CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Weight Watchers and Load Luggers

(4 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Smudge
    Member

    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.
    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.

    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?
    (subject to a good range of gears and a relaxed attitude to the speed showing on the computer)

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. cc
    Member

    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.

    The Workcycles FR8 can handle a rider-and-cargo combination of about 250kg, btw!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    Interesting -

    Presume you noticed putting in a bit more effort?

    "pay too much attention to weight over other factors in cycle choice....?"

    That depends...

    Some people take things to extremes.

    I remember fads for alloy spoke nipples, drilling holes in things (sometimes to the point of danger), titanium bolts etc.

    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.

    One of the greatest revelations of cycling for me was the first time I road a pretend mountain bike.

    This was when what would now be called basic MTBs were many hundreds of pounds.

    This was much heavier than the "lightweight" racers/tourers I was used to - though not as heavy as today's 'full suspension' junk.

    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.

    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.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. Smudge
    Member

    @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-)

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin