Why are bike weights not always shown?

Veronica Bottoms

I'm in the market for my first road bike. At present I've got a cheap second hand mountain bike on it's last legs.

I've decided to go down the road route as I ride mainly on the roads. I was shocked at how light road bikes are. My current bike is 16kg!!

Anyway I've got a few bikes in mind but my question is why do some bike manufacturers hide the weight of their bikes when weight is surely one of the most important factors when deciding on which bike to buy? I know different frame size's weigh different amounts but why don't they just put an average weight for one size? E.g. the new Bianchi bikes.

I can't wait to get rid of the tank and get a road bike, especially when going up those steep hills. I actually get pretty decent speeds on this current bike, so looking forward to going even faster.

Anonymous

Veronica Bottoms wrote:

weight is surely one of the most important factors when deciding on which bike to buy?

It isn't.

Besides, most bikes of a similar price weigh similar amounts.

If you want the lightest for your money get a Boardman or Planet X...

Veronica Bottoms

NapoleonD wrote:

Veronica Bottoms wrote:

weight is surely one of the most important factors when deciding on which bike to buy?

It isn't.

Besides, most bikes of a similar price weigh similar amounts.

If you want the lightest for your money get a Boardman or Planet X...

I suppose coming from a heavy steel mountain bike it's easy to be blinded by the light weight of the majority of decent road bikes.

I just found it odd that some manufacturers advertise the weight in the spec and some don't.

Anyway thanks for the reply.

unixnerd

Do yourself a favour and have a look at a Cannondale CAAD9 aluminium frame with Shimano 105 groupset. You won't find a nicer put together bike and it's really light. But unlike a lot of very light bikes it's comfortable too.

I got an older CAAD5 off ebay for 400 quid, barely used (first owner decided he didn't like cycling after all). Look at the welding on the frame of a Cannondale then look at almost any other bike. You'll soon see what I mean. I thought they were over priced and over rated until I started looking for a new bike myself.

It's not just the weight you save over a mountain bike. The wheels are much lighter so you can accelerate faster too. Easier to overcome the rotational inertia.

Skippy2309

no CAAD9's till august/september I have been asking :evil:

I am going going to be putting down the money for a CAAD9 4 in Red as soon as they appear in the UK.

Fit is more important that weight.

Go to an Evans store and try out as many bikes as you want for a PENNY.... my next saturdays already booked up :P

Veronica Bottoms

unixnerd wrote:

Do yourself a favour and have a look at a Cannondale CAAD9 aluminium frame with Shimano 105 groupset. You won't find a nicer put together bike and it's really light. But unlike a lot of very light bikes it's comfortable too.

I got an older CAAD5 off ebay for 400 quid, barely used (first owner decided he didn't like cycling after all). Look at the welding on the frame of a Cannondale then look at almost any other bike. You'll soon see what I mean. I thought they were over priced and over rated until I started looking for a new bike myself.

It's not just the weight you save over a mountain bike. The wheels are much lighter so you can accelerate faster too. Easier to overcome the rotational inertia.

Thanks, that has given me some food for thought.

I must admit I've been tempted by the Ribble bikes purely for value for money but I'm still keeping my options open. I really need to test ride these bikes before departing with my cash.

neeb

why do some bike manufacturers hide the weight of their bikes when weight is surely one of the most important factors when deciding on which bike to buy?

My guess is it's because they know that a lot of people are always looking for the lightest bike, so unless their product is the absolute lightest compared to the competition, they are potentially going to lose sales by putting up the exact weights.

I agree with you actually, I would like to see precise weights provided for all bikes and components as a matter of course. It's NOT the most important thing (being aero will make you faster) but it is significant, and if you are light and skinny a 15lb bike will ride and climb better than an 18lb bike all other things being equal, and although smaller weight differences are not so significant, the difference between a light bike and a heavy bike is made up of lots of little small weight differences.

pottssteve

Hi,

Weight also varies with components such as drive chain, wheels, pedals etc. so often you can see a weight for a frame but not a complete bike. It is best not to just go by weight though; choose something that is comfortable for you and sturdy if it's got to last you a few years. Ultra-light carbon frames and wheels look nice and ride smoothly but are not cheap to replace. Mind you, as you get fitter you'll want a lighter bike!

Steve

pst88

FYI my Bianchi Via Nirone 7 Xenon 2010 weighs 9.9kg (measured on bathroom scales) including pedals (Look Keo Classic). I'm sure there are lighter bikes around but once you get past a certain point the cost of each weight saving becomes extortionate.

nicklouse

Veronica Bottoms wrote:

I just found it odd that some manufacturers advertise the weight in the spec and some don't.

Anyway thanks for the reply.

for the same reasons that MTB makers dont list weights. How do you measure it?

everyone does it differently to it is meaningless.

Buckled_Rims

It costs (virtually) nothing to lose 4lbs of weight off your body, but thousands of £ to lose 4lb off the weight of a bike!

I'm going to buy a new bike next year, use my old bike for a winter hack/tourer. I like the idea of either a Boardman or the CAAD9 (105). The big question is shall I go carbon or stick with Alu? A good compact 50/34+12/27 drive is more important then weight to me. No matter how light a bike is, if you ain't got good gearing you're stuffed unless you're superfit.

neeb

for the same reasons that MTB makers dont list weights. How do you measure it?

everyone does it differently to it is meaningless.

Weight is weight (at least on this planet) and is easy enough to measure. The only stumbling blocks are specifying exactly what is being weighed (size of frame, with or without fork, headset etc, wheels with or without quick releases etc) and accuracy, e.g. to the nearest kg, nearest gram, or whatever. Variation due to manufacturing can be expressed as an error margin, i.e. +/- x.

I would actually like to see regulations to force manufacturers to publish accurate weights of all components. It's not difficult, and it's something most customers would find very useful.

Lillywhite

Buckled_Rims wrote:

It costs (virtually) nothing to lose 4lbs of weight off your body, but thousands of £ to lose 4lb off the weight of a bike!

I agree. It blows my mind when I see on the weight weenies forum just how much some cyclists are prepared to pay just to shave a few grams off the weight of their bike. :shock:

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/

Paul E

Thats why I am not fussed about heavy tyres for commuting, as far as I am concerned I am getting fitter as a result and no bloody P thingys

Barteos

neeb wrote:

I would actually like to see regulations to force manufacturers to publish accurate weights of all components. It's not difficult, and it's something most customers would find very useful.

Most of consumers don't spend countless hours on forums crunching numbers and they would find extra info about the weight either confusing or irrelevant. They simply go to the shop, choose the bike that suits them and .... ride it.

The manufacturers on the other hand, have probably enough red tape to deal with, so they don't need another piece of stupid regulations just because a handful of people are anxious about the weight of a rim tape or a steerer plug.

Veronica Bottoms

neeb wrote:

My guess is it's because they know that a lot of people are always looking for the lightest bike, so unless their product is the absolute lightest compared to the competition, they are potentially going to lose sales by putting up the exact weights.

This is what I was thinking. We live in a consumer world where minor things like that could potentially have a huge impact on resulting sales.

I agree now that's not the most important factor but it would be interesting to know nonetheless.

pottssteve wrote:

Hi,
Weight also varies with components such as drive chain, wheels, pedals etc. so often you can see a weight for a frame but not a complete bike.

Makes sense, manufacturers bending spec for their best interests isn't anything new.

Buckled_Rims wrote:

It costs (virtually) nothing to lose 4lbs of weight off your body, but thousands of £ to lose 4lb off the weight of a bike!

Haha good point.

Buckled_Rims wrote:

A good compact 50/34+12/27 drive is more important then weight to me. No matter how light a bike is, if you ain't got good gearing you're stuffed unless you're superfit.

As we speak I'm currently reading into this. I'm slowly learning all the jargon