Bike weight

Hi Harold, when I started to train for my IM, I trained for the first 4 month using a old battered
bike, about 12 years old, standing for the last 10 years in the cellar collecting dust. It was a old
race bike, weighted about 12 kg, steel frame, 10 gears, no aero-bar, no clip-in-pedals so I trained
wearing running shoes.

After I was sure that I would really do the IM, I decided to by a state-of-the-art-bike, costing
about US$ 2.500 and weighting about 8 kg.

I, too, was curious about the improvement in speed. So before I switched to the new bike I recorded
my average speed and average puls rate on a absolutely flat road in no-wind conditions. I could do
that on about 3 different training days, going for 2-3 hours each day.

After I got the new bike (aero-bars with grip-shift, dura-ace, clip-in cycling shoes, some carbon
parts on the bike, well the usual stuff), I tried to find out how much faster the bike is at the
same heart rate, going the same, flat roads.

My measurement is not exactly scientific, of course, but I feel it is save to say that the new bike
was between 1,5 km/h and 3 km/h faster doing the same 2-3 hour rides on flat streets as before. So
for example with the same heart rate of about 135 I could go 29 km/h instead of 27 km/h.

So if we assume that the new bike is 2 km/h faster, and it took me 6.5 hours for the 180km doing the
IM, the new bike saved me about 25 minutes.

That's a hundred dollars per minute ! Too much if you ask me.

However, I really like to ride the new bike and it keeps me motivated to continue to train.
Consequently my body fat will drop, my resting heart rate will sink, my blood pressure will be
lower. And all that for US$2.500 - quite cheap if you ask me.

But anyway, I hope that one day I am fit enough to do an IM using a very old, very rusty "grand
ma's" bike - just for the heck of it !

Manfred

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've read some interesting stuff lately about bike weight.

One is that, for every FIVE POUNDS you shave off your bike (or yourself), you'll save about 30
seconds off of a 5K uphill time trial (averaging 7% grade, I think). That's really not a ton of
time for someone in the middle or back of the pack in an Ironman-distance race: if there was a
full 31 miles of 7% grade climbing, cutting that 5 pounds off your bike only saves you about 6
minutes, and it probably costs you a few thousand bucks to cut it. (This article was in Bicycling,
I believe).

The second article (in American Tri) talked about how the bike and component manufacturers love to
focus on weight since it's objective: people can say things like, "Well, I'm paying an extra $90
for this saddle because it weighs 40 g less than this other one." In actuality, aerodynamics are
probably much more significant in most cases, but since they're harder to quantify they're harder
to sell. In addition, they often use tricks to make it seem like you're saving more overall weight
than you really are, and there's the loss in durability you get when you cut weight.

All in all, the two articles made me feel a whole lot more content with my decent--but not super
light--road bike.

(Of course, if you can cut weight off of YOU without compromising strength, you should for it!)

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

Spoken truly by a person not riding on a superlight bike!

Given the choice, Harold, of riding on a bike that weighs 30 pounds vs one that weighs 15, I'm gonna
go out on a limb and say you're going to choose the one that weighs 15.

Yes, indeed, the time savings may be exactly as you state. I can't, won't, and don't feel the need
to argue that point. Thats not all there is to the matter though. That light bike will feel
different, much more so, than the heavy one. It'll feel much better in many areas, but maybe in
others not so much. It'll let you attack at a moment's notice, and the exhiliration of an immediate
"jump" off of the line is something thats as much fun as the first time, every time. Thats just one
example. Another goes in a totally different direction
- my wife can't lift her heavy mountain bike on top of her car to put it in the bike rack, but she
can lift my featherweight road bike with no problem. That means if she wants to ride on her own,
on safe trails away from the house, she can't do it with a heavy bike.

As you may be able to tell, I ride on a weenie weight bike - just under 16 pounds road ready. I also
have a heavier bike - just under 19 pounds. Guess which one I ride?

Following the interesting point on weight vs Aerodynamics I'm left wondering about my new bike. I've
been racing sprint/olymipic distance tri's for a year and a half now (with one half-iron under my
belt too), this has been achieved on a reasonably quick touring bike fitted with aero bars. I'm now
looking to treat myself to a new bike for solely race use. (I'm going to continue using the touring
bike for training purposes.) Having around 2k pounds ($3k) to spend I've pretty much decided on a
hand build aero steel frame for £750. Plus a pair of muscle carbon forks. But am left wondering
about the remaining parts - particularly wheels. My local shops seem to suggest an ultegra groupset
and a £500 ish pair of wheels. My questions are 1) How much of the 2k bike cost should I be spending
on wheels and which wheels would be the best bet for this money ... there seems to be loads (HED,
mavic, shimano, spinergy, trek, zipp, aero or non aero etc - confusing...). Any advice would be
greatly appreciated. ./

Harold Buck said:

I've read some interesting stuff lately about bike weight.

One is that, for every FIVE POUNDS you shave off your bike (or yourself), you'll save about 30
seconds off of a 5K uphill time trial (averaging 7% grade, I think). That's really not a ton of
time for someone in the middle or back of the pack in an Ironman-distance race: if there was a full
31 miles of 7% grade climbing, cutting that 5 pounds off your bike only saves you about 6 minutes,
and it probably costs you a few thousand bucks to cut it. (This article was in Bicycling, I
believe).

I read the same article. I can see spending the cash, particularly if you have it, and if
you've done a good amount of effort on the engine. As others posted already there are many
other benefits to a lighter newer bike too. I do find it amazing though when a person goes
out buys a new "lighter" bike and then works out once a week or less. Around here we call it
"buying speed". For some it works because they are toward the upper end of their physical
capabilities. Cutting 6 minutes off of their IM bike leg may be akin to a WHOLE lot more
working out. However for someone at the lower end of teh spectrum 6 minutes might equate to
an additional hour on the bike, any bike, a week.

Quoted message said:

The second article (in American Tri) talked about how the bike and component manufacturers love to
focus on weight since it's objective: people can say things like, "Well, I'm paying an extra $90
for this saddle because it weighs 40 g less than this other one." In actuality, aerodynamics are
probably much more significant in most cases, but since they're harder to quantify they're harder
to sell. In addition, they often use tricks to make it seem like you're saving more overall weight
than you really are, and there's the loss in durability you get when you cut weight.

Another problem with aero dynamics is like weight, the vast majority comes from the rider
not the bike. If someone weights 170lbs @ 15% Body fat and rides a 20lb bike teh rider is
89% of the total weight. If memory serves the rider makes up Approximately 80% of the wind
resistance encountered too. That person can buy a new bike at 2000$> and save 4 lbs or drop
to 13% body fat and lose the same four lbs. Although Aerodynamics aren't quite as "easily"
quantifiable. Similar improvements can be made in rider position on the old heavy bike too.
However I think you will get a much greater benefit from the new bike as far as aerodynamics
and body position. Again I think it's all relative. Everyone loves a new toy. Some will
benfit more and differently than others. I think I read here once that if the only benefit
you get from a new bike is that it gets you out riding more than the money was well spent. I
personally have made a promise to myself that I will get a new toy once I reach a certain
performance level. A little incentive goes a long way.

Quoted message said:

All in all, the two articles made me feel a whole lot more content with my decent--but not super
light--road bike.

(Of course, if you can cut weight off of YOU without compromising strength, you should for it!)

I've often wondered at this. Many times I've been with a group of bikers/triathletes talking
about how they shaved another 50 grams

people are 20-30 lbs or 9090-13636 grams overweight. Seems that it would be far better to save money
on food and drop the extra 9090 grams and save 500$ in the process. Maybe I'm just a cheap A@!.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

specialized.comSBCEqProduct.jspOpen ↗

$29.95

I love it!

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've read some interesting stuff lately about bike weight.

One is that, for every FIVE POUNDS you shave off your bike (or yourself), you'll save about 30
seconds off of a 5K uphill time trial (averaging 7% grade, I think). That's really not a ton of
time for someone in the middle or back of the pack in an Ironman-distance race: if there was a
full 31 miles of 7% grade climbing, cutting that 5 pounds off your bike only saves you about 6
minutes, and it probably costs you a few thousand bucks to cut it. (This article was in Bicycling,
I believe).

The second article (in American Tri) talked about how the bike and component manufacturers love to
focus on weight since it's objective: people can say things like, "Well, I'm paying an extra $90
for this saddle because it weighs 40 g less than this other one." In actuality, aerodynamics are
probably much more significant in most cases, but since they're harder to quantify they're harder
to sell. In addition, they often use tricks to make it seem like you're saving more overall weight
than you really are, and there's the loss in durability you get when you cut weight.

All in all, the two articles made me feel a whole lot more content with my decent--but not super
light--road bike.

(Of course, if you can cut weight off of YOU without compromising strength, you should for it!)

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

I've researched this area extensiveley. Weight savings aren't as important as aerodynamics. The new
Cervelo bikes prove this. Check out these sites for more info:

eng.vt.edubike.htmOpen ↗ exploratorium.eduaerodynamics1.htmlOpen ↗
wings.avkids.combicycle 01.htmlOpen ↗
analyticcycling.comTopics.htmlOpen ↗ sheldonbrown.comaeroOpen ↗

Enjoy!

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've read some interesting stuff lately about bike weight.

One is that, for every FIVE POUNDS you shave off your bike (or yourself), you'll save about 30
seconds off of a 5K uphill time trial (averaging 7% grade, I think). That's really not a ton of
time for someone in the middle or back of the pack in an Ironman-distance race: if there was a
full 31 miles of 7% grade climbing, cutting that 5 pounds off your bike only saves you about 6
minutes, and it probably costs you a few thousand bucks to cut it. (This article was in Bicycling,
I believe).

The second article (in American Tri) talked about how the bike and component manufacturers love to
focus on weight since it's objective: people can say things like, "Well, I'm paying an extra $90
for this saddle because it weighs 40 g less than this other one." In actuality, aerodynamics are
probably much more significant in most cases, but since they're harder to quantify they're harder
to sell. In addition, they often use tricks to make it seem like you're saving more overall weight
than you really are, and there's the loss in durability you get when you cut weight.

All in all, the two articles made me feel a whole lot more content with my decent--but not super
light--road bike.

(Of course, if you can cut weight off of YOU without compromising strength, you should for it!)

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

There was someone here a few years ago who did an EXTREMELY interesting test. I cannot recall who it
was, maybe someone else will.

He was curious about the same issue - bike weight vs. human weight. He and his buddies went out and
rode an identical series of hills together - twice - once with 20 pounds strapped to their backs in
a backpack and the second time with 20 pounds strapped to the bicycle. In every case the riders said
it was exponentially more difficult, nearly to the point of getting off of the bike, the second
time, with the add'l weight on the bike. I think they said they actually did get off the bike on one
of the hills it was so tough.

Anyone else recall this? Made an indelible impression on me.

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Harold Buck said:

I've read some interesting stuff lately about bike weight.

One is that, for every FIVE POUNDS you shave off your bike (or yourself), you'll save about 30
seconds off of a 5K uphill time trial (averaging 7% grade, I think). That's really not a ton of
time for someone in the middle or back of the pack in an Ironman-distance race: if there was a
full 31 miles of 7% grade climbing, cutting that 5 pounds off your bike only saves you about 6
minutes, and it probably costs you a few thousand bucks to cut it. (This article was in
Bicycling, I believe).

I read the same article. I can see spending the cash, particularly if you have it, and if you've
done a good amount of effort on the engine. As others posted already there are many other benefits
to a lighter newer bike too. I do find it amazing though when a person goes out buys a new
"lighter" bike and then works out once a week or less. Around here we call it "buying speed". For
some it works because they are toward the upper end of their physical capabilities. Cutting 6
minutes off of their IM bike leg may be akin to a WHOLE lot more working out. However for someone
at the lower end of teh spectrum 6 minutes might equate to an additional hour on the bike, any
bike, a week.

Quoted message said:

The second article (in American Tri) talked about how the bike and component manufacturers love
to focus on weight since it's objective: people can say things like, "Well, I'm paying an extra
$90 for this saddle because it weighs 40 g less than this other one." In actuality, aerodynamics
are probably much more significant in most cases, but since they're harder to quantify they're
harder to sell. In addition, they often use tricks to make it seem like you're saving more
overall weight than you really are, and there's the loss in durability you get when you cut
weight.

Another problem with aero dynamics is like weight, the vast majority comes from the rider not the
bike. If someone weights 170lbs @ 15% Body fat and rides a 20lb bike teh rider is 89% of the total
weight. If memory serves the rider makes up Approximately 80% of the wind resistance encountered
too. That person can buy a new bike at 2000$> and save 4 lbs or drop to 13% body fat and lose the
same four lbs. Although Aerodynamics aren't quite as "easily" quantifiable. Similar improvements
can be made in rider position on the old heavy bike too. However I think you will get a much
greater benefit from the new bike as far as aerodynamics and body position. Again I think it's all
relative. Everyone loves a new toy. Some will benfit more and differently than others. I think I
read here once that if the only benefit you get from a new bike is that it gets you out riding
more than the money was well spent. I personally have made a promise to myself that I will get a
new toy once I reach a certain performance level. A little incentive goes a long way.

Quoted message said:

All in all, the two articles made me feel a whole lot more content with my decent--but not super
light--road bike.

(Of course, if you can cut weight off of YOU without compromising strength, you should for it!)

I've often wondered at this. Many times I've been with a group of bikers/triathletes talking about
how they shaved another 50 grams

Quoted message said:

people are 20-30 lbs or 9090-13636 grams overweight. Seems that it would be far better to save
money on food and drop the extra 9090 grams and save 500$ in the process. Maybe I'm just a
cheap A@!.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

[email hidden] (Stuart - UK) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Following the interesting point on weight vs Aerodynamics I'm left wondering about my new bike.
I've been racing sprint/olymipic distance tri's for a year and a half now (with one half-iron
under my belt too), this has been achieved on a reasonably quick touring bike fitted with aero
bars. I'm now looking to treat myself to a new bike for solely race use. (I'm going to continue
using the touring bike for training purposes.) Having around 2k pounds ($3k) to spend I've pretty
much decided on a hand build aero steel frame for £750. Plus a pair of muscle carbon forks. But am
left wondering about the remaining parts - particularly wheels. My local shops seem to suggest an
ultegra groupset and a £500 ish pair of wheels. My questions are 1) How much of the 2k bike cost
should I be spending on wheels and which wheels would be the best bet for this money ... there
seems to be loads (HED, mavic, shimano, spinergy, trek, zipp, aero or non aero etc -
confusing...). Any advice would be greatly appreciated. ./

£500 sounds about right for a decent set of aero wheels and if you're looking at spending that kind
of money on wheels for racing only then I would definitely recommend aeros - general consensus seems
to be that aero wheels alone can shave up to about 1.5 minutes off a 40k time trial. Not that much
time but if you are going to spend that money anyway you might as well take it!

I haven't tried them all so won't comment on different wheel brands and groupsets but one thing I
would ask is how specialist your local shops are. A lot of shops in UK sell primarily mountain bikes
and although they may sell road or tri bike gear you certainly wouldn't want to take their advice on
what to buy. Even some road bike specialist shops don't have much clue about triathlon or time
trialling - there are very different requirements for a roadie looking to buy a bike to do 100+ mile
training rides in a pack to a triathlete looking to do 40k (or 56 mile) non-drafting races only. Try
and find a shop that caters specifically for triathletes - if you live in the South East try Sigma
Sports in Kingston, they seem to have pretty much cornered the market for triathletes round London.
Also try reading this article -slowtwitch.combikefit.htmlOpen ↗
- some of it is a bit heavy going but it is a very good introduction to the differences between road
and tri bike geometry and what is right for you. Good luck!

Old Timer said:

There was someone here a few years ago who did an EXTREMELY interesting test. I cannot recall who
it was, maybe someone else will.

He was curious about the same issue - bike weight vs. human weight. He and his buddies went out and
rode an identical series of hills together - twice - once with 20 pounds strapped to their backs in
a backpack and the second time with 20 pounds strapped to the bicycle. In every case the riders
said it was exponentially more difficult, nearly to the point of getting off of the bike, the
second time, with the add'l weight on the bike. I think they said they actually did get off the
bike on one of the hills it was so tough.

Anyone else recall this? Made an indelible impression on me.

That woudl be an interesting study. I can see that 20lbs on the body woudl be easier to lug
around than on the bike, simply because of positional issues. 20lbs in the right spot on
the body may even help propel the bike a bit particularly on the uphills. However I
wouldn't think it woudl make that huge of a difference. I suspect the way the weight is
distrubuted woudl make a big difference. I'm sure I could get twenty lbs onto my body via a
backpack or weighted vest. not sure sure about my bike though. I suppose I coudl fill up my
water bottles with some scrap steel I have laying around. Anybody got 40oz of mercury, that
would do it.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Harold Buck said:

I've read some interesting stuff lately about bike weight.

One is that, for every FIVE POUNDS you shave off your bike (or yourself), you'll save about 30
seconds off of a 5K uphill time trial (averaging 7% grade, I think). That's really not a ton of
time for someone in the middle or back of the pack in an Ironman-distance race: if there was a
full 31 miles of 7% grade climbing, cutting that 5 pounds off your bike only saves you about 6
minutes, and it probably costs you a few thousand bucks to cut it. (This article was in
Bicycling, I believe).

I read the same article. I can see spending the cash, particularly if you have it, and if you've
done a good amount of effort on the engine. As others posted already there are many other
benefits to a lighter newer bike too. I do find it amazing though when a person goes out buys a
new "lighter" bike and then works out once a week or less. Around here we call it "buying speed".
For some it works because they are toward the upper end of their physical capabilities. Cutting 6
minutes off of their IM bike leg may be akin to a WHOLE lot more working out. However for someone
at the lower end of teh spectrum 6 minutes might equate to an additional hour on the bike, any
bike, a week.

Quoted message said:

The second article (in American Tri) talked about how the bike and component manufacturers love
to focus on weight since it's objective: people can say things like, "Well, I'm paying an extra
$90 for this saddle because it weighs 40 g less than this other one." In actuality, aerodynamics
are probably much more significant in most cases, but since they're harder to quantify they're
harder to sell. In addition, they often use tricks to make it seem like you're saving more
overall weight than you really are, and there's the loss in durability you get when you cut
weight.

Another problem with aero dynamics is like weight, the vast majority comes from the rider not the
bike. If someone weights 170lbs @ 15% Body fat and rides a 20lb bike teh rider is 89% of the
total weight. If memory serves the rider makes up Approximately 80% of the wind resistance
encountered too. That person can buy a new bike at 2000$> and save 4 lbs or drop to 13% body fat
and lose the same four lbs. Although Aerodynamics aren't quite as "easily" quantifiable. Similar
improvements can be made in rider position on the old heavy bike too. However I think you will
get a much greater benefit from the new bike as far as aerodynamics and body position. Again I
think it's all relative. Everyone loves a new toy. Some will benfit more and differently than
others. I think I read here once that if the only benefit you get from a new bike is that it gets
you out riding more than the money was well spent. I personally have made a promise to myself
that I will get a new toy once I reach a certain performance level. A little incentive goes a
long way.

Quoted message said:

All in all, the two articles made me feel a whole lot more content with my decent--but not super
light--road bike.

(Of course, if you can cut weight off of YOU without compromising strength, you should for it!)

I've often wondered at this. Many times I've been with a group of bikers/triathletes talking
about how they shaved another 50 grams

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people are 20-30 lbs or 9090-13636 grams overweight. Seems that it would be far better to save
money on food and drop the extra 9090 grams and save 500$ in the process. Maybe I'm just a
cheap A@!.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

In article said:

Spoken truly by a person not riding on a superlight bike!

Given the choice, Harold, of riding on a bike that weighs 30 pounds vs one that weighs 15, I'm
gonna go out on a limb and say you're going to choose the one that weighs 15.

And I never said I wouldn't. However, given the choice between my current (24 lb or so, with
saddlebag, aerobars, pump, etc.) bike or spending $5000 to get a 15-lb bike, I'm going to keep the
bike I have.

Think about it: would you rather have your current car or a Porsche? Well, why don't you drive the
Porsche then? Because it's too expensive for the added benefits.

Quoted message said:

Yes, indeed, the time savings may be exactly as you state. I can't, won't, and don't feel the need
to argue that point. Thats not all there is to the matter though. That light bike will feel
different, much more so, than the heavy one.

As will the Porsche. But again, the issue is whether it's worth en extra few grand. For most people,
I think it isn't, but if you have the money to spend and it's important, go for it.

If I won a few hundred thousand bucks, one of the first things I'd buy would be a nicer bike. It
would be cool, I'm sure. But I think the bike manufacturers want the average person to think that's
the kind of money you need to spend, and I don't believe it's true.

Quoted message said:

It'll feel much better in many areas, but maybe in others not so much. It'll let you attack at a
moment's notice, and the exhiliration of an immediate "jump" off of the line is something thats as
much fun as the first time, every time. Thats just one example.

Attacking and jumping off the line have little value in triathlon, although those are good things to
be concerned with in road racing.

Quoted message said:

Another goes in a totally different direction
- my wife can't lift her heavy mountain bike on top of her car to put it in the bike rack, but she
can lift my featherweight road bike with no problem. That means if she wants to ride on her own,
on safe trails away from the house, she can't do it with a heavy bike.

Well, I can lift my bike onto the roof of my car, so that's not an issue.

I'm not advocating 100-lb bikes here. I'm just pointing out that riding a $650 bike and being happy
with it might be a better option for a lot of people than mortgaging the house for that 16-lb, $2500
bike or pouting all the time because they can't afford the lighter bike.

Quoted message said:

As you may be able to tell, I ride on a weenie weight bike - just under 16 pounds road ready. I
also have a heavier bike - just under 19 pounds. Guess which one I ride?

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

In article <[email hidden]>,

Manfred Dötsch said:

when I started to train for my IM, I trained for the first 4 month using a old battered bike,
about 12 years old, standing for the last 10 years in the cellar collecting dust. It was a old
race bike, weighted about 12 kg, steel frame, 10 gears, no aero-bar, no clip-in-pedals so I
trained wearing running shoes.

After I was sure that I would really do the IM, I decided to by a state-of-the-art-bike, costing
about US$ 2.500 and weighting about 8 kg.

I, too, was curious about the improvement in speed. So before I switched to the new bike I
recorded my average speed and average puls rate on a absolutely flat road in no-wind conditions. I
could do that on about 3 different training days, going for 2-3 hours each day.

After I got the new bike (aero-bars with grip-shift, dura-ace, clip-in cycling shoes, some carbon
parts on the bike, well the usual stuff), I tried to find out how much faster the bike is at the
same heart rate, going the same, flat roads.

My measurement is not exactly scientific, of course, but I feel it is save to say that the
new bike was between 1,5 km/h and 3 km/h faster doing the same 2-3 hour rides on flat streets
as before. So for example with the same heart rate of about 135 I could go 29 km/h instead of
27 km/h.

So if we assume that the new bike is 2 km/h faster, and it took me 6.5 hours for the 180km doing
the IM, the new bike saved me about 25 minutes.

The big question I'm posing is, "How much of that savings came from weight, and how much from
improved aerodynamics (from the aerobars and other sources), pedaling efficiency (from the
clip-ins), and other factors?"

Quoted message said:

That's a hundred dollars per minute ! Too much if you ask me.

Just do 99 more IMs and you'll get it down to $1/minute!

Quoted message said:

However, I really like to ride the new bike and it keeps me motivated to continue to train.
Consequently my body fat will drop, my resting heart rate will sink, my blood pressure will be
lower. And all that for US$2.500 - quite cheap if you ask me.

I'm certainly not proposing people ride bikes they don't like. I think I'm just trying to point out
that you don't have to be dissatisfied with a bike that you otherwise enjoy just because it's
heavier than the one you could get for another $2000.

Quoted message said:

But anyway, I hope that one day I am fit enough to do an IM using a very old, very rusty "grand
ma's" bike - just for the heck of it !

Yeah, that sort of thing is impressive, but doing an IM is hard enough as it is. I don't feel the
need to tie one arm behind my back.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson

In article said:

Old Timer said:

There was someone here a few years ago who did an EXTREMELY interesting test. I cannot recall who
it was, maybe someone else will.

He was curious about the same issue - bike weight vs. human weight. He and his buddies went out
and rode an identical series of hills together - twice - once with 20 pounds strapped to their
backs in a backpack and the second time with 20 pounds strapped to the bicycle. In every case the
riders said it was exponentially more difficult, nearly to the point of getting off of the bike,
the second time, with the add'l weight on the bike. I think they said they actually did get off
the bike on one of the hills it was so tough.

Anyone else recall this? Made an indelible impression on me.

That woudl be an interesting study. I can see that 20lbs on the body woudl be easier to lug
around than on the bike, simply because of positional issues. 20lbs in the right spot on the
body may even help propel the bike a bit particularly on the uphills. However I wouldn't
think it woudl make that huge of a difference. I suspect the way the weight is distrubuted
woudl make a big difference. I'm sure I could get twenty lbs onto my body via a backpack or
weighted vest. not sure sure about my bike though. I suppose I coudl fill up my water
bottles with some scrap steel I have laying around. Anybody got 40oz of mercury, that would
do it.

Yeah, you can put it in your water bottles. Just don't get confused.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson