Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well I just dropped 400g off my wheels by changing tires. I was on 2.3 Conti Vertical Pro front and Michelin Hot S both UST and changed to UST Conti. Explorer 2.1's. I noticed a HUGE difference in speed, but I wasn't sure whether it was from the weight savings in the wheels or from less resistance.

Thus, I have been wondering...

Does losing rotational weight make a bigger difference than say frame weight? What all parts are considered "rotational weight"? Is it the wheel setup or everything that rotates on a bike (chain, crack, pedals, cassette)?

Thanks, CK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
916 Posts
cavitykilla said:
Well I just dropped 400g off my wheels by changing tires. I was on 2.3 Conti Vertical Pro front and Michelin Hot S both UST and changed to UST Conti. Explorer 2.1's. I noticed a HUGE difference in speed, but I wasn't sure whether it was from the weight savings in the wheels or from less resistance.

Thus, I have been wondering...

Does losing rotational weight make a bigger difference than say frame weight? What all parts are considered "rotational weight"? Is it the wheel setup or everything that rotates on a bike (chain, crack, pedals, cassette)?

Thanks, CK
1lbs less rotational weight make more difference then 1lbs on a frame
 

·
ballbuster
Joined
·
12,718 Posts
Both

cavitykilla said:
Well I just dropped 400g off my wheels by changing tires. I was on 2.3 Conti Vertical Pro front and Michelin Hot S both UST and changed to UST Conti. Explorer 2.1's. I noticed a HUGE difference in speed, but I wasn't sure whether it was from the weight savings in the wheels or from less resistance.

Thus, I have been wondering...

Does losing rotational weight make a bigger difference than say frame weight? What all parts are considered "rotational weight"? Is it the wheel setup or everything that rotates on a bike (chain, crack, pedals, cassette)?

Thanks, CK
Loosing rotational weight makes more difference than loosing static weight, but your 2.1 tires prolly use less energy to roll down the trail than the 2.3s. That probably made a bigger difference.

When I switched from Mythos XCs (2.1s) to Pythons (2.0s, and a faster tread pattern) I was doing my regular climbs one or two gears taller.... and a whole lot faster. The Pythons (Gold Elites at first, not significantly lighter than the Mythos) really rolled that much better. Kenda Karmas are my other favorites. They stick in the turns a bit better than Pythons, but roll almost as fast. I usually race on a Python Airlite in back and a Kenda Karma up front unless the trail is muddy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
I've always found that loosing rotational weight had more of an impact than loosing static weight too.

The parts that make up rotational "weight" are all the parts that are rotating about a fixed axis. I use weight in quotes because it is actually rotational intertia that you are trying to over come. And inertia is also a function of the distance from the axis or axel in the case of wheels. This is why lossing, say, 100g from the rims would seem to have a much larger effect than loosing 100g from brake rotors or a hub for that matter. (not to say a lighter rotor or hub wouldn't make any difference ;) ) The chain only constitues as rotational "weight" when it is on the chainrings or cogs, neither of which contribute much since their distance from the axis is small. Even your feet are rotating weight but i wouldn't recommend "lightening" them up :)
But enough physics.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top