training

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mark1979
Hi, I have been riding on and off for a while, but just started riding with a buddy of mine. I weigh 250 and and he's quite a bit smaller, so I have a tough time matching his pace. I am trying to drop about 20 pounds. I was wondering if there is any formula regarding weight vs pace speed? Will dropping 15 or 20 pounds have a siginificant impact on my riding. Thanks. Mark.

Ask your buddy to strap 20 pounds to his bum and see if it slows him down...
My weight has been up and down for years and I can state that 20 pounds will make a huge differance

Mark1979,

It's not only a question of weight but also drag coefficient. At a speed of 20 MPH the average cyclist expends approximately 80% of their energy overcoming wind resistance. So it's a double whammy! I'm quite certain the average cyclist used for these wind tunnel tests didn't weigh as much as either of us (I'm 243 LBS). If you have wide shoulders as from bodybuilding and/or are very tall, then riding against the wind is like strapping a kite onto the back of your bike! If it's very windy outside I just forget trying to guage my success by speed. In such conditions I go by heart rate exclusively.

It's murder pushing the extra body weight up hills too. But for us it's as though we're riding up hill all the time while the lighter weight guy feels as thought they are on the flats.

When I hear about guys riding for 2 - 3 hours at 20+ MPH I'm simply amazed as I'm doing good to ride 15 - 16 MPH for that length of time. While it's true that some of that is conditioning, the other afore mentioned factors come into play big time. The smaller, narrower, lighter riders can simply conserve more energy. This allows greater cycling economy due to their stature.

The bright side is we can get an excellent workout by riding slower, which is ultimately safer when trying to navigate traffic.

Doctor Morbius

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Doctor Morbius
Mark1979,

It's not only a question of weight but also drag coefficient. At a speed of 20 MPH the average cyclist expends approximately 80% of their energy overcoming wind resistance. So it's a double whammy! I'm quite certain the average cyclist used for these wind tunnel tests didn't weigh as much as either of us (I'm 243 LBS). If you have wide shoulders as from bodybuilding and/or are very tall, then riding against the wind is like strapping a kite onto the back of your bike! If it's very windy outside I just forget trying to guage my success by speed. In such conditions I go by heart rate exclusively.

It's murder pushing the extra body weight up hills too. But for us it's as though we're riding up hill all the time while the lighter weight guy feels as thought they are on the flats.

When I hear about guys riding for 2 - 3 hours at 20+ MPH I'm simply amazed as I'm doing good to ride 15 - 16 MPH for that length of time. While it's true that some of that is conditioning, the other afore mentioned factors come into play big time. The smaller, narrower, lighter riders can simply conserve more energy. This allows greater cycling economy due to their stature.

The bright side is we can get an excellent workout by riding slower, which is ultimately safer when trying to navigate traffic.

Doctor Morbius

Weight doesn't play that much of a role in wind resistance. It is frontal surface area. Take that 20 lb difference that was discussed. There is very little difference in frontal surface area between two riders, one 180 lbs and one 200lbs if their bodies are somewhat the same frame size (assuming they ride in the same position). So if you lose 20 lbs, you really won't gain any advantage as far as wind resistance.

As discussed the different frame sizes will have a difference. Learning to ride in an aero position will have a differnce.

Going up up hills, well... lets bring the weight factor back into the equation.

KingB,

Even if Mark1979 drops that 20 LBS of bodyweight to get down to a svelte, wafer thin 230 LBS, he's still going to be much larger than the average cyclist and probably a good bit larger than his "quite a bit smaller buddy" that he rides with.

Although a 20 LB weight loss will no doubt help him keep up with his friend he is still going to suffer from having much more body mass and surface area, hence drag coefficient. Even if he has a higher Vo2 Max and a lower RestingHR, he's going to have a difficult time of it. 20 LBS is not going to rewrite the laws of physics. He'll still have to expend a great deal more horsepower to keep up with the smaller rider because of his weight AND size.

Now if he lost 50 to 75 LBS, that would be a different story. After all, how much does the average cyclist/endurance athlete weigh? 230 to 250 sounds more like a bodybuilder or football player than a cyclist. Chances are Mark1979 can out bench press his riding buddy by quite a bit just as his friend can pedal more effortlessly. It's all relative.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Doctor Morbius
KingB,

Even if Mark1979 drops that 20 LBS of bodyweight to get down to a svelte, wafer thin 230 LBS, he's still going to be much larger than the average cyclist and probably a good bit larger than his "quite a bit smaller buddy" that he rides with.

Although a 20 LB weight loss will no doubt help him keep up with his friend he is still going to suffer from having much more body mass and surface area, hence drag coefficient. Even if he has a higher Vo2 Max and a lower RestingHR, he's going to have a difficult time of it. 20 LBS is not going to rewrite the laws of physics. He'll still have to expend a great deal more horsepower to keep up with the smaller rider because of his weight AND size.

Now if he lost 50 to 75 LBS, that would be a different story. After all, how much does the average cyclist/endurance athlete weigh? 230 to 250 sounds more like a bodybuilder or football player than a cyclist. Chances are Mark1979 can out bench press his riding buddy by quite a bit just as his friend can pedal more effortlessly. It's all relative.

On the hills I agree with you. It's all about power to weight ratio. But on the flats and as far as wind resitance goes, its the guy that can plain ole produce more power.

If the big guy can produce more power than the little guy, it will more that overcome the differences in wind resistance. On the flats, mass really fall out of the equation. Once you get it moving it wants to keep moving. Do the calculations. It comes down to frontal surface area. I bet there really isn't as big a surface area difference between the two riders in question as you would guess. Aero position would play a bigger role.

Losing 20 lbs, wouldn't even make a measurable difference in your ability to cut through the wind. 20 lbs can make a huge difference in your ability to hammer up a hill.

Just so happens that most bike races involve hills. Therefore the its usually the little guy with big power that wins.

I ride with a really fit young lady I drop her on the flat, cause I produce more power, she drops me on steep hills because she has better endurance and power to weight ratio, makes for interesting training.

What you need to got fast is legs, oh, and fitness

You're right that weight plays less of a role in the flats but it still plays a role because of the power required to accelerate to a particular speed will be higher for a heavier man(A) with the same frontal surface area as a lighter man(B). However, he can hold that speed longer in the flats and will decelerate slower once he hits that top speed in physics. But in practice, this is rarely the case because the deceleration effect once a person stops applying force to the pedals will still be quite drastic for both cases.

However, if you were to take a lightweight and smaller cyclist and a heavier and larger cyclist on average, the lightweight cyclist would be able to out-accelerate the heavier one but would have a lower top speed in most cases. Of course, I'd put my money on the lightweight in a sprint in most cases because of the fact that he can just tail the man for the first 50 to 100 meters of a sprint then accelerate quickly around him.

Thomas Davis

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by KingB
Weight doesn't play that much of a role in wind resistance. It is frontal surface area. Take that 20 lb difference that was discussed. There is very little difference in frontal surface area between two riders, one 180 lbs and one 200lbs if their bodies are somewhat the same frame size (assuming they ride in the same position). So if you lose 20 lbs, you really won't gain any advantage as far as wind resistance.

As discussed the different frame sizes will have a difference. Learning to ride in an aero position will have a differnce.

Going up up hills, well... lets bring the weight factor back into the equation.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tomdavis80
You're right that weight plays less of a role in the flats but it still plays a role because of the power required to accelerate to a particular speed will be higher for a heavier man(A) with the same frontal surface area as a lighter man(B). However, he can hold that speed longer in the flats and will decelerate slower once he hits that top speed in physics. But in practice, this is rarely the case because the deceleration effect once a person stops applying force to the pedals will still be quite drastic for both cases.

However, if you were to take a lightweight and smaller cyclist and a heavier and larger cyclist on average, the lightweight cyclist would be able to out-accelerate the heavier one but would have a lower top speed in most cases. Of course, I'd put my money on the lightweight in a sprint in most cases because of the fact that he can just tail the man for the first 50 to 100 meters of a sprint then accelerate quickly around him.

Thomas Davis

Quite true, except I don't believe the heavier cyclist can hold that speed longer as you stated. The laws of physics that govern bodies in motion DO NOT change for cyclists. All things being equal, the lighter cyclist will be able to outlast the heavier one due to the economy of forces necessary to push them through space. It takes more force to roll a bowling ball accross a field than it does to push a soccer ball, yet both are about the same size.

Think of it this way, a big heavy V-8 engine has greater "power" and a higher top end than a 4 cylinder engine, but it also uses much more gas to go the same distance. This is the same as a heavier cyclist burning more fuel in the form of calories, o2 and fat than a leaner rider, hence the leaner person has greater cycling economy.

If Lance Armstrong had an identical twin brother and both had equal levels of fitness and performed the same conditioning routines and had the same resting HR but Lance weighed 225 and his leaner brother weighed 175, then Lance would lose in the long run. In fact, he would lose EVERY TIME with the only exception being a sprint that requires a short burst of explosive power. I also believe the heavier brother would have greater torque while spinning at lower RPMs, but I can't substantiate that.

Also, I still hold to my guns about a heavier rider having greater wind resistance. Greater mass implies greater volume, which in turn means greater surface area. No doubt much of that surface area is in the form of width instead of depth, unless you're built like a chode or something weird. 😄

Doctor Morbius

It's as simple as this: the heavier you are, the more power you must expend to reach your cruising speed and maintain it.

Example....let's just say that this fellow needs to steadily expend 400 watts to keep himself going 22 mph. His little buddy, who let's say weighs 160, could cruise at the same speed and only burn 320 watts. These figures are no where near exact buyt only for explanation purposes.

They could both be cruising at that 22 mph and then enter a dead sprint. The little fella will burn the heavier dude even if they have the exact VO2 and heart rates. It's as simple as that. Weight plays a vital role in just about every aspect of cycling.

Of course, If they were going to do an all out downhill course, the heavier guy will most likely dust the little one.

No, what I meant concerning holding a top speed longer is that with the Equation of F=ma, it's the same for the forces of deceleration. It takes more force to stop OR slow down a bowling ball going the same speed than it does with a soccer ball.

I concede that practically speaking, it's better to be light because of the economy of forces needed to SUSTAIN a speed over a long period of time. However, for a heavier cyclist, they are able to hold their momentum and top speed for a longer period of time than a lighter one. I hope I am being understood here.

Thomas Davis

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Doctor Morbius
Quite true, except I don't believe the heavier cyclist can hold that speed longer as you stated. The laws of physics that govern bodies in motion DO NOT change for cyclists. All things being equal, the lighter cyclist will be able to outlast the heavier one due to the economy of forces necessary to push them through space. It takes more force to roll a bowling ball accross a field than it does to push a soccer ball, yet both are about the same size.

Think of it this way, a big heavy V-8 engine has greater "power" and a higher top end than a 4 cylinder engine, but it also uses much more gas to go the same distance. This is the same as a heavier cyclist burning more fuel in the form of calories, o2 and fat than a leaner rider, hence the leaner person has greater cycling economy.

If Lance Armstrong had an identical twin brother and both had equal levels of fitness and performed the same conditioning routines and had the same resting HR but Lance weighed 225 and his leaner brother weighed 175, then Lance would lose in the long run. In fact, he would lose EVERY TIME with the only exception being a sprint that requires a short burst of explosive power. I also believe the heavier brother would have greater torque while spinning at lower RPMs, but I can't substantiate that.

Also, I still hold to my guns about a heavier rider having greater wind resistance. Greater mass implies greater volume, which in turn means greater surface area. No doubt much of that surface area is in the form of width instead of depth, unless you're built like a chode or something weird. 😄

Doctor Morbius

Mark1979 : you're probably as befuddled as the rest of us having to read through the various physics diatribes from the various posters !

In plain english - if you can lose 20 lbs (or more) it would greatly
help you to cycle.
You will notice that your endurance and your ability to climb will improve very, very significantly.
Set aside the various opinions here about the laws of physics -
concentrate on cycling as often as possible, this will help you to lose weight and thus improve.
In fact the more you cycle, your fitness level will increase too and this will enable you to keep up with your cycling buddy.
As always though, exercise and weightloss programs are no use unless you also modify your diet.
There is no point in burning pounds out on the bike, only to replace those pounds through eating incorrectly.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
Mark1979 : you're probably as befuddled as the rest of us having to read through the various physics diatribes from the various posters !

In plain english - if you can lose 20 lbs (or more) it would greatly
help you to cycle.
You will notice that your endurance and your ability to climb will improve very, very significantly.
Set aside the various opinions here about the laws of physics -
concentrate on cycling as often as possible, this will help you to lose weight and thus improve.
In fact the more you cycle, your fitness level will increase too and this will enable you to keep up with your cycling buddy.
As always though, exercise and weightloss programs are no use unless you also modify your diet.
There is no point in burning pounds out on the bike, only to replace those pounds through eating incorrectly.

Eating incorrectly is something I know all too well about but in the form of only eating a few carefully selected food stuffs like bananas, tuna, pasta, yogurts and flap jacks. Yep, I get told off by my family all the time for it, but c'est la vie.

My point is that the weight to climbing ability is actually amazingly true. My ex fiance was the brains behind the science of this matter and I used to 'poo poo' him all the time until walking up L'Alpe D'Uez. Now neither of us are fat but he is 6'4 and I am 5'8. I almost fast walked D'Uez and couldn't understand him shouting for me to slow down as was starting to get lost in all the crowds and mayhem without knowing as thought he was right behind me. That 3+stone advantage over him really showed me for the first time what he had been talking about for so many years! On Luz Ardiden he decided to give me the rucksack containing 12 2 litre bottles of water and we both paced it the same and I did actually bonk due to the heat, extra weight etc...

So the point although I say it very simplisticlly (sp?) was prooven!

Off to check out the leg cramp thread....something I really do suffer from be it cycling or swimming!

🙂 Alice

On another point, if you're just getting serious in this sport, you wont lose weight for a little bit of time. First, you'll start building muscle and you'll actually gain weight.....then, after a bit of time, you'll start losing whatever fat you have. After a while, if you only cycle, you'll lose whatever muscle you don't use while riding.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by stone61cm
It's as simple as this: the heavier you are, the more power you must expend to reach your cruising speed and maintain it.

Example....let's just say that this fellow needs to steadily expend 400 watts to keep himself going 22 mph. His little buddy, who let's say weighs 160, could cruise at the same speed and only burn 320 watts. These figures are no where near exact buyt only for explanation purposes.

They could both be cruising at that 22 mph and then enter a dead sprint. The little fella will burn the heavier dude even if they have the exact VO2 and heart rates. It's as simple as that. Weight plays a vital role in just about every aspect of cycling.

Of course, If they were going to do an all out downhill course, the heavier guy will most likely dust the little one.

Really ?

When I was in high school 48 years ago we dropped a lead ball and wooden ball off a four story building and they both hit the ground at the same time. I guess physics has change since then ? ........go figure ?

And on the flat the only thing that makes a difference is rolling resitance and frontal area and of course gear selection and power output, weight not an issue. Things change when you climb a hill and the light guy rides away from the heavy guy..

How many 250 LB marathon runners are there?

Any of them ever win?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Doctor Morbius
How many 250 LB marathon runners are there?

Any of them ever win?

none !

But there a big differences between cycling and running. You cannot compare these seriously, ie: frontal area not an issue for a runner.

And if we want to get real. The light guy on the cycle is going to have a big advantage because of another physical phenomenon, Power weight ratio. The smaller and lighter you are the more the nature puts you in front, just check out an ant. But a geared bike evens up the score by allowing power production to be a huge and defining influence.

I ride with a 4 ft tall lady, that weighs 50Kg, that mostly being her legs. On a hill she can ride away from nearly every one. A couple of us guys can dust her off on the flat because we produce more power. Trouble is the world is not flat, not this part of the world anyway, she catches us and gives what for !

4 feet tall? holy [censored]....they make bikes that small? lol

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by stone61cm
4 feet tall? holy [censored]....they make bikes that small? lol

That's not the half of it, she doesn't really train on the bike. She's doing the odd tri at the moment and the swim is her big thing to improve on. in her bike leg she drops everyone anyway so she focuses on her other legs. God help us if she ever got serious about cycling and got a custom bike built.

She did represent her country of origin in the olympics as a race walker, she's fit !

She's a few inches taller then 4 ft I think.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
Really ?

When I was in high school 48 years ago we dropped a lead ball and wooden ball off a four story building and they both hit the ground at the same time. I guess physics has change since then ? ........go figure ?

And on the flat the only thing that makes a difference is rolling resitance and frontal area and of course gear selection and power output, weight not an issue. Things change when you climb a hill and the light guy rides away from the heavy guy..

I'm with you Edd. I am 6'3" and just over 200#'s. I was a pretty competitive hockey player back in my day (about 10 years ago). Before I got into cycling. Hockey is all about powerful legs and on the bike I have plenty of it. I keep up with my Cat 2 buddy (small guy than can really fly on the hills) no problem on the flats. Some days I can even push the pace on him.

I get dropped like hot rock on the hills by him. Unfortunately I live in the Canadian Rockies, where all we have is hills and big long ones at that (really is a spectacular place to ride, and I feel quite fortunate to live and ride here).

The laws of physics are quite clear on this one. Flats = pure power output. Hills = power/weight ratio.