willdsouth wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 29, 2022 12:36 pm
Is there much out there on what sort of ballpark weight actually begins to have a material effect on performance?
Depends if you mean performance on a calculator, performance against yourself or performance in a mass start race.
The only one where weight is absolutely critical and the overriding factor is the first case. you plug weight into your calculation and lower is better...
Racing against yourself (timed runs up a hill for instance) the other variables such as tiredness, your weight, wind speed and direction, humidity, temperature, traffic, tire pressure, shifting choices will all have some masking effects, many of which are massive compared to the effects of weight.
Same with racing, beacause firstly you have all the factors above to consider and then you add something as simple as following the wrong wheel (or not following a wheel!) or attacking at the wrong time/wrong place, being boxed in etc etc.
Not to say that the difference in weight doesn't matter, but there are many many other factors to performance, and winning. And FWIW, many many winners don't even know how heavy their bikes are, other than "over 6.8 kilos".
Hell, there are even other factors to making a fast bike. Ergonomics, power transfer, friction, aero, rolling resistance. TBH, that's the only thing about weigh weenism that does annoy me, people making bikes slower by reducing weight, saving a minimal amount of time on a theoretical climb somewhere by saving 100 grams (or 1000 grams) but the bike's slower everywhere else because the aero is terrible, the ergo is terrible, the superlight pedals use bushings instead of bearings to save 20 grams, the 99 gram tubulars tires have the rolling resistance of a CX tyre and so on...