Bike weight and climbing.

I am a slow but persistent climber. What this means is that the weight of a bike can vary quite a bit without it significantly effecting a round trip time as measured on the Garmin. The difference between climbing at 5 mph and 4.8 doesn't make one sit up and take notice. And the difference in climbing speed is made up for by the increase acceleration on the downhills.

On the flats the weight does seem to make a difference. While you accelerate slower, you also decelerate more slowly. You have more "carry" or momentum. So especially in strong winds like we've been having over the last couple of weeks, the heavier bike actually gives me a higher average.

So perhaps if I were to do some very steep climbing I'd be better off with the lightest bike, the moderate (no more than 12%) climbs I do demonstrates a lack of value for the far higher expense of weight saving at any cost. I do have some pretty steep climbs around here and I'll test the bikes on those after it warms up and I get to ride more regularly again. We'll have to see if there is any capital advantage to weight for a sports rider except possibly on the very rare wall.

Tom Kunich wrote:
I am a slow but persistent climber. What this means is that the weight of
a bike can vary quite a bit without it significantly effecting a round
trip time as measured on the Garmin. The difference between climbing at 5
mph and 4.8 doesn't make one sit up and take notice. And the difference
in climbing speed is made up for by the increase acceleration on the downhills.

On the flats the weight does seem to make a difference. While you
accelerate slower, you also decelerate more slowly. You have more "carry"
or momentum. So especially in strong winds like we've been having over
the last couple of weeks, the heavier bike actually gives me a higher average.

So perhaps if I were to do some very steep climbing I'd be better off
with the lightest bike, the moderate (no more than 12%) climbs I do
demonstrates a lack of value for the far higher expense of weight saving
at any cost. I do have some pretty steep climbs around here and I'll test
the bikes on those after it warms up and I get to ride more regularly
again. We'll have to see if there is any capital advantage to weight for
a sports rider except possibly on the very rare wall.

Similar, I’m heavier I don’t notice the weight of the Gravel bike, I do
notice the lower gears which are handy, on the steeper stuff which there is
plenty around here, tends to be short steep stuff, between 12 to 21%

Case in point I’ve climbed Mt Teide a few times now, first time was on a
hire bike, which was a lot more upmarket road bike than mine, next few
times was on my Gravel bikes, which closed the times, last time I actually
took bars and drank and was a good 30mins faster! It’s a 20+ mile climb so
even the lightest fittest take hrs rather than minutes!

Within reason I think the rider is the biggest influence.

Roger Merriman

On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 5:58:02 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
I am a slow but persistent climber. What this means is that the weight of
a bike can vary quite a bit without it significantly effecting a round
trip time as measured on the Garmin. The difference between climbing at 5
mph and 4.8 doesn't make one sit up and take notice. And the difference
in climbing speed is made up for by the increase acceleration on the downhills.

On the flats the weight does seem to make a difference. While you
accelerate slower, you also decelerate more slowly. You have more "carry"
or momentum. So especially in strong winds like we've been having over
the last couple of weeks, the heavier bike actually gives me a higher average.

So perhaps if I were to do some very steep climbing I'd be better off
with the lightest bike, the moderate (no more than 12%) climbs I do
demonstrates a lack of value for the far higher expense of weight saving
at any cost. I do have some pretty steep climbs around here and I'll test
the bikes on those after it warms up and I get to ride more regularly
again. We'll have to see if there is any capital advantage to weight for
a sports rider except possibly on the very rare wall.

Similar, I’m heavier I don’t notice the weight of the Gravel bike, I do
notice the lower gears which are handy, on the steeper stuff which there is
plenty around here, tends to be short steep stuff, between 12 to 21%

Case in point I’ve climbed Mt Teide a few times now, first time was on a
hire bike, which was a lot more upmarket road bike than mine, next few
times was on my Gravel bikes, which closed the times, last time I actually
took bars and drank and was a good 30mins faster! It’s a 20+ mile climb so
even the lightest fittest take hrs rather than minutes!

Within reason I think the rider is the biggest influence.

Well, I tend to agree that later in the season as the winter blubber comes off, I climb a lot faster and without so much effort.

Tom Kunich writes:

the difference in climbing speed is made up for by the increase
acceleration on the downhills.

The acceleration should not be affected by the mass: More mass dragging
you downhill, but more mass needs to be accelerated. Terminal velocity
should be higher with more weight, though.

Axel

On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 10:54:49 AM UTC-8, Axel Reichert wrote:
Tom Kunich writes:

the difference in climbing speed is made up for by the increase
acceleration on the downhills.
The acceleration should not be affected by the mass: More mass dragging
you downhill, but more mass needs to be accelerated. Terminal velocity
should be higher with more weight, though.

Yes, that is what I meant to say.

Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 5:58:02 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
I am a slow but persistent climber. What this means is that the weight of
a bike can vary quite a bit without it significantly effecting a round
trip time as measured on the Garmin. The difference between climbing at 5
mph and 4.8 doesn't make one sit up and take notice. And the difference
in climbing speed is made up for by the increase acceleration on the downhills.

On the flats the weight does seem to make a difference. While you
accelerate slower, you also decelerate more slowly. You have more "carry"
or momentum. So especially in strong winds like we've been having over
the last couple of weeks, the heavier bike actually gives me a higher average.

So perhaps if I were to do some very steep climbing I'd be better off
with the lightest bike, the moderate (no more than 12%) climbs I do
demonstrates a lack of value for the far higher expense of weight saving
at any cost. I do have some pretty steep climbs around here and I'll test
the bikes on those after it warms up and I get to ride more regularly
again. We'll have to see if there is any capital advantage to weight for
a sports rider except possibly on the very rare wall.

Similar, I’m heavier I don’t notice the weight of the Gravel bike, I do
notice the lower gears which are handy, on the steeper stuff which there is
plenty around here, tends to be short steep stuff, between 12 to 21%

Case in point I’ve climbed Mt Teide a few times now, first time was on a
hire bike, which was a lot more upmarket road bike than mine, next few
times was on my Gravel bikes, which closed the times, last time I actually
took bars and drank and was a good 30mins faster! It’s a 20+ mile climb so
even the lightest fittest take hrs rather than minutes!

Within reason I think the rider is the biggest influence.

Well, I tend to agree that later in the season as the winter blubber
comes off, I climb a lot faster and without so much effort.

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the most
important or rather looking at all the bikes I’ve had generally when I’ve
been fast (er) it’s because I’m fitter rather than weight which is broadly
stable.

Roger Merriman

Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important

On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel

Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel

That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC rider gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains not so much. And then there is tactics.

Lou

On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC rider gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains not so much. And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the flats absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the power to weight ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario Cipollini? He was an absolute monster and yet he won most sprints that he contested. His power to weight ratio was so low that on the slightest climb he was immediately off the back. The reason that modern racers with less power to weight ratio are winning is because they can sustain that power output over longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power and their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple physics?

Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 19:28:16 UTC+1 schreef :
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 12:54:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op woensdag 27 januari 2021 om 00:13:05 UTC+1 schreef Axel Reichert:
Roger Merriman writes:

Power to weight clearly matters though I suspect that power is the
most important
On the flats: Power. In the mountains: Power to weight. So in theory the
Tour de France should always be won by the heaviest rider from the
top-most power to weight bracket. (-:

Break-even is when during a tour you spent the same energy propelling
you forward as lifting you upwards. This depends a little bit on your
speed in flat terrain, but as a rule of thumb it is somewhere between 10
to 15 m climbing per kilometer, or 1 to 1.5 % "average" grade. Below
that, it is "flat" and W trumps, above, it is mountainous and W/kg
trumps.

Axel
That is just theory. TdF is not a time trial. On the flat a GC rider gets a lot of help from his teammates. In the mountains not so much. And then there is tactics.
Axel doesn't have a theory, he is simply stating fact. On the flats absolutely power gives absolute speed. In climbing the power to weight ratio gives climbing speed. Remember Mario Cipollini? He was an absolute monster and yet he won most sprints that he contested. His power to weight ratio was so low that on the slightest climb he was immediately off the back. The reason that modern racers with less power to weight ratio are winning is because they can sustain that power output over longer periods so that the real climbers simply run out of power and their p/w falls off. Exactly why would you argue simple physics?

I don't argue simple physics, I argue who will likely to win a race/TdF.

Lou