http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Weight Watchers and Load Luggers en Mon, 01 Jun 2026 02:07:25 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8929#post-91372 Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:21:27 +0000 Smudge 91372@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@chdot, didn't especially notice it being more effort, I just changed down the gears and winding up the hill took a little longer :-) Still, horses for courses, I hope to finish building my nice light audax bike tomorrow B-) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8929#post-91287 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:15:32 +0000 chdot 91287@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Interesting -</p> <p>Presume you noticed putting in a bit more effort?</p> <p>"pay too much attention to weight over other factors in cycle choice....?"</p> <p>That depends...</p> <p>Some people take things to extremes. </p> <p>I remember fads for alloy spoke nipples, drilling holes in things (sometimes to the point of danger), titanium bolts etc. </p> <p>My current favourite bike is my lightest (not plastic light) but it's not just the weight it's also about frame material, angles etc. plus light wheels and high pressure tyres. </p> <p>One of the greatest revelations of cycling for me was the first time I road a pretend mountain bike. </p> <p>This was when what would now be called basic MTBs were many hundreds of pounds. </p> <p>This was much heavier than the "lightweight" racers/tourers I was used to - though not as heavy as today's 'full suspension' junk. </p> <p>It had 'fat tyres' - basic 26x1.75 ones with a centre ridge. These made the bike roll nicely and deal with potholes well. The basic cantilever brakes were good too - even on steel rims. </p> <p>I wasn't 'converted' to the extent of abandoning my other bikes, but it certainly made me think more about for the 'fit for purposeness' of different types of bikes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8929#post-91284 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:06:16 +0000 cc 91284@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yes, absolutely. Mostly what matters is the weight of the rider plus the bike together, so to me a few extra pounds on the bike is neither here nor there. If you go for a slightly heavier bike you can get one with a steel frame, too. They tend to flex a bit more and give a more forgiving, comfortable ride over the Edinburgh road surface.</p> <p>The <a href="http://www.workcycles.com/home-products/handmade-city-bicycles/workcycles-fr8-universal-frame-as-city-bike">Workcycles FR8</a> can handle a rider-and-cargo combination of about 250kg, btw! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8929#post-91281 Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:43:27 +0000 Smudge 91281@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>As mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I had cause to load up my bike with more luggage than usual this morning, all in I ended up with a 46kg bike.<br /> What I found interesting was that my overall average speed was only 1mph down on that which I would expect unladen, and (on a touring bike with *very* low gears avaiable) I didn't find the hill from Edinburgh Park through Wester Hailes and up to Lanark Road felt particularly harder than the usual lightly laden bike.</p> <p>Now obviously when racing, or attempting to cover a large distance in a limited time for other reasons, that is a significant difference, (iirc 2 minutes over six miles) but for "normal" cycling for transport I wonder if we cycle snobs ( I must confess swmbo has informed me I am one!) pay too much attention to weight over other factors in cycle choice....? Maybe "tanks" are ok even in hilly Edinburgh?<br /> (subject to a good range of gears and a relaxed attitude to the speed showing on the computer) </p>