I am in the process of making my bike lighter, I am only a bit conflicted about the chain guard, I want to keep the chain protected from dirt/rain and such, and be juuust sturdy enough to not be able to change the chain on accidental impact (if it were to happen by my foot I mean). Should I just get a chain glider or maybe something like this?
A chain guard like your pic is always nice to stop your leg from getting blackened by oil. Not sure how sturdy it is unless it's metal, I wouldn't be surprised if plastic ones are out there.
I should get me one...
If the bicycle has a chain guard then light weight isn't part of the game. Avoid the rabbit hole and just ride the thing.
>>1996620these things weight 600 grams on average, you can feel the difference in weight
>>1996622you could also tell the difference if you lost 600 grams.anyway since you baited me in replying to this useless thread, the only real solution is the chainring guard to protect your trousers and the crankset teeth. You don't need all that thing unless you're a fag belter. Your chain ( and crankset) is guaranteed to be more dirty and difficult to clean and inspect with a full guard. Just to be clear, keeping the chain clean and avoiding "chain change" (???!?) are not reasons to get a full on condom like that.
>>1996622Yeah but your bike probably still weighs >15kg It's only a 4% reduction
>>1996605>I am in the process of making my bike lighterWhy? This is not a race!
>>1996635>>1996631It feels nicer if it's lighter
>>1996641Ok lance armstrong
>>1996642what's your problem?
you really needed a whole thread for this?>>1994513kys faggot
>>1996605Do it but as other anons have said. It's not worth it. If you really want to get into the whole "light bike" game. Then get something else like a road bike or gravel bike. Otherwise you are going to end up doing a bunch of modifications to a heavy bike.
>>1996605Make your own carbon fiber chain guard.
>>1996654It's not that heavy to begin with>>1996647>i hate discussion and a am huge retarded fagootgood for you now fuck off
I'm gonna let you in on some 00s ghetto tech. Be careful with this knowledgehttps://www.bikeforums.net/general-cycling-discussion/1031065-slit-corrugated-tubing-chain-cover-guide.html
>>1996605>, I want to keep the chain protected from dirt/rain and such, and be juuust sturdy enough to not be able to change the chain on accidental impactThe only way to keep a chain clean is longboard sks fenders, which are heavy.If you want a clean chain, there is no other option
>>1998100>>1996609>>1996627What I mean is protected from rusting and or degrading and atleast have a top so you won't get your clothes or your shoes against it
>>1996641This guy is sort of right. People will always argue that theoretically, when calculating power or effort needed to go a certain speed or distance, especially on the flat, there is hardly any difference in putting 10 lg on the rack. This is true.But it is also equally true that the 'feel' of the bike changes considerably and a lightweight bike can be a very enjoyable ride. Menwhile the daily commuter just gets you places, similarly fast but in a less exciting manner.Now the problem is: There is no changes you can make to your commuter that will make it handle. To begin with: The geometry is wrong and wont change. Secondly: No matter what you do to it, it will never be light. Go single speed, put a carbon for and bars on etc. and all you'll do is ruin a perfectly fine bike. It's a purpose built machine and compromises have been made in its design. Those are intrinsic and will remain. If you want a light randonneur better sell what you have and get one.
>>1998160Maybe, but besides lightness. I also just want something that looks better because the one thats on my bike looks ugly
>>1996631>your bike probably still weighs >15kgPlus the 5kg of an ultra-secure lock and chain you have to keep your expensive minimal grams racing bike secure.
>>1996740kys faggot
>>1998216Actually my shit bike weighs 10kg and I live in a civilised country
>>1998160yes and like most negative attributes of bicycles, heaviness is more importantly a signifier of overall low quality
>>1998228Usually yes but if you've rode a high quality bike with heavy mass in mind (like a chadcruiser) the extra mass is a feature, not a bug. Why? Aside from helping you achieve extra gainz, the extra mass holds more momentum and inertia, that means once the bike is at speed, it maintains cruising speed easier.
>>1998228This is incorrect. Maybe increased mass for a given type of bicycle of a given robustness is a signifier of reduced quality. But you can not compare a flimsy road bike that more often than not doesn't survive a crash to a touring bike designed to be loaded up and take all sorts of rough handling.
Frame weight doesn't matter, wheel weight does
>>1998224no you
>>1998099Pretty cool desu
>>1998099the sound would drive me insane
>>1999107It travels with the chain
Pay attention to where the filth gets on your chain, probably around the tire. Then come up with some sort of marsh guard device to cover it just in that small area. You might need something on the front of your chainring to catch what's coming of the front wheel as much as the back.
