Keep your bike ..loose a bit of weight ..you’ll climb better …that’s all you need to know

light rider on a heavy bike is faster than a heavy rider on a light bike.
I have no real world figures but I’ve never seen a heavy guy who could climb well but I’ve seen hundreds of little guys who could.

Watch the tour, the heavy chaps are crossing the line just in front of the cut off for the most part, it’s the guys who weight the same as a 12 year old boy who win in the mountains.

This is what a fast road bike climber looks like:

Just going to throw this in:

Froome
Height 1.86 m (6 ft 1 in)[2]
Weight 69 kg (152 lb; 11 st)

Not that light…

Wiggins
Height 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in)[4]
Weight 69 kg (150 lb; 10.9 st)[

Also not that light…

Schleck
1.86 m (6 ft 1 in)
Weight 68 kg (150 lb; 10.7 st)

Crikey, he weighs the same.

Nibali
Height 1.80 m (5 ft 11 in)
Weight 63 kg (140 lb; 9.9 st)

Clenbutador
Height 1.76 m (5 ft 9 1?2 in)
Weight 62 kg (137 lb)

Ah, getting lighter.

So in the ’13 Tour, a 69kg man climbed better than a 62kg man. And in the ’12 Tour, a 69kg man beat a 63kg man. Crazy times!

And worse, Indurain won a tour or two, and he comes in at
Height 1.88 m (6 ft 2 in)
Weight 80 kg (176 lb)

What’s any of that got to do with power-weight ratio?
Any sized bloke could win it if he produced enough power 😉

So the tall guys weigh more? How odd. Maybe we should look at a height/weight ratio but the principle is still the same. If you’re dead skinny, you’re far more likely to be a good climber than if you’re a dead muscley.

I’ll accept that Indurain is an outlier though.

as I have trained hard and am very fit so storm up the hills

you rock, your race results must be amazing.

What’s any of that got to do with power-weight ratio?

They’ll on be on bikes that weigh the same, no? And now we’re talking about power-weight ratio, its harder for bigger guys to maintain the same power-weight ratio.

mrmonkfinger, I’d take those published weights with a pinch of salt. I don’t think there’s any official weigh in and riders often publish optimistic weights probably to get some sort of psychological advantage. I’m sure I read somewhere that Armstrong was always a good few pounds over whatever his published weight was.

Edit: As for power to weight, anyone who trains with power will know how hard it is to increase power compared to losing weight (up to a point), and that any power loss due to loss of weight is typically small enough to result in an actual increase in power to weight.

Without their wattages, listing their weights is irrelevant.

Without their wattages, listing their weights is irrelevant.

If you know weights you can have a pretty good estimate at wattages, hence why a lot of riders don’t publish accurate weights (or at least they didn’t in the days of rampant doping.)

if its any help, i put on about 1stone just under (usually just about 11stone and at the min im 11st 10lbs after a holiday of eating shite!) ive noticed on the climbs im feeling it more, legs feel heaveier and generally dont feel as light and nimble!

but i guess if i stayed at 11 stone and added 1stone of weight to my bike id notice it, so its the same sort of principal for body weight i guess!

crosshair – Member
Without their wattages, listing their weights is irrelevant.

You quote Strava wattages a lot… However, how would Strava know my wattage ? I don’t believe i’ve entered weight, height, etc, i don’t have a power meter… so where to Stravas wattages come from ?

SO the simple answer is…

“stop eating cake you fat sod and drop some weight”

Fair enough.. i know where i am now and where i need to be after my holidays lol

Who quotes Strava wattages? Not me, they’re rubbish! They probably have a formula for it but I’ve no idea how they work them out, they are usually wildly out compared to my power metre.

I’m going to copy/paste this whole discussion and submit it to a physics journal.

Oh, and there’s an experiment in this video that’s interesting:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DRQwKREgvI[/video]

Weeksy, there’s a place in your profile to fill in personal and bike weight on Strava.
Every test I can find on the web that’s compared Stravas Wattage algorithm to a power meter says its pretty close- if anything slightly pessimistic.
It’s even more accurate as an average (longer the segment the better) and is very close on uphills where head/tail winds have less of an effect.

Obviously every tiny peak you zoom in on might not be spot on, but as an average and as a reliable, consistent training guide, by all accounts its very good.

Every test I can find on the web that’s compared Stravas Wattage algorithm to a power meter says its pretty close- if anything slightly pessimistic.

that’s not what i’ve read…

Any links Thomthumb?

http://jim-gourley.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/how-accurate-is-stravas-power.html

Strava Calculated Power vs. Power Meter
We have seen that in most cases our watts number are very close to the numbers provided by a Powertap or SRM. Note that Strava calculated watts are not the watts produced at the crank but the watts produced by the rider-bike system, this will create a slight difference between the powermeter data and the Strava watts. Lack of good chain lubrication and low tire pressure can rob you of the watts you see on your Powertap or SRM. Other reasons watts can be inconsistent include strong winds and bad elevation data reported by the Garmin.

Our calculations are most accurate when climbing given accurate rider and bike weight.

Weight training” by riding a heavier bike is classic. I mean, you couldn’t ride a harder gear on the same light race bike in training to increase the intensity could you?

Not the same thing.

A higher gear will mean higher intesity, more energy at any moment in time (i.e. power/watts) but you will get to the top of the hill quicker so the total amount of energy used will be the same.

A heavier bike (or some weights in you pocket/bag) will mean it takes more power to maintain the same speed and will take more energy to get to the top of the hill.

It is the weight if the bike and rider together that primarily determines whether and how fast a rider might be able to ride up the hill. Compared to the rider the weight of the bike is by far the lesser component so in practice the rider weight will be rather important. Still, technically, the weight mentioned in that all important power to weight ratio is the weight of the bike and rider combined. No one would consider the power to weight ratio of a car to apply only to the motor (think rider), the whole weight of the car must be taken into account for this ratio to be meaningful.In a racing context the fully laden vehicle with driver and fuel load is the relevant weight that needs to be considered. So, it doesn’t matter where the weight comes from it is all weight that the motor has to move along.

Should bike and rider be considered separately, when looking at where weight can be saved? Undoubtedly, because there are different criteria for what constitutes a sensible weight saving. With the bike frame and wheels any weight saving that doesn’t compromise mechanical operation, stiffness (an important performance factor) or strength (an important durability factor) can be considered useful even if not essential. With the rider however, reduction of weight can either lead to a more optimal power to weight ratio or a less optimal one – training to achieve optimal weight and power does not involve becoming emaciated. Good climbers on the whole tend to be light but does their training add bulk to them or take it off? The result of lots of training for riding grand tours is usually a loss of weight that serves no useful purpose to the task at hand but on the other hand riders pursuing this regimen may be somewhat heavier than similarly slim individuals of very similar size who just do an occasional ride without training for grand tours.

Being too obsessed about a small number of grams on the bike doesn’t make a lot of sense for riders who are not similarly ‘high performance’. Being obsessed about weight alone doesn’t make sense at all because performance depends on a lot of other things – function, stiffness, strength, comfort etc.