Ever noticed a big difference riding your heavier bike

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

daidaidai
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:33 am

by daidaidai

From my experience; I commute every day journey of 26 km each way. Have three bikes, one with mud guards, rack and pannier and heavy tyres, when loaded with lunch etc = 15kgs. One or two mornings a week ride this thing flat out, I rarely pass any one, every other commuter passes me, usually on their road bikes. (bike track always see the regular faces; or back sides more precisely) This can be depressing. Other bike, a mountain bike with out all the paraphernalia, about 12 kgs which I commute with from time to time, when servicing my normal commuter. Back tyre is a slick. A noticeable difference, I can manage to pass a few of the usual commuters and much easier to hold my place; without drafting. Third bike a road bike around 7kg. Will commute with this on rare occasions and only when its a beautiful day. Never get passed. Not very scientific but based on a long term personal observation (number of times passed per commute) Big Difference. Cheers

Franklin
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:09 am

by Franklin

The difference you describe almost certainly has almost nothing to do with weight, but everything with aerodybanics.

ToffieBoi
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:54 pm

by ToffieBoi

A few examples from my experiences so far;

I mostly felt the rigidity difference than the weight on my bike.
1.5kg of weight, coming from my water bottles is never noticable on my rides.

But when I put 150gr heavier saddle on my bike, while I was swinging the bike, I could feel that something is heavier. It is mostly because, saddle is the furthest component from the centre of gravity. Not noticable during regular ride thought.

When I switched 400gr lighter wheels (1850 grams to 1450), I was able to feel that bike accelerates faster. Not from 30 to 50km/h, but from 0 to 5. Rest felt quite the same to be honest. Maybe it was a bit more quick on some hills, but nothing changed my total time... Then I sold those wheels and bought 100gr heavier ones. I was able to feel the difference on climbs, heavier ones were better because they were much more rigid.

djwalker
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:35 pm

by djwalker

I would say that, yes, I can tell the difference between my light and heavy bike. But the difference is the feel between the bikes and not the weight. When I used to commute to work I would carry my stuff in a backpack. I weighed it one time and it was about 10 pounds. When riding my lighter bike I didn't feel that much of a difference with and without the backpack. The backpack changed the overall weight of me (185#) and the bike (16#) by 5%. I would see that sort of time variation on climbs day to day just based on how I felt any given day. So, the 10# didn't really make that much difference. Switching to my heavy bike (19#) there was a huge difference in feel- fit, acceleration, handling, etc. I noticed that way more than the weight.

Camilo
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:31 pm

by Camilo

I have three bikes I ride on the road. A fairly light weight CF bike @ about 16 lbs, a good, fairly light classic steel bike @ about 21 lbs and a cross bike turned commuter with heavy tires, wheels, components and fenders and rear rack and bag @ about, I'm thinking, pushing 30 lbs.

Huge difference riding the heavy bike. I don't like riding it except for its intended purpose, and even then, it's not actually fun unless I'm using the tires/wheels to best effect- on rough and irregular surfaces. Otherwise, it just feels like a tank.

The other two bikes- both ride very well. The steel bike is as stiff as I can ever need - it's a mid-80s Sannino, very stiff and racy geometry. Both are very fun to ride although the CF bike does feel quicker accelerating, and I believe is worth about "one gear" going uphill - i.e. a hill I would tend to ride in, say a 34X25 on the CF bike, I'd go all the way down to the 34X28 on the steel bike (I'm old, tired and live in a very hilly area!)

Not a difference which makes one more pleasurable to ride than the other, but slightly noticeable, as opposed to the commuter which just feels heavy and sluggish. On either of the light bikes, I don't think it makes an appreciable differnce when I'm riding with friends. The ones that are stronger climbers than me climb a tiny bit faster, the ones that are a tiny bit slower than me will probably ride with me instead. On the flats and going downhill, there's no difference I can see.

But I don't race so am not riding with people who want to drop me on the pacelines, so the little rollers and / or tiny accelerations on the flats don't really have an effect. I absolutely don't doubt that the lightest bike would work better if I were racing though. A tiny bit here and there can make the difference between staying in the draft, or keeping contact going up a roller vs. not.

mattr
Posts: 3507
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

....... to answer the original question, no.

Heavy bike and light(er) bike were running similar drivelines (all 9 speed shimano, light bike with D-A, heavy with 105/ultegra) same with wheels and tyres (Open pro on shimano hubs, michelin pro3, lightish tubes) and similar style finishing kit (heavy bike with bottom ish of the range, light one with top end from a similar (or the same) range.

So very little functional difference between the two bikes, just a little bit extra weight on each and every component, and about a kilo and a half on the frame/fork. Maybe 2.5 kilos total weight difference, no difference in my weight, or my kit set up. (I was a racer back then, not remotely interested in cutting weight at all costs!)

Difference in riding the two bikes was (once i'd got over noticing the colour difference and the bottle cages in slightly different places) was negligible. Could keep up with the chaingang, racing was no issue (had decent results on both).

Most of the differences people are quoting are down to the fact that you have two completely different bikes.
Which isn't what the question was asking.

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

MY two bikes are roughly two pounds apart. I don't notice much difference except on the climbs or towards the end of a long ride. I think subconsciously I attempt to compensate by pedaling harder on the older bike. The two problems I do have with a question like this however is that I like most people don't have identical equipment on the two bikes, gear ratios are not the same and the new bike has a better quality wheel.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Trek 5200(ultegra)

IamnotWiggins
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:31 am
Location: Brighton, UK

by IamnotWiggins

I find my alu winter bike (or rain bike as you Americans call it) is actually quicker than my Tarmac SL4! However, I think this may be to do with the ratios on the back - SL4 is 12/25 11spd and the winter bike is 11/25 10spd.

User avatar
rmerka
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: Austin, TX

by rmerka

Franklin wrote:
Irish wrote:Ozrider, since 600gms of that weight is rotatonal (wheels) you cant multiply that by 2 (1200gms) and the remainder of the 1500gms is static (900gms). In effect it' equates to 2100gms(2.1kgs) difference if the weight was static which is a significant amount considering upper end bikes are circa 7kgs
Utter nonsense. Difference betwen rotational and static weeight is not double. Indeed, again people make the amazing misstake imagining much greater acceleration than really is happening. The difference between static and rotational weght is minor. It would be nice if we as Weight weenies would actually use the facts instead of believing in fairtytales.

To destroy this myth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_pe ... ght_wheels

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6394&p=60824&hilit=runge+kutta#p60824

/end of myth. :smartass:


Myth re-incarnated at interbike 14 -- http://youtu.be/CwCT-Fsedsk

plag
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2014 4:16 am

by plag

Placebo effect . Unless your comparing 2 bikes with a huge weight difference .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

So... that video 'proves' the opposite. More rotational than static weight will make you faster uphill... Actually it proves nothing...

TheKaiser
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:29 pm

by TheKaiser

IamnotWiggins wrote:I find my alu winter bike (or rain bike as you Americans call it) is actually quicker than my Tarmac SL4! However, I think this may be to do with the ratios on the back - SL4 is 12/25 11spd and the winter bike is 11/25 10spd.


What is it about the ratios that you think might be making you faster? It is a wider spread with fewer gears on your winter bike, so you are actually less likely to have the "perfect" gear for your legs at any given time. The only other thing I can think of if if you are really putting the 11t sprocket to use, whereas you spin out the 12t on the SL4. Is that the case?

If you are consistently faster on the winter bike, I suggest you double check all of your fit measurements, and if any discrepancy pops up, switch the SL4 to match the winter ride. It would also be interesting to test a flat ride without a lot of turns, to try to isolate the cornering/descending confidence factor. It could simply be that you feel more comfortable bombing descents and turns at full speed on the beefy winter bike, whereas the super light race rig feels more skittery, causing you to brake more. Just throwing some ideas out there...

Illuminate
Posts: 404
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 4:18 am
Location: Australia

by Illuminate


Franklin
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:09 am

by Franklin

Illuminate wrote:http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLessWeight_Page.html

Hope this helps.

cheers, I


/facepalm

I'm a bit grumpy, but do you seriously think people do not know weight matters when climbing? The whole point is that weight hardly matters on the flats. And for a real clincher: Aerodynamics are in 99.99% of the cases more important unless all you do is a mountain TT day in day out.

weenie
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:48 pm

by weenie

Franklin wrote:
Illuminate wrote:http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLessWeight_Page.html

Hope this helps.

cheers, I


/facepalm

I'm a bit grumpy, but do you seriously think people do not know weight matters when climbing? The whole point is that weight hardly matters on the flats. And for a real clincher: Aerodynamics are in 99.99% of the cases more important unless all you do is a mountain TT day in day out.


yep - the model seems pretty accurate tho.

my rule of thumb for the same bike is that i start really feeling it when +1kg (hilly area). I can feel a lower difference than that but it doesnt make a huge diffs. I'm not a racer or anything thought, taking 1 or 2 more minute over 50km = i dont care much :)

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post