Weight versus cost.

[DJH]

Copied this from the ETA newsletter and shows how obsessed people can become of one particular aspect and lose the bigger picture. It also highlights how the weights quoted by manufactureres have to be taken as very approximate and not the absolute truth.


"Cyclists who buy lightweight mountain bikes are paying over £2,000 to save a kilogram.

The ETA looked at online prices for new mountain bike prices last month and found that a 10kg mountain bike cost £2,483 more than one weighing 11kg on average. The cost per kilogram saved equates to £2.48 per gram; over five times more expensive than the price of scrap silver.

Choosing a bike weighing 13kg over one of 14kg cost £736 on average, while buying a mountain bike with a weight of 12kg would cost an additional £656 on average.

A spokesperson for the ETA said: “Weight is only one of a number of factors that a cyclist takes into account when buying bicycle, but our research revealed this information is not easy to come by.”

Manufacturers stay quiet on bicycle weights

The following statement from Cannondale appears on the Evans Cycles website:
“WEIGHT: Don’t see a weight listed for this bike? Wondering why that is? Well, we used to list our weights based upon medium or 56cm frame and err on the side of caution when we know there will be variances due to welds, paint thicknesses, etc. But some of our competitors are weighing their small or extra small frames and rounding down. Then you’re left wondering what’s going on and making important buying decisions based upon faulty information. That’s not right. So because weight is too important to you as a consumer, we encourage a healthy bit of scepticism over published weights. Go to your local dealer, see it, feel it, weigh it and test ride it for yourself. We’re that confident. You should be, too.”

Losing lbs to save £s

There’s little incentive for a driver to lose weight, but losing a few pounds can have a dramatic effect on a cyclist’s performance and wallet. With bike manufacturers charging hundreds of pounds for each pound in weight saved, there’s another incentive to go on a diet if you are concerned about such thing."

 

[flecc]

Go to your local dealer, see it, feel it, weigh it and test ride it for yourself. We’re that confident. You should be, too.”

For many years I've had a Salter 25 kilo spring balance with a large hook that I use to hand weigh bikes, solving this problem.

Losing lbs to save £s

losing a few pounds can have a dramatic effect on a cyclist’s performance and wallet. With bike manufacturers charging hundreds of pounds for each pound in weight saved, there’s another incentive to go on a diet if you are concerned about such thing."

This isn't entirely true. As I've observed in the forum many times, our bodies if within the normal weight range automatically adjust our muscles strength to the load of our weight as part of the normal course of living.

So the odd kilos of added rider weight normally makes no difference to their performance, but the same weight added to the bike does, since there is no compensation for it. Ergo, a lightened bike results in better performance than a lightened rider if each weight is reduced by the same value.

 

[steveindenmark]

I think there is more to it than just weight. There are also the components that go up to making the bike. I cannot see a manufacturer with any business sense putting cheap Tiawanese components on a carbon bike. It would make it nice to carry up the stairs but useless to ride.

Steve

 

[kitchenman]

if you get a heavy bike then you wont need to diet!

 

[kitchenman]

Re: For many years I've had a Salter 25 kilo spring balance with a large hook that I use to hand weigh bikes, solving this problem.

Hi Flecc., Thats one of the things on my shopping list. What do you use now? Can you recommend a device for weighing my bike? As you know I am anal when it comes to preparing for my commute and one of the things I would like to do is make a note of the weight before each ride so I can start filling in the column in my cycle log spreadsheet. It will need to be light as I will need to carry it as one of my "les outil".

 

[Mussels]

I think I carry about 10kg of luggage on most rides, I really can't afford to be picky about bike weight.

 

[Scottyf]

I've never been to picky on weight. It seems making sure the basics like tire pressure and the correct clothing makes more of a difference than a kilo of weight. In fact I've added more weight to the bike to ensure it stopped better.

But I understand the extra weight is a pain when riding unassisted. However for the real world for a commute it really matters alot less. I'd rather go 2mph slower and make sure I get to my destination.

 

[kitchenman]

I think I carry about 10kg of luggage on most rides, I really can't afford to be picky about bike weight.

I carry about 6kg and I thought I was bad! .... Whats in your luggage? Personal stuff? Clothes? Tools? Gadgets? Chargers? Spares?

 

[flecc]

I still use the Salter spring balance. It's basically a long housing with a spring mounted rod with a hook on the end. Weight pulls the rod out of the housing against the long coiled spring, sliding a pointer down against a scale. Above there's a ring which can be hand-held to perform a weighing, or hooked onto a beam etc.

Here's a modern lightweight equivalent from any branch of Machine Mart, low cost and light, with a nice soft strap to place around the crossbar, and dual scale, to 20 kg or to 50 kg:

Hanging balance

 

[eddieo]

The opening post gives the impression that lower weight means poor value. But it is simply the law of diminishing returns. To shave weight from what is already a light weight bike can cost a lot of money. A more expensive frame and ultra light components cost big bucks...Surely this is easily understandable.

if you dont think you will notice a few Kg in the weight of different bikes I think you will be in for a pleasant surprise if you actually try them. And this is why serious cyclists are prepared to pay serious money for the right bike

EDIT: I should have added that I to find the lack of reliable weight data attached to bike sales descriptions very frustrating.

 

[Mussels]

I carry about 6kg and I thought I was bad! .... Whats in your luggage? Personal stuff? Clothes? Tools? Gadgets? Chargers? Spares?

All of the above plus laptop, work clothes and cycling clothes.
The empty bags weigh 1kg each.

 

[kitchenman]

All of the above plus laptop, work clothes and cycling clothes.
The empty bags weigh 1kg each.

Ah yes. I used to carry a laptop in the days when I used to do out of hours support. I used to have 2 batteries. The weight of the laptop minus battery was ... 1.5 kg.
My Orliebs are 600g (small) and 800g (large). Currently I can manage with the small ones at 1.2 kg ..

 

[Biker44]

I think I carry about 10kg of luggage on most rides, I really can't afford to be picky about bike weight.

Not trying to boast or anything, but I've carried this much or more on a pedal cycle (5 off 2ltr=2Kg bottles of pop +++ in large floppy panniers). Even such an instant switch from unloaded to loaded is not very noticeable for my sort of peddling progress. However, I'm not a racing cyclist, for whom extra weight harms acceleration. A heavier cycle also restricts a racer pumping through the handlebars and getting the power of his arms into his pedals.

What about the Dutch, who know rather a lot about cycling? Well, their cycles are often relatively heavy - they're even fitted with metal mudguards! However the Dutch do know about the much more important tyre pressure. In my experience, tubes with Schrader valves won't take 50psi (they blow out near the valve). Whereas tubes with the Dunlop valve (like my wife's Gazelle, which has an effective pump tucked under the carrier) seem to be better. Naturally, racing cyclists use Presta valves, which fit through a smaller hole and take much more pressure again.

Actually I'm chicken, that rear wheel on the Gazelle is a swine to remove, so after I ruined two tubes on my hybrid bicycles, I stopped pumping the Dutch bike to 50psi and now restrict to 35psi throughout. But you know what I mean. Blame the Raleigh foot-pump for this excursion into regions never previously explored.

 

[Scottyf]

Exactly this is what I put in my previous post. Once up to a resonable speed on the flat the additional weight isn't so bad.
Going up a hill though or a large headwind will seriously hinder progress.

It matters less with asssitance though.

 

[indalo]

In my experience, tubes with Schrader valves won't take 50psi (they blow out near the valve). Whereas tubes with the Dunlop valve (like my wife's Gazelle, which has an effective pump tucked under the carrier) seem to be better. Naturally, racing cyclists use Presta valves, which fit through a smaller hole and take much more pressure again.

Actually I'm chicken, that rear wheel on the Gazelle is a swine to remove, so after I ruined two tubes on my hybrid bicycles, I stopped pumping the Dutch bike to 50psi and now restrict to 35psi throughout.

Running your tyres with pressure so low as you cite surprises me Biker. My Gazelle runs on 28" wheels and I keep the pressure at 65psi at which the bike rolls effortlessly. I'm sure the high mileage guys know a bit more than me when it comes to tyre pressures but I think you're more likely to incur punctures, particularly the "pinch" type running at such a low pressure, (35psi).

Indalo

 

[Scottyf]

I seem to get more punctures with higher tire pressures rather than softer.
Might just be coincidence though...

 

[flecc]

The big difference biker44 is the terrain, the Dutch ride in flat conditions. In my steep hill area I easily notice a big difference on hills with only 5 kilos added, and even notice just 3 added kilos easily when climbing a steep hill.

On the flat weight makes a negligible difference, just a very small increase in roll resistance and acceleration.

 

[Willin']

I've noticed this post on another forum and thought it very good! (so I am copying and pasting it here).

"There was a chap called Sheldon Brown, a bit of a cycling Guru. He used to say that for all things cycling (in fact it probably works for lot's of things) you should use the simple maxim

Strong-Light-Cheap...Choose any two!"

 

[Biker44]

The big difference biker44 is the terrain, the Dutch ride in flat conditions. In my steep hill area I easily notice a big difference on hills with only 5 kilos added, and even notice just 3 added kilos easily when climbing a steep hill.

You are quite right - being in East Anglia and being very fond of the Netherlands, I tend to look to the Dutch experience on all cycling matters. Including nearly everything concerning cycle construction, on which I rate them expert. It's a great shame we've allowed our Dunlop valves to be superseded by Schrader valves. They also know about things such horseshoe locks, which are superb.

On the flat weight makes a negligible difference, just a very small increase in roll resistance and acceleration.

I've slipped up rather stupidly in my post above, I meaned to write 5 bar not 50psi and 3.5 bar, not 35psi.

 

[flecc]

Thanks for the reply biker44. I was a little surprised that you prefer the Woods/Dunlop valve to the Schrader, forum members buying the Kalkhoff bikes with Dunlop valve tubes often dislike them enough to change them quickly. I've always found the Schrader passes air with much less resistance than the tiny holes in the three Dunlop types, and it's universal nature with all manner of pumps usable is very convenient. In fact on bikes with Presta valves I drill out the rims and fit Schrader valve tubes and always replace Dunlop valve tubes with Schrader.

Fully agree on locks and all other Dutch cycling matters though, they make lots of cycling sense.