How important is weight to cycling?

colm_gti

I know for climbing hills, lighter is better, but with shedding weight is there a trade off in other areas?

I currently weigh in at 89kgs according to a weighing scales in vincents hospital this morning, with a height of 186cm, which gives me a marginally overweight BMI. Now I am, by no stretch of the imagination obese, and I know as much as you guys do how bullsh*t that scale is, but I can't help but think that I would benefit from cutting back a bit on my diet (which is healthy, just calorie rich to maintain muscle mass I put on last year for other sports) to drop a few kgs.

It probably depends on what my goals are, which would be to maybe start racing towards the end of the year, or certainly by 2013, but definitely the competitive side of cycling anyway. Is weight a huge factor in racing? Or would I be better off at focussing my efforts into developing better technique and power on the bicycle?

Morrisseeee

If you're thinking of racing, especially on flat-ish circuits, then weight isn't that much of an issue, more of an emphasis on fitness/recovery & especially strong legs.

Beasty

I did a bit of work last year ahead of the Swords CC Ardgillan Hill Climb (which is timely, as this year's takes place tonight)

I was just over 90kg then and putting out around 360w over 5 minutes, and by my calculations, on the 1.8km hill, average gradient 4.5%, every kg of weight costs/gains just under 2.5s (on the basis of a 5 minute or so "standard" time), and every 2 watts of additional power saves a second

Strategy should be to lose weight to the extent it does not compromise power (I've lost about 7-8kg since last year, but am still putting out similar power, saving around 20s on the hill)

Obviously riding in a group does change the arithmetic a bit.

Rofo

Weight can be a factor in racing, but it all depends on the terrain. Gravity does not play a part in resistance at 0% gradient.

With regard to tradeoffs in losing weight - If you are riding regularly for training, you are unlikely to lose muscle mass (from your legs anyway) so your power:weight ratio should improve.

If you are thinking of trying racing, a Club League is a great place to start. I've just started this year and there is not a lot of climbing in the IRC/LCRC/UCD/Orwell/St Tiernans League so far. If you've been doing a bit of training for a few months, just get out there and do it - don't get too caught up in thinking you've got to be seriously prepared.

lennymc

colm, go do a club league now, you will be well able for it as you are at the moment
Must meet up again soon for a spin.

JMJR

colm_gti wrote: »

................

I currently weigh in at 89kgs according to a weighing scales in vincents hospital this morning, with a height of 186cm, which gives me a marginally obese BMI. ..........................QUOTE]

By my calculation that combination should be ' marginally overweight' .
John

Hungrycol

colm_gti wrote: »

I currently weigh in at 89kgs according to a weighing scales in vincents hospital this morning, with a height of 186cm, which gives me a marginally obese BMI.

I think you're being a little harsh on yourself. That gives you a BMI of about 27, 25 being normal and 30 being obese. Weight does factor in racing but only when going uphill. You need to find a good balance between retaining power on the flat and stay with the climbers on the hills.

colm_gti

JMJR wrote: »

colm_gti wrote: »

................

I currently weigh in at 89kgs according to a weighing scales in vincents hospital this morning, with a height of 186cm, which gives me a marginally obese BMI. ..........................QUOTE]

By my calculation that combination should be ' marginally overweight' .
John

Hungrycol wrote: »

I think you're being a little harsh on yourself. That gives you a BMI of about 27, 25 being normal and 30 being obese. Weight does factor in racing but only when going uphill. You need to find a good balance between retaining power on the flat and stay with the climbers on the hills.

Apologies lads, I used the wrong wording as I was typing in a hurry, I mean to say marginally overweight

Mycroft H

Dont forget that the heavier mass will have the advantage on the downhill. While I'll loose people on the uphill, I'll catch them on the down.

ROK ON

Colm

I am slightly heavier than yourself and I think of weight in terms of effort and recovery.

There is no completely flat roads in ireland. There is invariably a bit of a dig or a pull somewhere on any route. In order to stay with or close to guys that are lighter than you, you need to go deeper/expend more effort if you are heavy. This takes its toll eventually.
The more effort you put in, the more you need to recover while on the bike and when you finish your cycle. So it all adds up.

I cycle with a few guys that are lighter than me, and fitter. When climbing their HR's are significantly lower than mine (in % terms) and despite putting in less effort they climb faster. If they were to put in the same effort, they would put minutes into me over a 5-6km climb.

When you carry weight, that is what you are fighting all the time. The effort it takes to not completely get dropped or the effort it takes to get back on - while some of my cycling colleagues can rest on a descent, I need to go flat out simply to catch up before the next climb begins. While it is great exercise, it would be easier to wise up and lose weight.

d4r3n

I don't think it's that big a deal unless you're talking about a hilly course, which there isn't much of around here.

3 w/kg and 60 kg = 2 w/kg and 90 kg

If you're on the lighter end of the scale you'll be wishing you were +30 kg heavier when some unfit heap of a thing passes by on the flat, wishing a hill would appear.

Plastik

I was watching the highlights of some race or other on Eurosport recently and the heaviest guy in the peloton that day was 90/91kg. Some people are built like sprinters, some like climbers, that's just how it is. You're tall and were playing a good level of competitive rugby until recently. Just keep doing what you're doing and I'm imagine you'll lose muscle mass and weight from your upper body over time which will drop you down. I've lost 4 stone/25kg in total and I'm at the stage where I'm actively trying to not lose anymore. But I had it to lose from fairly robust fat stores, unlike you.

Is there a club league available to you? I don't think you can take part in the Usher/Orwell/Lucan/St. Tiernans with ThinkBike. I'd suggest coming out to the Bray league but I'd have to check whether people from other clubs can take part. We also run and Interclub between Bray & Sorrento.

seamus

BX 19 wrote: »

Dont forget that the heavier mass will have the advantage on the downhill. While I'll loose people on the uphill, I'll catch them on the down.

I'm still trying to figure out why that is, as the law of gravitation says that there should be no (discernable) difference.

I'm going to go with the "terminal velocity" theory and that a larger rider will be less encumbered by the effects of wind and rolling resistance and so will accelerate quicker and for longer than a lighter rider.

Yes, weight makes a huge difference on the climbs as I've found. Very little difference on the flat. Lose weight if you think you need to, but otherwise you might be sacrificing some strength as others have said.

ROK ON

seamus wrote: »

I'm still trying to figure out why that is, as the law of gravitation says that there should be no difference.

If one ignores aerodynamics and technique (which you cant) climbing is about watts/kg, descending is more about watts.
While there are people like Samuel Sanchez that are renowned descenders, but at the end of a long climb they are usually near the front. The really really fast descenders tend to be guys like Cancellara, Hushovd etc etc. They are 80kg plus.

lennymc

ROK ON wrote: »

The really really fast descenders tend to be guys like Cancellara, Hushovd etc etc. They are 80kg plus.

are they that heavy? is their a list of riders weights anywhere?

ROK ON

lennymc wrote: »

are they that heavy? is their a list of riders weights anywhere?

Wikipedia states that Boonen and Cancellara are 82kg while Hushovd is 83kg. To put that into a context, Boonen is 6'4" while FC and TH are 6'0 and 6'1.

Rofo

BX 19 wrote: »

Dont forget that the heavier mass will have the advantage on the downhill. While I'll loose people on the uphill, I'll catch them on the down.

That's due to greater power, not mass. All objects accelerate under gravity at the same rate.

100kg will not fall any faster than 1kg; all other factors being equal. To take it to extremes - A feather and a ball bearing will fall at the same rate in a vacuum (due to absence of air resistance on the feather).

Lumen

Lets keep this simple. It doesn't matter what height, weight or power anyone else has. You are trying to go as fast as you can.

Fat does not propel you forward or upwards, so if you want to go faster then losing fat can only help.

Common sense will (a) tell you whether you have any spare flab (is your stomach flat? do you wobble?), (b) dictate that losing weight whilst "training" or racing needs to be done gradually and sensibly, and (c) remind you that this is not your job, so there's no need to get obsessive unless you enjoy the challenge.

What I do know is that everyone else is too way fast and needs to eat more battorborgers and chips.

el tel

Rofo wrote: »

Gravity does not play a part in resistance at 0% gradient

Are you sure?

Rofo

el tel wrote: »

Are you sure?

Yes. I read it on the internet.

But seriously - yes. On completely flat terrain (which someone already pointed out doesn't exist in Ireland) there are other forces at work - Rolling Resistance, Air Resistance, Drivetrain Resistance, Inertial Resistance (resistance of mass to movement) but not gravity as you are not trying to move away from the locus of the force.

Lumen

In answer to the question "is weight a factor in racing" (in Ireland presumably, and at entry level), I would give a qualified "yes" in my limited experience and knowledge of the sport.

There are plenty of flattish races where a bit of flab won't do you any harm, but those races end in bunch sprints. If you're good at bunch sprints that's excellent news. If you're not a good sprinter you're going to need to survive some hills.

Even the 5-club interclub Dublin league thing which is raced on what most people would call flattish roads has several courses which end in significant drags.

There are lots of competitive racers who are a long way from Wiggins-Schleck levels of scrawniness, but they are also double-hard-mental-fast-bastards.

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

In answer to the question "is weight a factor in racing" (in Ireland presumably, and at entry level), I would give a qualified "yes" in my limited experience and knowledge of the sport.

There are plenty of flattish races where a bit of flab won't do you any harm, but those races end in bunch sprints. If you're good at bunch sprints that's excellent news. If you're not a good sprinter you're going to need to survive some hills.

Even the 5-club interclub Dublin league thing which is raced on what most people would call flattish roads has several courses which end in significant drags.

There are lots of competitive racers who are a long way from Wiggins-Schleck levels of scrawniness, but they are also double-hard-mental-fast-bastards.

IN my ultra scientific poll, everyone that I know for sure is faster than me, weighs less than I do:D (although over two thirds of the population weigh less than I do).

Mycroft H

Rofo wrote: »

That's due to greater power, not mass. All objects accelerate under gravity at the same rate.

100kg will not fall any faster than 1kg; all other factors being equal. To take it to extremes - A feather and a ball bearing will fall at the same rate in a vacuum (due to absence of air resistance on the feather).

Your right to an extent. But there is quite a big flaw in an argument. I cant ever remember cycling in a vacume.

Air resistence is the big player here. Given an identicle bike a 90kg rider will decend faster then a 60kg rider. This nothing to do with the greater power but rather then the surface area of the rider. A 90kg does not have a 50% greater frontal surface area compared to the 60kg rider. Surface area is not scalar to mass in the human body.

Decending by gravity alone, the heavier rider will be faster.

Rofo

BX 19 wrote: »

Your right to an extent. But there is quite a big flaw in an argument. I cant ever remember cycling in a vacume.

Air resistence is the big player here. Given an identicle bike a 90kg rider will decend faster then a 60kg rider. This nothing to do with the greater power but rather then the surface area of the rider. A 90kg does not have a 50% greater frontal surface area compared to the 60kg rider. Surface area is not scalar to mass in the human body.

Decending by gravity alone, the heavier rider will be faster.

Ok then

Morrisseeee

I guess it's down to the Q, What type of rider you want to be?
eg. do you want to be a Tom Boonen (Spring Classics contender), 6ft 4in @ 82kg, or a Bradley Wiggins (TDF contender), 6ft 3in @ 79kg ?

el tel

Rofo wrote: »

Yes. I read it on the internet.

But seriously - yes. On completely flat terrain (which someone already pointed out doesn't exist in Ireland) there are other forces at work - Rolling Resistance, Air Resistance, Drivetrain Resistance, Inertial Resistance (resistance of mass to movement) but not gravity as you are not trying to move away from the locus of the force.

It would seem either the internet is incorrect and needs setting straight or else you go check it once again, just to be sure

For example, rolling resistance is F=cW, where W=m.g...where g equals you-know-what...

Lumen

Morrisseeee wrote: »

I guess it's down to the Q, What type of rider you want to be? eg. do you want to be a Tom Boonen (Spring Classics contender), 6ft 4in @ 82kg, or a Bradley Wiggins (TDF contender), 6ft 3in @ 79kg ?

You don't get to choose between being Boonen or Wiggo. You are what you are, plus your fat.

Also, there's no way Wiggo is 79kg!

Morrisseeee

Lumen wrote: »

You don't get to choose between being Boonen or Wiggo. You are what you are, plus your fat.

Also, there's no way Wiggo is 79kg!

Ah but he has to mould himself into a particular style of rider, he has to feel like he's Boonen or Wiggo when out on the bike, he has to buy the gear (QuickStep/Sky), the posters, etc etc :pac:

I'm not sure 'exactly' what weight he is, but he sure looks like he's only 79kg !!

ednwireland

i'm deleting this thread - too depressing

daragh_

Plastik wrote: »

Is there a club league available to you? I don't think you can take part in the Usher/Orwell/Lucan/St. Tiernans with ThinkBike. I'd suggest coming out to the Bray league but I'd have to check whether people from other clubs can take part. We also run and Interclub between Bray & Sorrento.

Sorry to jump in mid-thread and off-topic. Let us know if anything comes of this. I'm with Colm in Thinkbike. AFAIK we aren't formally involved in any inter-club stuff as the emphasis is on MTB Racing and Sportifs. I would be very interested in having a go at a Club Race if anyone wants to invite us along? I promise to sit at the back, not crash and bring cake.

Rofo

el tel wrote: »

It would seem either the internet is incorrect and needs setting straight or else you go check it once again, just to be sure

For example, rolling resistance is F=cW, where W=m.g...where g equals you-know-what...

Yes but the effect of g is zero at 0% gradient

Lumen

Rofo wrote: »

Yes but the effect of g is zero at 0% gradient

No it isn't. Without gravity you have no traction unless you've built some sort of velodrome inside a rotating spaceship.

Rider weight increases rolling resistance.

fat bloke

A club league is the right job for you Colm. Whereabouts you living?

-You wouldn't be allowed to sign on for and therefore participate in a club league if you're not in the relevant club/clubs. -Insurance blah blah blah. But by all means spin out any thursday evening for a look see.

colm_gti

Thanks a mil for all the input lads, it makes for interesting reading when I should be working :cool:

fat bloke wrote: »

A club league is the right job for you Colm. Whereabouts you living?

-You wouldn't be allowed to sign on for and therefore participate in a club league if you're not in the relevant club/clubs. -Insurance blah blah blah. But by all means spin out any thursday evening for a look see.

I'm living in Rathgar at the minute, a member of Thinkbike CC with a CI leisure licence, which I'm sure could be upgraded.

Have been holding off on asking about trying out any racing yet as I'm worried about my fitness levels and race preparation compared with others, considering I haven't been at the cycling for too long, but it's probably better to get stuck in and see how I compare, even if it does mean getting dropped in the first km??

el tel

ednwireland wrote: »

i'm deleting this thread - too depressing

There is of course a sliver lining to being a bit overweight.

Just stay off the pies and beer for a month whilst during this time doping yourself to the eyeballs with EPO, hgt, decca and any other peds you can find.

Then, when you start winning every Sprint to the 30s, every TT and RR with super human ease, just nonchalantly explain your new found prowess was down to the
"weight loss"

No one will suspect a thing! Any questions just say youve been training harder than everyone else.

To be on the safe side id recommend collecting your piss in bottles for the next week or so.

d4r3n

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Ah but he has to mould himself into a particular style of rider, he has to feel like he's Boonen or Wiggo when out on the bike, he has to buy the gear (QuickStep/Sky), the posters, etc etc :pac:

I'm not sure 'exactly' what weight he is, but he sure looks like he's only 79kg !!

He's about 69 kg, not 79 kg!

Lumen

d4r3n wrote: »

He's about 69 kg, not 79 kg!

Reports from late 2009 suggest 71-72kg was his target for the Giro and TDF.

kennyb3

There are very few people i ve met in my life who have half as much muscle as Boonen (legs and upper body) or Fab (legs), so the whole but they are 85kg arguement falls flat on its face.

I'd say BF % is far more relevant here.

d4r3n

Lumen wrote: »

Reports from late 2009 suggest 71-72kg was his target for the Giro and TDF.

The Team Sky website has him at 69 kg but yea, he's light for someone who is 1.90m

Morrisseeee

Sorry, too many late nights, of course I meant 69
/an interesting number by all accounts !

fat bloke

colm_gti wrote: »

I'm living in Rathgar at the minute, a member of Thinkbike CC with a CI leisure licence, which I'm sure could be upgraded.

Have been holding off on asking about trying out any racing yet as I'm worried about my fitness levels and race preparation compared with others, considering I haven't been at the cycling for too long, but it's probably better to get stuck in and see how I compare, even if it does mean getting dropped in the first km??

The Usher/Orwell/Usher/UCD/Usher etc club league that we're always banging on about here would be perfect for you then, but you would have to join one of those Irish Road Clubs to be allowed participate. Once you get your application form in, a good Irish Road Club would be able to usher you into the racing scene, and keep you really well insulated from any worries you might have, and offer you any energy saving solutions you might need as you go around.

As for not being able? Yerra uh sher and you'll be grand, all levels are catered for.




http://www.irishroadclub.com/

Lucifer-0

When I'm out on a club spin they usually roll down hills and take it easy, if I'm at the front I always have to pedal to keep up with the guy next to me. I'm probably the lightest in the group @ 65kg.

If weight has no impact on descending why do I have to work to keep up with the lad beside me rolling away?

Yes I am in the drops and "aero".

colm_gti

fat bloke wrote: »

The Usher/Orwell/Usher/UCD/Usher etc club league that we're always banging on about here would be perfect for you then, but you would have to join one of those Irish Road Clubs to be allowed participate. Once you get your application form in, a good Irish Road Club would be able to usher you into the racing scene, and keep you really well insulated from any worries you might have, and offer you any energy saving solutions you might need as you go around.

As for not being able? Yerra uh sher and you'll be grand, all levels are catered for.




http://www.irishroadclub.com/

Somthing tells me, and I don't know what it is, that I should probably join up to usher if I want to take part in the above club league...

AIR-AUSSIE

Just saw this on bicycling.com. Haven't read it but may be useful.

Your ideal cycling weight

Bunnyhopper

Lucifer-0 wrote: »

If weight has no impact on descending…

It would appear that it does have an impact. This is from David Gordon Wilson's Bicycling Science, p. 257.

Plastik

This is getting very technical.

If you're out on a club spin you don't care if you get to the end of the hill first, you care about not being dropped going up the hill. You're working harder to stay with everyone else. By the time you have gotten to the top, everyone else is there, waiting, having had a break - you get none. Less weight is more beneficial.

If you're on a club spin you're not going to power away and drop anybody on the flat. Less weight is more beneficial.

If you're racing the descent's in Ireland are not long enough for you to allow you to use your extra mass to get back on terms with the group if they've pulled a 20/30 second advantage on you. Less weight is more beneficial.

So yes, less weight is more beneficial.

kincsem

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

Just saw this on bicycling.com. Haven't read it but may be useful.
Your ideal cycling weight

Men: 106 pounds for first 5 feet of height plus 6 pounds for each additional inch. For example, if you’re 5’10”, your ideal weight is 166 lbs (106 + 60).
I am 5'8" and weight 159 pounds. Using the above I should be 106+48=154. Some good training in that link. Thanks.

Roger Hassenforder

d4r3n wrote: »

The Team Sky website has him at 69 kg but yea, he's light for someone who is 1.90m

the left cheek of my arsh weighs that!

fat bloke

kincsem wrote: »

Men: 106 pounds for first 5 feet of height plus 6 pounds for each additional inch. For example, if you’re 5’10”, your ideal weight is 166 lbs (106 + 60).
I am 5'8" and weight 159 pounds. Using the above I should be 106+48=154. Some good training in that link. Thanks.

Seriously????!!!

That's fantastic ha ha ha!. Cancel the diet!!!! I'm absolutely bang on the ideal then according to that! 5 11 and a half and 175 lbs. Woo hoo!!!!!:cool:


Unfortunately, in reality that means that the advice on the site is bullsh1t, for me at least, cos I definitely need to lose.... well... a half a stone anyway, and possibly twice that.

Mycroft H

Lucifer-0 wrote: »

When I'm out on a club spin they usually roll down hills and take it easy, if I'm at the front I always have to pedal to keep up with the guy next to me. I'm probably the lightest in the group @ 65kg.

If weight has no impact on descending why do I have to work to keep up with the lad beside me rolling away?

Yes I am in the drops and "aero".

BX 19 wrote: »

Air resistence is the big player here. Given an identicle bike a 90kg rider will decend faster then a 60kg rider. This nothing to do with the greater power but rather then the surface area of the rider. A 90kg does not have a 50% greater frontal surface area compared to the 60kg rider. Surface area is not scalar to mass in the human body.

Decending by gravity alone, the heavier rider will be faster.

You showing the opposite effect.

cython

Rofo wrote: »

Yes. I read it on the internet.

But seriously - yes. On completely flat terrain (which someone already pointed out doesn't exist in Ireland) there are other forces at work - Rolling Resistance, Air Resistance, Drivetrain Resistance, Inertial Resistance (resistance of mass to movement) but not gravity as you are not trying to move away from the locus of the force.

Not to be a pedant here, but you just contradicted yourself completely. If you weigh more than the person beside you, then you have a greater mass (since W = m*g, even though mass would be a more correct term than weight in most instances in this thread). Hence you have a greater inertia, and every time you accelerate (and I mean in the scientific sense of a change of velocity, so speed up or slow down, and to a lesser extent change direction), you expend more energy to do this.

This may play less of a part when you are maintaining a constant speed, but basically any time you deviate from that, you use more energy.