What does a bit of extra weight on an ebike actually do?

Nev

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 1, 2018
1,507
2,520
North Wales
The RM supercharger is a lovely bike I must admit. If my logic is sound from my previous post regarding the CX motor doing 3/4 of the work and you doing 1/4 when your going up hill and your using the turbo or emtb settings. Then although there is a 9kg increase in weight between your current bike and this potential new one. It should feel as though its less than 3 bags of sugar heavier when going up hill (2.75 kg I think), due to the contribution made by the motor.

It should be the same when you start off, if you use the higher modes just to pick up speed then switch down to tour or eco if the terrain allows. If you start off in eco then you probably will notice the difference in weight.
 

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
With regard to SW's suggestion of carying 9 kg in a rucksack.. i have tried that and it doesn't work. I have had the 4kg milk purchase in a rucksack and it felt much heavier than when in the panniers.
You don't need to look very hard for your extra dead weight:

- hub gears, the Rohloff is pretty efficient when climbing steep gradients, you won't need to care which gear you are in when you stop because you can change down when you want, weighs a ton, requires stronger rims and tyres
- double battery, a certain percentage of which will be eaten up by you being in a higher assistance level than you would need with a lighter bike so you are not going to double your range

Basically you are buying an under 25 kg bike with 6+ kg of extra weight in the above.

It won't be as easy to flick about in tight spots and you certainly won't be lifting it over styles alone! But it will feel good and solid underneath you and downhill like a train.
 

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
Brakes are for snowflakes! :D
 
  • Agree
  • :D
Reactions: chris_n and flecc

kangooroo

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 24, 2015
273
186
Wye Valley
Unscientifically..... at 52kg vs my 90kg husband, I can obtain an easy extra 8 miles from the same bike on the same route in the same conditions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chris_n and flecc

Nealh

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 7, 2014
20,984
8,569
61
West Sx RH
More weight means more effort to move the extra mass, unless you are going to put in the extra effort/watts then the battery will need to supply the extra.
 

warmrain

Pedelecer
Oct 26, 2016
25
4
Lincolnshire
I weight 81kg and my bike around 22kg which is approximately 103kg in total. Today I bought 4 litres of milk (4kg) and put it all in one pannier which should be really noticeable with all the extra weight on one side but once moving I didn't notice much difference. It didn't seem to need more effort from me going uphill, accelerated away from junctions as is usual and I was still able to ride just over the cutoff on the flat. At 81kg I am not exactly a lightweight but many weigh more which begs the question. Leaving aside the new carbon ultralight bikes that few are likely to buy then the there is 4 to 5kg difference in light/heavy ebikes. So does this 4 or 5 extra kilos in e-bike weight actually make that much difference?
This question can be answered with some basic physics.

There are two situations - (1) travelling on the flat; and (2) going up any kind of slope however slight.

Calculate/convert everything to JOULES (a measure of total energy) and WATTS (a measure of how much energy - joules - is being consumed or needs to be supplied per second).

(1) On the flat, each time you accelerate from zero or increase your speed you have to add Kinetic energy. Thereafter, some energy is required to overcome the rolling resistance of your bike/tyres and wind resistance but these are relatively smaller compared to the change in Kinetic energy. Unfortunately when you slow down, 99% of the kinetic energy is wasted/lost by conversion to heat in your brake linings. 1% may be 'recovered/usefully used' for overcoming air & tyre resistance during the de-acceleration period.

(2) Going up a hill/slope, you need to supply enough enough energy equal to your increase in Potential Energy relative to your starting height on the earth's surface. Unfortunately, when you go downhill, even if you freewheel rather than brake intermittently, you are still unlikely to convert more than a small proportion (<50%) of your accumulated Potential energy to Kinetic energy because of increased wind resistance etc during the speedy descent.

So, to actual numbers.

(1) Situation on the flat and level.
Kinetic Energy (in Joules) = mass (kg) x speed (metres/sec).
15mph = 6.7 metres/sec.
An 80kg man with 20kg bike accelerating from zero up to 15mph would need to supply 670 joules (100x6.7) each time.
Adding 5kg of milk, you would need 703.5 joules each time -- an increase of 5% in energy. Remember, everytime you slow down again, all that is lost.

With a 31kg bike and 5kg milk, the energy needed is 777.2 joules -- an increase of 16%.

https://www.chem.wisc.edu/deptfiles/genchem/netorial/modules/thermodynamics/energy/energy2.htm

(2) Going up a hill.
Potential Energy = mxgxh (where m=mass in kg, g=gravitational acceleration, h=height in metres).
g=9.8 m/sec/sec.
An 80kg man with 20kg bike going up a 1:10 hill at 5mph ascends approx 0.22 metres/sec (simple trig.) -- therefore energy needed is 215.6 joules per second (100x9.8x0.22).
1 joule/sec = 1 watt.
An averagely fit adult can sustain about 50 - 150 watts of work consistently, so you can see that to produce over 200 watts to go up a gentle hill is quite an effort. If the total weight is increased to 116kg (80+31+5), you need to sustain 250 watts -- another increase of 16%, but much more effort over accelerating on the level where one might normally take, say, 5 sec to get up to 15mph and requiring only 140 watts (703 / 5) during that 5 second period.

Going uphill requires almost 80% more effort (250 / 140) - whether supplied by man or man plus battery/motor - than
speeding up and slowing down on the level; ... and for a relatively gentle hill at that.

(3) As regards battery range.
The average 'standard original battery' is of about 300 Wh capacity.
1 Wh = 3600 joules. So 1,080,000 joules. But conversion inefficiency through the motor may optimistically only deliver no more than 75% of this -- so 810,000 joules available.
Potential energy required for lifting 100kg up a 50m hill is 49,000 joules.
Empirical estimates of energy consumption for air resistance etc at 15mph constant sped on the level is about 100-120 Watts -- ie. 120 joules/sec -- or about 432,000 joules per hour, not including de-accelerations/re-accelerations.

Depending on how much is supplied by you and how much is set to be supplied by your bike motor (50%?) -- one can work out how long/far you can theoretically go.

In practice, your own bodyweight has by far the most effect proportionately in most situations, but especially in hilly areas!

WR
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjahmin

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
This question can be answered with some basic physics.

There are two situations - (1) travelling on the flat; and (2) going up any kind of slope however slight.

Calculate/convert everything to JOULES (a measure of total energy) and WATTS (a measure of how much energy - joules - is being consumed or needs to be supplied per second).

(1) On the flat, each time you accelerate from zero or increase your speed you have to add Kinetic energy. Thereafter, some energy is required to overcome the rolling resistance of your bike/tyres and wind resistance but these are relatively smaller compared to the change in Kinetic energy. Unfortunately when you slow down, 99% of the kinetic energy is wasted/lost by conversion to heat in your brake linings. 1% may be 'recovered/usefully used' for overcoming air & tyre resistance during the de-acceleration period.

(2) Going up a hill/slope, you need to supply enough enough energy equal to your increase in Potential Energy relative to your starting height on the earth's surface. Unfortunately, when you go downhill, even if you freewheel rather than brake intermittently, you are still unlikely to convert more than a small proportion (<50%) of your accumulated Potential energy to Kinetic energy because of increased wind resistance etc during the speedy descent.

So, to actual numbers.

(1) Situation on the flat and level.
Kinetic Energy (in Joules) = mass (kg) x speed (metres/sec).
15mph = 6.7 metres/sec.
An 80kg man with 20kg bike accelerating from zero up to 15mph would need to supply 670 joules (100x6.7) each time.
Adding 5kg of milk, you would need 703.5 joules each time -- an increase of 5% in energy. Remember, everytime you slow down again, all that is lost.

With a 31kg bike and 5kg milk, the energy needed is 777.2 joules -- an increase of 16%.

https://www.chem.wisc.edu/deptfiles/genchem/netorial/modules/thermodynamics/energy/energy2.htm

(2) Going up a hill.
Potential Energy = mxgxh (where m=mass in kg, g=gravitational acceleration, h=height in metres).
g=9.8 m/sec/sec.
An 80kg man with 20kg bike going up a 1:10 hill at 5mph ascends approx 0.22 metres/sec (simple trig.) -- therefore energy needed is 215.6 joules per second (100x9.8x0.22).
1 joule/sec = 1 watt.
An averagely fit adult can sustain about 50 - 150 watts of work consistently, so you can see that to produce over 200 watts to go up a gentle hill is quite an effort. If the total weight is increased to 116kg (80+31+5), you need to sustain 250 watts -- another increase of 16%, but much more effort over accelerating on the level where one might normally take, say, 5 sec to get up to 15mph and requiring only 140 watts (703 / 5) during that 5 second period.

Going uphill requires almost 80% more effort (250 / 140) - whether supplied by man or man plus battery/motor - than
speeding up and slowing down on the level; ... and for a relatively gentle hill at that.

(3) As regards battery range.
The average 'standard original battery' is of about 300 Wh capacity.
1 Wh = 3600 joules. So 1,080,000 joules. But conversion inefficiency through the motor may optimistically only deliver no more than 75% of this -- so 810,000 joules available.
Potential energy required for lifting 100kg up a 50m hill is 49,000 joules.
Empirical estimates of energy consumption for air resistance etc at 15mph constant sped on the level is about 100-120 Watts -- ie. 120 joules/sec -- or about 432,000 joules per hour, not including de-accelerations/re-accelerations.

Depending on how much is supplied by you and how much is set to be supplied by your bike motor (50%?) -- one can work out how long/far you can theoretically go.

In practice, your own bodyweight has by far the most effect proportionately in most situations, but especially in hilly areas!

WR
There is a nice calculator for all that with a graph, I will post the link from my computer when I get home.
 

Nev

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 1, 2018
1,507
2,520
North Wales
(1) Situation on the flat and level.
Kinetic Energy (in Joules) = mass (kg) x speed (metres/sec).
15mph = 6.7 metres/sec.
An 80kg man with 20kg bike accelerating from zero up to 15mph would need to supply 670 joules (100x6.7) each time.
Thanks for putting so much work into this reply. I quite like posts like this, it forces me to get the old brain working a bit. Now I am not that good at physics (forgotten most of it), so I thought I would check through some of your calculations to see how I get on. Unfortunately I hit a problem straight away so I wonder if you can help me out.

I found the following equation for Kinetic energy.

Kinetic Energy (Joules) = 1/2 x mass x speed squared

This is slightly different to your equation and gives a totally different answer.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x 100 x 6.7 squared
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x 100 x 44.89
Kinetic Energy = 2244.5 joules

This is more than three times bigger than your answer. I don't know who is correct, you or me, but can you or anyone else take a look at these numbers and let me know if I have made a mistake.
 

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
https://www.gribble.org/cycling/power_v_speed.html

The calculator I promised.

Frontal area is typically measured in metres squared. A typical cyclist presents a frontal area of 0.3 to 0.6 metres squared depending on position. Frontal areas of an average cyclist riding in different positions are as follows

Tops* 0.632
Hoods* 0.40
Drops* 0.32
 
  • Informative
Reactions: flecc

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
20,456
16,919
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
This question can be answered with some basic physics.
In addition to kinetic and potential energy, the main reason to spend such a large amount on weight reduction is the moment of inertia that affects wheels, cranks, fork and chain. Moment of inertia reduces acceleration in the same way that your weight does.
My Karoo illustrates the cheapest way to reduce rotational weight: 700C skinny tyres, GXP crankset, rigid fork, lightweight pedals.

Typically, 100g on your cranks feels like 2kgs in your panniers.
people spend about £300-£500 per kg in weight reduction for that reason.

Sub £500 MTB: 14-15kgs
£750 MTB: 13-14kgs
£1000 MTB: 12.5-13kgs

It's even more diminishing return after that, it's not uncommon that some people pay £1 for a gram of weight reduction.

 
Last edited:

Benjahmin

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 10, 2014
2,596
1,751
70
West Wales
WOW !
Love all this stuff, in common with many, have forgotton most of my grammar school physics 'cos it was never put in context at the time. Wish my teachers had taken us outside (most of us were cycling to school) and done this - it might have stuck.

Thing is though, I use a parallel battery (extra 3ish Kg), live in a hilly area and get no extra power from the set up and am using the same 2/5 power setting. Can't say that I am aware of the extra effort I am putting in. I can see why weight is a big issue for sports cyclists, but when your battery gives you more range than your bum can take, I'm not sure it's an issue :eek:;)
 

Nev

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 1, 2018
1,507
2,520
North Wales
I've been playing around with that excellent calculator anotherkiwi provided in this thread and put in some of the numbers Gubbins gave here are the results.

This first set is Gubbins who weighs 81 kg travelling on the flat at 25 km/h on a 22 kg bike and then a 31 kg bike.

22 kg bike power required is approx. 120 Watts
31 kg bike power required is approx. 124 Watts.

This ties in with what flecc said ie that there would not be much difference on the flat.

The second set is Gubbins on the same two bikes but this time going up a 10% gradient at a speed of 15 km/h.

22 kg bike power required is approx. 471 Watts
31 kg bike power required is approx. 511 Watts

So we now need around an extra 8.5% increase in power to cope with the extra weight. As mentioned previously though, the CX motor can if we select the appropriate mode provide 3/4 of this extra power. Leaving us to provide an extra 2% or so.

My conclusion is that Gubbins would not find the new bike much more difficult to get around on, and would probably soon get used to the extra weight.
 

Gubbins

Esteemed Pedelecer
I've been playing around with that excellent calculator anotherkiwi provided in this thread and put in some of the numbers Gubbins gave here are the results.

This first set is Gubbins who weighs 81 kg travelling on the flat at 25 km/h on a 22 kg bike and then a 31 kg bike.

22 kg bike power required is approx. 120 Watts
31 kg bike power required is approx. 124 Watts.

This ties in with what flecc said ie that there would not be much difference on the flat.

The second set is Gubbins on the same two bikes but this time going up a 10% gradient at a speed of 15 km/h.

22 kg bike power required is approx. 471 Watts
31 kg bike power required is approx. 511 Watts

So we now need around an extra 8.5% increase in power to cope with the extra weight. As mentioned previously though, the CX motor can if we select the appropriate mode provide 3/4 of this extra power. Leaving us to provide an extra 2% or so.

My conclusion is that Gubbins would not find the new bike much more difficult to get around on, and would probably soon get used to the extra weight.
I am not one for numbers and fancy calculations that describe real events but this makes a bit more sense of it.
And the 31kg was the weight including two batteries when for the most part only one will be needed so all in all My preferred "My next bike" is still on the table.