anorexic bikes

avalanche

just wondering what your opinions are of the weight obsessive side of bikes, seems a bit crazy to me, sure i understand the benefits of having a light bike and slick parts etc but some folk seem to take it a bit far such as many on sites as weight weenies etc where every spacer is weighed up.

AstraMonti

If you are racing i would assume everything needs to be taken in mind, even the long valves

congo_90

same can be said for any racing for example F1 where every gram is accounted for.. theres a reason for this as any weight saving = performance in the long run.

Freddy687

I knew a racing buddy who removed the dust covers from the valves

bwardrop

I understand the benefit of switching out some components for lighter replacements (e.g. wheels) to gain performance... but as for the obsessive removal of dust caps... that is just mad!!

I find it amusing when the weight obsessive types are carrying a spare tyre themselves, but will spend €000's on the lightest gear available!!! Madness!!

zzzzzzzz

There was a funny story in "the rider" (i think) about a bloke that took his bottle out of it's cage before hitting a climb, to save weight. only he put it in his pocket rather than throw it away...:D

Also - Michael Rasmussen used to remove decals from his frames to save weight - although, the decals probably weighed more than him.

Obviously lighter bikes make a big difference, but I think there's a huge psychological aspect to it as well.

zzzzzzzz

In fact... I seem to remember a certain member of this list throwing away the rest of his water just before we hit the wicklow gap on a training spin recently... That said, he did hammer up the climb.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

bwardrop wrote: »

I understand the benefit of switching out some components for lighter replacements (e.g. wheels) to gain performance... but as for the obsessive removal of dust caps... that is just mad!!

If you miss out on first place by a fraction of a second, do you really want to be left wondering if you could have won it if you ditched the dust caps?

At high level competitive sport, it comes down to a sort of Nash equilibrium. Yes you could be financially better off if you used mid-range components, but that would give the opponent the opportunity to get the upper hand.

Chips Lovell

avalanche wrote: »

just wondering what your opinions are of the weight obsessive side of bikes, seems a bit crazy to me, sure i understand the benefits of having a light bike and slick parts etc but some folk seem to take it a bit far such as many on sites as weight weenies etc where every spacer is weighed up.

For some people, it's kind of a hobby, trying to build the lightest bike possible. For guys in competition, it can be a bit of an obsession, asking how many seconds they could lose by having a heavier bike

aidan.offbeat wrote: »

There was a funny story in "the rider" (i think) about a bloke that took his bottle out of it's cage before hitting a climb, to save weight. only he put it in his pocket rather than throw it away...:D

Twas Anquetil

aidan.offbeat wrote: »

Also - Michael Rasmussen used to remove decals from his frames to save weight - although, the decals probably weighed more than him.

He used to have one water bottle cage too and, if I remember correctly, his frame didn't even have drillings for a second cage.

But Rasmussen's obsession intrigued me a bit since it's now really easy to build up a bike below the UCI weight limit, so much so that a lot of pro bikes need to have weight added to them.

Raam

el tonto wrote: »

But Rasmussen's obsession intrigued me a bit since it's now really easy to build up a bike below the UCI weight limit, so much so that a lot of pro bikes need to have weight added to them.

I may have misread, but I thought in "Bad Blood" the author said that Rasmussen had tricks for getting by the UCI weight limits. I'll have a flick back through it later and check. If it doesn't then huge apologies to Rasmussen.

bwardrop

Sean_K wrote: »

If you miss out on first place by a fraction of a second, do you really want to be left wondering if you could have won it if you ditched the dust caps?

At high level competitive sport, it comes down to a sort of Nash equilibrium. Yes you could be financially better off if you used mid-range components, but that would give the opponent the opportunity to get the upper hand.

I was referring more to recreational cyclist obsessing about weight - for average joe, losing a few lbs will have a far greater effect than a lightweight component... and work out cheaper!

Elite cyclists will benefit from the lightest and best components, no doubt there... but I would bet that no one has lost a race because of their dust caps!!

Chips Lovell

A lot of guys go without dust caps because its one less thing to do when changing punctures.

Raam wrote: »

I may have misread, but I thought in "Bad Blood" the author said that Rasmussen had tricks for getting by the UCI weight limits. I'll have a flick back through it later and check. If it doesn't then huge apologies to Rasmussen.

Aha, that explains a lot of it so.

avalanche

i totally understand it for racing etc and believe me if i had the cash id love to be able to build some of the bikes they have but its more about the random joes who even post their bikes hanging from weighing scales etc,sure have a light bike but post pictures of it on a weighing scales? strange,

good stories about the pro lads by the way, but i suppose from their perspective they are going to be like, obsession is what got them to pro and it would be hard or counterproductive even to go against that..

blorg

Valve caps- why would you put them on in the first place?

The water dumping at the start of a climb (assuming you are sufficiently hydrated until when you next know you can refill) makes a lot of sense and I do it myself. The water in two 750ml bottles weighs 1.5kg. That is a hell of a lot of weight and you really notice the difference without it.

The whole picture of bikes from the scales thing, as Tonto says for some it's a bit of a hobby; lighter weight is generally a much prized quality in a bike and so if you have built up something really light why not show that off.

Have a look at the forum on WeightWeenies for more of this (actually a more interesting place than you might think, they are not 100% obsessing over component weights.)

TinyExplosions

I think there's two sides as well... there's the obsessive, must have the lightest at all costs types who will spend the big money, but for others (myself included) it's getting the best bang for buck weight and performance wise. Sites like weight weenies are great because it allows me to compare, say, a whole load of stems to decide which is the one to go for... you may have 3 or 4 different ones all around the same price, so why not go for the lightest!

re Antequil and the bottle in the back pocket, could this have something to do with changing the centre of gravity as much as everything else, moving the weight higher and further back could be of some marginal benefit? I dunno -it's all about physics, and I don't understand it so good

Raam

el tonto wrote: »

Aha, that explains a lot of it so.

From the book..

He [Rasmussen] was not popular in the peloton either. He rarely shared a room with a teammate and often argued with team mechanics over their refusal to adopt weight-reducing tricks on his equipment. One row was said to have been over a thin layer of paint applied to the handlebars of his bike. Lars Werge saw him as an isolated obsessive, estranged even from some of his Rabbobank teammates. The skeletal climber, he recalled, 'counted every grain of rice', and even poured water, rather than milk, on his muesli. 'He's very intense,' Lars said.

parko202

re Antequil and the bottle in the back pocket, could this have something to do with changing the centre of gravity as much as everything else, moving the weight higher and further back could be of some marginal benefit? I dunno -it's all about physics, and I don't understand it so good [/quote]

I wondered about this too, does it make a difference if you weight yourself rather than the bike? I imagine there is some difference as I reckon you would notice five kg coming off your bike weight moreso than you would from your body also because the weight gain could be attributed to muscle gain which would actually make you able to deliver more power to the bike. or.....am i talkin a load of sh1te?!

Bicyclegadabout

bwardrop wrote: »

I was referring more to recreational cyclist obsessing about weight - for average joe, losing a few lbs will have a far greater effect than a lightweight component... and work out cheaper!

Often, the average joe I see who has a much lighter bike than me, often also has a bigger gut than me.
Obviously for pro's it's a different story, but amateurs who obsess on bikeweight without paying much heed to bodyweight are somewhat missing the point. Yeah, it is a bit mad.

Lumen

Light is good. Thin is good. Having a light bike doesn't make you fatter.

I saved over 60g today with a new seatpost, and maybe 20g with a new stem. I bought them to get a better bike fit, but buying like-for-like seemed a wasted opportunity so I upgraded.

Like a thin woman, a light bike doesn't offer massive performance advantages (except over the threshold). But many people would still pick one, all other things being equal.

Whatever floats your boat.

rottenhat

TinyExplosions wrote: »

re Antequil and the bottle in the back pocket, could this have something to do with changing the centre of gravity as much as everything else, moving the weight higher and further back could be of some marginal benefit?

No, it was purely psychological with him - he was convinced that the weight of the bike was the crucial thing on climbs, and that by taking the bottle out and sticking it in his pocket he was making the bike lighter. It didn't matter how many people argued with him that he was just moving the weight around - he believed in it fervently.

Enduro

For mountain biking it does make a difference moving the weight from the bike to the rider. The bike becomes more "throwable" for want of a better description. IMHO good MTB style requires the rider to try and stay steady whilst the bike drops and climbs over all the obstacles on the trail. transferring the weight to the rider helps this.