentioned above,and then some, are going to be lost real quick

Magura

7. Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
Keep in mind, that the study makes some pretty rough assumptions.

Pedaling efficiency for one, is not going to be equal on a noodle 2 lbs frame, and on a super rigid 4 lbs frame.
The same could be said about many other components.

Another assumption would be the loss of power due to the condition of the trail is not playing a part, which is also highly questionable.

So if two bikes perform exactly equal, under the conditions of the trail and so forth, yes, the lighter bike is faster.

To need a study to reach that conclusion, well, ahem, is pretty much a joke.

So if we can have components and frames, that performs equal, but are lighter, all is good.
If not, the 22 seconds mentioned above,and then some, are going to be lost real quick

Magura

Great point but simply the fact that this guy did this as his master's thesis is pretty cool in my opinion.

8. It would be interesting to see how controlled his study was.

I have done a lot of testing of various bikes and components over the years. One of the things that astonishes me is how much my own weight can drop from trial to trial. If my trial are an hour apart, even after hydrating, I am using about a 1lb lighter for the second trail. (Which means I have to add balast to be accurate).

I am curious because because I haven't seen that type of drop before from static weight in my testing. And if you put numbers in Analyticcycling.com on that length of hill with an average grade 10%, a 70kg rider who puts out 300 watts of power should only gain 8 seconds by losing a 1lb.

9. Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
Keep in mind, that the study makes some pretty rough assumptions.

Pedaling efficiency for one, is not going to be equal on a noodle 2 lbs frame, and on a super rigid 4 lbs frame.
The same could be said about many other components.

Another assumption would be the loss of power due to the condition of the trail is not playing a part, which is also highly questionable.

So if two bikes perform exactly equal, under the conditions of the trail and so forth, yes, the lighter bike is faster.

To need a study to reach that conclusion, well, ahem, is pretty much a joke.

So if we can have components and frames, that performs equal, but are lighter, all is good.
If not, the 22 seconds mentioned above,and then some, are going to be lost real quick
Magura
I wouldn't make those assumptions. I have a 2 lb. carbon frame that is very stiff and efficient, and a steel framed bike that is very flexy and soft in comparison.
I also have very lightweight carbon cranks, that are far stiffer than a heavier set of aluminum cranks.

I would say that comparing my two bike examples, the lightweight bike is faster going uphill just due to better engineering, not just weight alone.
An efficiently designed and built bike is going to take you uphill quicker, than a flexy, inefficient one. I would go even further to say that if the carbon bike was 2 lbs. heavier than the steel bike, it would still get me up the hill quicker.

10. Originally Posted by turbogrover
I wouldn't make those assumptions. I have a 2 lb. carbon frame that is very stiff and efficient, and a steel framed bike that is very flexy and soft in comparison.
I also have very lightweight carbon cranks, that are far stiffer than a heavier set of aluminum cranks.

I would say that comparing my two bike examples, the lightweight bike is faster going uphill just due to better engineering, not just weight alone.
An efficiently designed and built bike is going to take you uphill quicker, than a flexy, inefficient one. I would go even further to say that if the carbon bike was 2 lbs. heavier than the steel bike, it would still get me up the hill quicker.
You missed my point

It is a matter of comparing apples to apples. This meaning that a study that does not take this into account, is pretty much useless.

Magura

11. Originally Posted by LMN
It would be interesting to see how controlled his study was.

I have done a lot of testing of various bikes and components over the years. One of the things that astonishes me is how much my own weight can drop from trial to trial. If my trial are an hour apart, even after hydrating, I am using about a 1lb lighter for the second trail. (Which means I have to add balast to be accurate).

I am curious because because I haven't seen that type of drop before from static weight in my testing. And if you put numbers in Analyticcycling.com on that length of hill with an average grade 10%, a 70kg rider who puts out 300 watts of power should only gain 8 seconds by losing a 1lb.
You got a good point there.

I see no mention of that factor in the study either.
This kind of stuff as basis for a master thesis, has to be a joke.

Magura

12. Btw, it is real strange that nobody has pointed out the lack of keeping the test double blind?

If you add a 1 kg water bottle to a bike, I would claim that most people would be able to tell, by just tilting the bike from side to side a couple of times.

So now we have a flawed study, with lack of control, and the placebo effect working full throttle.

Magura

13. Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
You missed my point

It is a matter of comparing apples to apples. This meaning that a study that does not take this into account, is pretty much useless.

Magura
By using the same exact bike and only adding 2 lbs, it IS comparing apples to apples. bike rigidity/efficiency remains constant. The only variable is weight.

Anyone seeking to realize the benefits of a lighter bike in the real world has to modify the bike in such a way so as to minimize or avoid a loss of bicycle function/efficiency.

14. Originally Posted by LMN
It would be interesting to see how controlled his study was.

I have done a lot of testing of various bikes and components over the years. One of the things that astonishes me is how much my own weight can drop from trial to trial. If my trial are an hour apart, even after hydrating, I am using about a 1lb lighter for the second trail. (Which means I have to add balast to be accurate).

I am curious because because I haven't seen that type of drop before from static weight in my testing. And if you put numbers in Analyticcycling.com on that length of hill with an average grade 10%, a 70kg rider who puts out 300 watts of power should only gain 8 seconds by losing a 1lb.
That's a great point.

This study used a 16.5% grade. So that theoretically could be responsible for the more substantial delta in time

15. Originally Posted by Mr.Magura

So if two bikes perform exactly equal, under the conditions of the trail and so forth, yes, the lighter bike is faster.

To need a study to reach that conclusion, well, ahem, is pretty much a joke.

Magura
The study attempts to quantify how much faster a lighter bike is, not simply demonstrate that a lighter bike is faster.

16. Originally Posted by Stumpjumpy
The study attempts to quantify how much faster a lighter bike is, not simply demonstrate that a lighter bike is faster.
Analyticcycling.com gives the figure based on relatively simple math. The figure you get there, is exactly the figure you would see in a test, if the test was conducted correct, and the number of people involved, was big enough to make a statistic significant.

To think an experiment like the one from the study, is getting a more correct figure, is at best flawed. As already mentioned above, the test is based on quite a number of assumptions, and is not even close to a double blind test.

Magura

17. Originally Posted by Stumpjumpy
By using the same exact bike and only adding 2 lbs, it IS comparing apples to apples. bike rigidity/efficiency remains constant. The only variable is weight.
That would be true, if it wasn't for the fact that the test takes a situation, and turns it upside down, by adding weight.

I for one have never met somebody whom were interested in adding weight to their bike.

So, in real life situations, the part that is interesting, is when the curve of speed gained by loosing weight, crosses the curve of equipment performance reduction due to weaker equipment.

If that study should have any relevance, it would have been a lot more complicated, and have involved quite a bit of measurements of the equipment.

Just the fact that the energy loss due to frame flex, is measured as a percentage, should be enough for the thesis to have flunked.

Take for instance the guy with the biggest energy loss due to frame flex, and compare him to the guy in the opposite end of the scale.
Now adding 2lbs to the guy with the noodle frame, is going to make a significant impact on the result, compared to the guy with the rigid frame.

If it was all that simple, I guess it would have been done a long time ago, and you would find websites with "speed calculators".

Analyticcycling.com is the closest we are going to get to a simple answer, that is not flawed to a degree, close to wild guessing.

Magura

18. I don't think the author ever claimed his study was definitive or better than anything else at quantifying performance vs weight.

Like any study, it is just another datapoint, among many, to consider in drawing any conclusion re weight vs performance.

19. Originally Posted by Stumpjumpy
I don't think the author ever claimed his study was definitive or better than anything else at quantifying performance vs weight.

Like any study, it is just another datapoint, among many, to consider in drawing any conclusion re weight vs performance.
Trouble is, that it has little to do with data.

It's the test itself that is flawed, so whatever conclusion he draws from a flawed test, is of no value to anybody.

It's "tests" like that one, being brought forward as scientific, that causes a lot of the religious opinions around.
If nobody cares to point out the flaws and challenge flawed conclusions, the bike segment is gonna end up worse than the Hi-Fi guys, and that I think nobody besides the industry, will see any benefit from.

Magura

20. Every study involving human athletic performance is flawed by definition. This does not render the results useless, however. Again, the studies are data points, that when taken as a whole (meaning all of the studies) provide useful information for drawing useful conclusions.

21. FWIW, I just ran the same parameters through analytic cycling.com and it generated a 19 sec delta instead of this study's 21 sec delta. Seems pretty consistent to me.

But keep in mind that the following criticism applies to ANY estimate/study on weight vs. performance, no matter how calculated, so they are both equally totally invalid and worthless.

Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
Keep in mind, that the study makes some pretty rough assumptions.

Pedaling efficiency for one, is not going to be equal on a noodle 2 lbs frame, and on a super rigid 4 lbs frame.
The same could be said about many other components.

Another assumption would be the loss of power due to the condition of the trail is not playing a part, which is also highly questionable.

So if two bikes perform exactly equal, under the conditions of the trail and so forth, yes, the lighter bike is faster.

To need a study to reach that conclusion, well, ahem, is pretty much a joke.

So if we can have components and frames, that performs equal, but are lighter, all is good.
If not, the 22 seconds mentioned above,and then some, are going to be lost real quick

Magura

22. 21 second difference does seem a bit high. When you add 1kg to 80kg rider+bike, the increase is about 1.25%. You would expect to go about that much slower: 1.25% of 10 minutes is about 7-8 seconds.The table listing the results shows that there are a few outliers, riders who went close to 1 minute slower with the extra weight.

There is an interesting discussion after the table of results, where he says that people tend to go hard on the flats and take it easy on the steep parts. I always thought I go harder on the steep sections because I suffer more.

23. That article was written to an audience that has never ridden a bike before. Then they threw in some big words. NOT impressed!

24. To be fair, it's better than I would have done when in school. And it is interesting to read.

The procedure is actually pretty good; if executed as described. A larger sample size would mitigate a lot of the variables some of you point out (mostly by randomizing run order). It really isn't written very well (a lot of filler), it was predisposed to an outcome, and there was no statistical rational...but the raw data is there, if not significant at these sample sizes.

I'd like to see it repeated with a much larger sample size (5x to 10x larger), then evaluated for true statistical significance.

25. Originally Posted by kallee
21 second difference does seem a bit high. When you add 1kg to 80kg rider+bike, the increase is about 1.25%. You would expect to go about that much slower: 1.25% of 10 minutes is about 7-8 seconds.
Your calculations seem to omit grade, which is obviously VERY important. Analyticcycling.com, which is apparently considered the best calculator by some in here, generates a 19 sec difference.

26. Originally Posted by kallee
I always thought I go harder on the steep sections because I suffer more.
I also tend to save a little reserve for the hard sections. Not just to get them over with quickly, but because momentum helps get the bike over momentary obstacles like roots and rocks. Climbing steep-ish stuff on a mountain bike tends to be dynamic, and I'd pay attention to empirical results regardless of what a canned formula thinks the answer ought to be.

27. ## Back from the archives

I love the search function on mtbr...
Thanks for the previous posts, which had me thinking this morning as I pedaled my 30 pound cross bike with studded tires to work. I know the tires are heavier, but I think the rolling resistance was a bigger factor with regards to speed and power.
I've been thinking about various bikes and the value of a lighter frame in particular. I was messing around with the calculator on the site you all mentioned and based on a 1.5kg change, with a rolling resistance of .04 (a high number, I think), the difference on a course that was 60 miles long would be about six minutes.
Six minutes? That is it? It seems as though there are so many other variables that would have a bigger impact on overall performance (e.g., choice of tires, nutrition, sleep, appropriate bike for the course). For those of you who have done everything else to maximize your performance, weight seems like a great place to go. But if I pick a really stiff, well designed frame that is a bit more portly than the uber high-end frame, is it really going to make much of a difference?
I ask in the spirit of learning.

28. Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
Keep in mind, that the study makes some pretty rough assumptions.

Pedaling efficiency for one, is not going to be equal on a noodle 2 lbs frame, and on a super rigid 4 lbs frame.
The same could be said about many other components.

Another assumption would be the loss of power due to the condition of the trail is not playing a part, which is also highly questionable.

So if two bikes perform exactly equal, under the conditions of the trail and so forth, yes, the lighter bike is faster.

To need a study to reach that conclusion, well, ahem, is pretty much a joke.

So if we can have components and frames, that performs equal, but are lighter, all is good.
If not, the 22 seconds mentioned above,and then some, are going to be lost real quick

Magura
I completely agree. the study is a study about putting an extra kilo of weight in a water bottle on an existing rig/rider. If they put the extra weight going into actual parts I'd say the speed that they lost in seconds could have been close to zero. Because you actually get something back I'd guess. better heavier brakes (talking off the shelf **** here not your airplane carbvon stuff ) and everyhting else would be able to perform better most likely.

the way I see it is that these test can never be performed on equal bikes, since there is no equal. How would this be judged both lighter and he3avier.
no one could ever define what an equal but 1kg heavier/lighter bike would be. But its still numbers. If anyone wants to make a 1kg heavier bike than another one and everything else calculated a littler bit stiffer, 1kg stiffer in total, good luck.

How would equal performance of components be decieded? I can see at least 3-4-5 ways here. But I liked the study actually. Only if its only an approximation its still something. And thats better than nothing.

29. I would also like to see the studies with regards to kinetic energy for the whole package, rider and bike, and lighter/heavier bike (not just weights in bottles) Speed increases kinetic energy squared and mass only linear.

30. There was also a test done with riders going up alpe d'huez, about 9 miles and 6800 ft of climbing. Adding 2000 grams of rotating weight resulted in about a minute slower times. Thats more climbing than most average rides, and a minute isnt much, especially when the weight is added to the fabled "rotating weight."

31. Originally Posted by One Pivot
There was also a test done with riders going up alpe d'huez, about 9 miles and 6800 ft of climbing. Adding 2000 grams of rotating weight resulted in about a minute slower times. Thats more climbing than most average rides, and a minute isnt much, especially when the weight is added to the fabled "rotating weight."
I sure agree, that 1 minute over 9 miles of heavy climbing, is not something us mere mortals would be able to feel.

Having said that, when I make bike bits, I usually focus on not making compromises regarding stiffness or functionality, for the sake of saving weight.
This philosophy is based on that the pi\$\$ poor engine my bike is supplied with, needs all the help it can get, so wasting power in a soft ultra light frame, VS. keeping as much power going to the ground through a super stiff frame, always means the latter choice to me.
That some EPO munching pro looses 1 minute on a 9 mile climb due to weight, would make close to zero difference to me, as I am far from his EPO munching/fitness level, and have totally different issues to deal with.
Just the fact that the cadence of the pro's is like 25% higher, allows them to have a softer frame than us mere mortals, without loosing as much energy.
When mashing up a hill, on a super light soft frame, I loose so much energy in the frame, that 1kg of dead weight would be lost in the equation.

The same holds true for brakes to me. The ones that spend 4 hours a day training, sure has much better technique, so the performance of their brakes is less important, as their technique makes up for lack of modulation and so forth.
Back when I made the carbon brake, the biggest benefit besides immense amounts of power, was the very low static friction it offered. It actually made me quite a bit faster, as I can brake harder and later with confidence.
Now it is going to be coupled with a 4 piston Shimano Zee brake, even though the Zee is pretty heavy.
Why?
Because the functionality saves me much more, than the weight penalty costs.

I'd dare to claim that similar parallels, can be drawn for most components.

Magura

32. Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
I sure agree, that 1 minute over 9 miles of heavy climbing, is not something us mere mortals would be able to feel.

Having said that, when I make bike bits, I usually focus on not making compromises regarding stiffness or functionality, for the sake of saving weight.
This philosophy is based on that the pi\$\$ poor engine my bike is supplied with, needs all the help it can get, so wasting power in a soft ultra light frame, VS. keeping as much power going to the ground through a super stiff frame, always means the latter choice to me.
That some EPO munching pro looses 1 minute on a 9 mile climb due to weight, would make close to zero difference to me, as I am far from his EPO munching/fitness level, and have totally different issues to deal with.
Just the fact that the cadence of the pro's is like 25% higher, allows them to have a softer frame than us mere mortals, without loosing as much energy.
When mashing up a hill, on a super light soft frame, I loose so much energy in the frame, that 1kg of dead weight would be lost in the equation.

The same holds true for brakes to me. The ones that spend 4 hours a day training, sure has much better technique, so the performance of their brakes is less important, as their technique makes up for lack of modulation and so forth.
Back when I made the carbon brake, the biggest benefit besides immense amounts of power, was the very low static friction it offered. It actually made me quite a bit faster, as I can brake harder and later with confidence.
Now it is going to be coupled with a 4 piston Shimano Zee brake, even though the Zee is pretty heavy.
Why?
Because the functionality saves me much more, than the weight penalty costs.

I'd dare to claim that similar parallels, can be drawn for most components.

Magura
I thought you'd use Magura brakes. Marta Mags rule.

33. Originally Posted by osokolo
I thought you'd use Magura brakes. Marta Mags rule.
Naah, the Magura brakes have not impressed me, since they quit on 4 piston calipers.

If they would make a 4 piston caliper, I'd most likely still stick with Shimano, as the levers are too hard to modify. The same goes for the 1 piece calipers.
1 piece calipers, are great in theory, but makes no difference in reality.
They are just a PITA to modify as well.

So Magura is actually a Shimano brake guy.
If I didn't intend to modify the brakes, and just needed out of the box performance, it would be a tie between them.
The Magura brakes are very high quality, and their customer service is simply over the top.

Magura

34. Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
Naah, the Magura brakes have not impressed me, since they quit on 4 piston calipers.

If they would make a 4 piston caliper, I'd most likely still stick with Shimano, as the levers are too hard to modify. The same goes for the 1 piece calipers.
1 piece calipers, are great in theory, but makes no difference in reality.
They are just a PITA to modify as well.

So Magura is actually a Shimano brake guy.
If I didn't intend to modify the brakes, and just needed out of the box performance, it would be a tie between them.
The Magura brakes are very high quality, and their customer service is simply over the top.

Magura
Are you a spandex or a baggy? Why would you need more braking power than the Mags can offer?

I am 195# on a good day and love braking late. Too late. Probably because I suck technically. But never needed more power for sure. Now, I ride mostly XC - so that may be the factor. You?

35. Originally Posted by osokolo
Are you a spandex or a baggy? Why would you need more braking power than the Mags can offer?

I am 195# on a good day and love braking late. Too late. Probably because I suck technically. But never needed more power for sure. Now, I ride mostly XC - so that may be the factor. You?
I ride just about anything, depending where I am in the world at the time.
Spandex is reserved for the road bikes though
I'm just over the 200# mark as i recall.
EDIT: 215# or so with gear.

I would say that XC is a very small part of my riding though. It's mostly in the hard end of trail I guess, with a preference for pointing the front end downwards, and finding different means of transportation to get up.

For XC, the Mags are plenty sufficient, but they are a far cry from the carbon brake, when it comes to being confidence inspiring, when braking hard.

I guess the thing is that my bikes need to be pretty versatile, as i can't carry several bikes when traveling, so my priorities may differ quite a bit from yours.

Magura

i think on a mountain bike where you have to throw the bike around more, weight has a greater effect on long term fatigue

37. Originally Posted by Dan GSR
i think on a mountain bike where you have to throw the bike around more, weight has a greater effect on long term fatigue
same here... that study about road cyclist climbing crap load of vertical feet is as relevant to MTB as global warming is.

With the amount of acceleration out of corners, that an average MTB ride or race inevitably consists of, I can feel the difference between two sets of wheels - Roval SL and American Classic... the difference in weight is mere 200g - probably a bit more in rotational mass - but the seat of the pants feeling is pretty obvious to me... Carbon wheels accelerate easier - without any doubt and regardless of the terrain... I rotate them on the same frame - depending on conditions...

I'll go as light as possible, without compromising reliability. This mostly applies to wheels - I pass on wheels that have 185# or even 210# weight limit... 240# is acceptable for me (195# riding weight). 200g difference in wheels has noticeable effect on overall speed/fatigue.... my opinion and experience - of course...

38. This is a great discussion - glad someone revived it from earlier this year.

I don't think anyone touched on the added weight in the tests as a percentage of the "system" (rider + bike). A buddy of mine is 6ft 6in tall and well over 230 lbs with gear. (Sorry if you're reading this dude, but you're a big guy!)

I suspect you could strap a small child to his hip and he wouldn't notice.

39. Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
I ride just about anything, depending where I am in the world at the time.
Spandex is reserved for the road bikes though
I'm just over the 200# mark as i recall.
EDIT: 215# or so with gear.

I would say that XC is a very small part of my riding though. It's mostly in the hard end of trail I guess, with a preference for pointing the front end downwards, and finding different means of transportation to get up.

For XC, the Mags are plenty sufficient, but they are a far cry from the carbon brake, when it comes to being confidence inspiring, when braking hard.

I guess the thing is that my bikes need to be pretty versatile, as i can't carry several bikes when traveling, so my priorities may differ quite a bit from yours.

Magura

Mmmkay. Yep. Versatile bike with Magura Raceline. Check.

40. Originally Posted by osokolo

Mmmkay. Yep. Versatile bike with Magura Raceline. Check.

Versatile yes, but in the other end of the spectrum.

Currently my preferred bikes are closer to DJ than XC.
I think I would not have much fun riding street on your bike, let alone practice trial.
I also doubt it would like the generally rough treatment in the long run.

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure you'd find my preferred bikes pretty useless

Right now I'm working on an on the fly adjustable head tube system, a bit like an Angleset, just without the hassle. That will hopefully allow me to really cross a DJ/street frame with a HT trail frame.

Magura

41. Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
Versatile yes, but in the other end of the spectrum.

Currently my preferred bikes are closer to DJ than XC.
I think I would not have much fun riding street on your bike, let alone practice trial.
I also doubt it would like the generally rough treatment in the long run.

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure you'd find my preferred bikes pretty useless

Right now I'm working on an on the fly adjustable head tube system, a bit like an Angleset, just without the hassle. That will hopefully allow me to really cross a DJ/street frame with a HT trail frame.

Magura
different strokes for different folks... i am 90% XC lactic acid junkie type of rider. the rest of 10% goes to AM. road is intertwined - but insignificant...

DJ and street don't really interest me. DH is fun, but requires career change... also, i prefer to ride up before i go down... having fun with both...

in XC - weight is very important. i find tests and statistics compiled on the road - completely useless and not applicable to MTB - weight wise.

yep, sometimes i can piss more than i can shave off the bike - but 200 grams in rotational weight is something that even we - mere mortals will feel easily and without any doubt...

42. Originally Posted by osokolo
different strokes for different folks... i am 90% XC lactic acid junkie type of rider. the rest of 10% goes to AM. road is intertwined - but insignificant...

DJ and street don't really interest me. DH is fun, but requires career change... also, i prefer to ride up before i go down... having fun with both...

in XC - weight is very important. i find tests and statistics compiled on the road - completely useless and not applicable to MTB - weight wise.

yep, sometimes i can piss more than i can shave off the bike - but 200 grams in rotational weight is something that even we - mere mortals will feel easily and without any doubt...

We sure are in opposing ends of the scale.

I sure agree that weight matters, that is simple math. Where I strongly disagree, is when weight saving is done at the cost of function.
Especially for frames, the weight is of much lesser importance (again to mere mortals like us), than the energy loss from a soft and flexible frame.

Another place I've wondered why people don't look for function, is some of the super light carbon bars. Some of them are like having rubber bands between the grips and the fork.

Again I'd like to point out though, that these priorities sure changes, if you ride pro level, but I for one feel I need all the help I can get.
I think much of this is related to, that many people think they need pro equipment. Unfortunately most riders are like you and me (ok, like me, as you obviously are in pretty good shape), and that does not go hand in hand with the compromises of much of the pro stuff.

Magura

43. Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
I sure agree that weight matters, that is simple math. Where I strongly disagree, is when weight saving is done at the cost of function.
Magura
This. Couldn't agree more.

44. The ultimate weight reduction for the \$\$\$ is colon blow. You can drop 2 pounds in no time and once the fury subsides feel better afterwards. Food for thought!

45. I think most everyone would agree that weight has an impact. I guess the question for me is the effect size. Just because it makes a difference doesn't mean it makes a 'meaningful' difference. This is certainly subjective, since the individual gets to choose what they value. That being said, I wonder how researchers might further identify the actual change. What about using a power meter? If, for example, one compared a bike model that had an aluminum frame and a carbon frame, with identical components, and examined both time and power over a specific course, and used a couple different tires that had differences in rolling resistance. Like so:

aluminum bike, tire type a (low rolling resistance) vs. carbon bike, tire type a

then

aluminum bike, tire type b (high rolling resistance) vs. carbon bike, tire type b.

I realize that the stiffness of the frames could make a difference, but that is a confound that might be controlled with a covariate analysis. Or, we just accept the difference and see how it plays out.

What do you think? Where are the flaws in this sort of design?

Josh

Originally Posted by Mr.Magura
We sure are in opposing ends of the scale.

I sure agree that weight matters, that is simple math. Where I strongly disagree, is when weight saving is done at the cost of function.
Especially for frames, the weight is of much lesser importance (again to mere mortals like us), than the energy loss from a soft and flexible frame.

Another place I've wondered why people don't look for function, is some of the super light carbon bars. Some of them are like having rubber bands between the grips and the fork.

Again I'd like to point out though, that these priorities sure changes, if you ride pro level, but I for one feel I need all the help I can get.
I think much of this is related to, that many people think they need pro equipment. Unfortunately most riders are like you and me (ok, like me, as you obviously are in pretty good shape), and that does not go hand in hand with the compromises of much of the pro stuff.

Magura

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•