So I weighed my bike.....

Mike400

As the title - bit crude but weighed myself on the bathroom scales, then done it again holding the bike up and subtracted my weight...

18kg

Now thats with my rack on, panniers on, and tools in one of the pannier pockets....but not with my work clothes / lunch / full water bottle on the bike

Its still a lot isnt it?

has anyone else weighed their bike in "commuter spec"?

bigmat

35lbs - think that is about 16kg. More than double the weight of my road bike! That is without mudguards, rack, panniers etc. The frame must be solid lead.

ketsbaia

No, but I will tonight.

It's no featherweight either.

wgwarburton

Mike400 wrote:

... has anyone else weighed their bike in "commuter spec"?

My winter hack (currently the only commuter, TBH, the summer bike is awaiting a rebuild following hub disintegration and a realistic assessment of the drivetrain) came in at 12.5 Kg, with mudguards but no lights on. It has sturdy, 36-spoke rims and Armadillos, too.
I use a back pack, so no rack/panniers/tools, and no bottle-cage.

It's a fixie, though, so doesn't have shifters, cables, mechs, freewheel/cassette, extra chainrings etc.

Does have both brakes, though... I like brakes.

Cheers,
W.

Mike400

MatHammond wrote:

35lbs - think that is about 16kg. More than double the weight of my road bike! That is without mudguards, rack, panniers etc. The frame must be solid lead.

See my frame is aluminium, but I think what I have built it up with hasnt helped - heavy suntour forks and a disc specific rear rack (its alloy but quite hefty and the panniers arent the lightest)

I guess it all helps with the training though might swap the fork for a rigid one....

Mike400

WGWarburton wrote:

Mike400 wrote:

... has anyone else weighed their bike in "commuter spec"?

My winter hack (currently the only commuter, TBH, the summer bike is awaiting a rebuild following hub disintegration and a realistic assessment of the drivetrain) came in at 12.5 Kg, with mudguards but no lights on. It has sturdy, 36-spoke rims and Armadillos, too.
I use a back pack, so no rack/panniers/tools, and no bottle-cage.

It's a fixie, though, so doesn't have shifters, cables, mechs, freewheel/cassette, extra chainrings etc.

Does have both brakes, though... I like brakes.

Cheers,
W.

A lot of the weight in the wheels then?

and yes brakes are goooood

meanredspider

Would be interesting to know what everyone's all-up weight is - after all, that what's moving. My occasional cycle partner weighs 77kg including his bike. As I weigh 94kg in my birthday suit, he has a bit of an advantage up the hills over me - not to mention the difference in frontal area.

Mike400

meanredspider wrote:

Would be interesting to know what everyone's all-up weight is - after all, that what's moving. My occasional cycle partner weighs 77kg including his bike. As I weigh 94kg in my birthday suit, he has a bit of an advantage up the hills over me - not to mention the difference in frontal area.

Agree, im going to weigh the bike tomorrow morning with all my kit in the panniers, and me with all my kit on and see how bad it is!

gtvlusso

Hmm - although I have put on a stone *ahem* in weight - I really need to lose it!

Fixie 1 weigh's: 6.7kg
Roadie weigh's: 7.5kg

And I weigh....13 stone!

markp2

My Saracen weighs 19kg in commuter trim. The Kinetic One is 7kg. I haven't weighed the Cannondale or Genesis yet but I would expect them to be around 14kg.

wgwarburton

Mike400 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

... It has sturdy, 36-spoke rims and Armadillos, too.
....

...A lot of the weight in the wheels then?

Yeah- I think it's the shells that make 'em heavy.... :-)

OAMSN, the frame isn't anything special. It's an old Dawes road frame, nice enough for commuting use but not exotic. Better than the previous Raleigh Equipe, though- made of old gas pipe that one....

Cheers,
W.

fnegroni

Mike400 wrote:

I guess it all helps with the training

Indeed.

The first ride of the year on my racer. after a winter of commuting on a heavy hybrid weighed down by knobbly tyres (for snow), meant I was able to cover 6 miles at an av. speed of 26 mph on my own... when you fly up a flyover at 30mph (admittedly a short sprint I guess!) it makes you realise what a difference a few kilos on a bike can make!

meanredspider

Yes - train on a heavy bike and race on a light one.

I was getting sucked into buying a lighter MTB - £300 for 400g - then I realised that 400g would be easier to lose off the rider. I read that there's no point in losing weight off the bike unless you can see your abs. So true.

biondino

I am convinced that bike weight makes way more of a difference than rider weight, both in actual terms (e.g heavy wheel is worse than heavy bottom bracket) and, probably more pertinently, in terms of responsiveness and handling (for example, when I stand up to pedal on my carbon roadie, the effort I need to pull up on the bars is way less than that which I need on my steel fixie).

My fixie is about 20lbs (what's all this metric nonsense?), the roadie is about 19lbs, and my old (trek, aluminium) roadie is 24lbs.

rjsterry

Too true, your unlikely to ever be able to lose, say, a couple of stone (nearly 13kg) off the weight of a bike. OTOH a kilo saved is a kilo saved, whether off the rider or steed.

bigmat

Think power to weight - weight lost from the rider can reduce power, weight lost from the bike is just weight lost. There is a massive differencein terms of handliong and overall performance between a 16lb bike and a 35lb bike. I'm 100% certain that if I lost 19lb, the combination of me on the heavier bike would still be slower than me now on the lighter one. Hope that isn't as confusing and garbled as I think it is...

meanredspider

MatHammond wrote:

Think power to weight - weight lost from the rider can reduce power, weight lost from the bike is just weight lost. There is a massive differencein terms of handliong and overall performance between a 16lb bike and a 35lb bike. I'm 100% certain that if I lost 19lb, the combination of me on the heavier bike would still be slower than me now on the lighter one. Hope that isn't as confusing and garbled as I think it is...

If you lost muscle - yes but not if you lose fat - hence the thing about seeing your abs. For sure losing weight off rotating parts is worth more than non-rotating parts. This theory is exactly the same with racing cars. But a pound of fat off your belly or butt is worth the same as a pound off the frame (and much cheaper to achieve).

supersonic

My Zaskar LE with rigids and semi slick tyres on weighs 20 lbs. Pretty swift, and great performing when I go offroad.

Agent57

http://wwwicked.posterous.com/how-heavy

For a chuckle, I just weighed my commuting bike; 33lb (15Kg). Then I weighed the bike plus pannier (with some stuff in it, such as my spare tube and some tools). That came to 41lb (18.6Kg). Finally, I weighed the bike plus pannier and a typical set of clothes (jeans, T-shirt).

43lb (19.5Kg)

\o/

roger_merriman

My big green lump of a bike comes to 50lb so a heavy bike. I'm not that heavy being 12 3/4 stones.

Pass other hybrids etc with ease. The weight does
mean you do notice every rise let alone hill!

wgwarburton

meanredspider wrote:

... a pound of fat off your belly or butt is worth the same as a pound off the frame (and much cheaper to achieve).

I disagree. I don't know what the mechanism is but I'm pretty much convinced that you'll go faster on a lighter bike- There are obviously caveats about the law of diminishing returns and I wouldn't argue that a basic level of fitness may be needed before the difference is apparant, but nonetheless it's definitely worth saving kilograms (if not necessarily grammes) off a bike, even if you are carrying a few yourself.

I've never been able to "see my abs"- I've had a waistline around 33" since I was about 18 or so (with trousers sized for my thighs, I almost always wear a belt) and have always had a layer of fat under my skin (including now, when I'm about as fit as I've ever been, when I was a student and not eating properly and when I'd spent several weeks trekking on a diet of rice & lentils).

I would be inclined to agree that a beer-gut might be a better target for overall weight reduction than an expensive upgrade to save a few grammes, but I would also contend that many a cyclist who's a little overweight would still go faster and have more fun on an 10Kg bike than a 15Kg one.

Cheers,
W.

fnegroni

The weight of a bike is the sum of its parts.
On top of that, there is the quality of the components, such as bearings and cogs, which can make a bike suffer less from friction of moving parts.

There is also an advantage in terms of frame design which ensures a more correct postures, more aerodynamic position and also more efficient pedaling action.

It is also, by coincidence, that a more expensive bike, which would improve on all the above, is also lighter.

On top of that, it really depends where the weight has been shaven off.

On any race bike, the frame is the last of your worries in terms of weight.

What matters most is the wheels.

If you can get better wheels which are lighter, more aerodynamic, and roll better due to better bearings, you have improved the performance of your bike dramatically, given the same components everywhere else.

That's why wheels/tyres are the first upgrade anyone should look into (given everything else is set up correctly and fits correctly, e.g. saddle/handlebar/position)

The Rookie

My commuter with rack (heavy steel thing weights nearly 1Kg) and panniers and essential tools, but not the stuff for work comes in at just over 12Kg, if I shave half the weight of the rack with an ally one that will be 11.5.

16Kg, is the frame filled with lead shot?

Simon

supersonic

On a MTB the weight off the bike is more noticable, especially when you are lifting the bike over obstacles, manualing, jumping etc. It is all to do with how the weight moves and where it is positioned.

Of course losing some lard is a good idea!