Bike Weight

LeicesterLad

Right then, this might be a dumb question.

Obviously you can tell the difference between riding a 12kg bike and a 8kg bike up a big hill, but:

Imagine the same 5km 7% climb. Ridden on two bikes with exactly the same spec BUT one weighs 9kg, the other weight 8.2kg. Can you tell the difference?

Answers on a postcard.

ice climber

No.

Wirral_paul

You'll get to the top a few seconds earlier on the lighter bike. Now in any good experiment you have to repeat several times to verify the result and you wont repeat it given all the variables...........

But in reality there will be a very marginal difference with the lighter bike taking SLIGHTLY less energy to climb the hill on - and some might say otherwise, but basic physics proves they are wrong. Marginal gains but still gains all the same.

LeicesterLad

Wirral_Paul wrote:

You'll get to the top a few seconds earlier on the lighter bike. Now in any good experiment you have to repeat several times to verify the result and you wont repeat it given all the variables...........

But in reality there will be a very marginal difference with the lighter bike taking SLIGHTLY less energy to climb the hill on - and some might say otherwise, but basic physics proves they are wrong. Marginal gains but still gains all the same.

Thanks chap.

I only ask because I'm in the market for a new bike around the £1000 mark and for no conceivable reason I've suddenly become obsessed over a few hundred grams here and there. If somebody drums it home that there are likely to be very, very little noticeable differences then It might make my choice easier.

BUT, having said all this, why does the average road bike user (not racer, I'm talking weekend rider, commuter, the odd sportive) strive to pay out £2000 on a bike, when for a few hundred grams more of weight they need only spend £1000. Unless extremely fit and racing then surely it makes little sense?

pablo872

I went from £1000 ish c2w bike and now have spent a fair bit more circa £2500. Placebo effect aside they seem to be many improvements I feel I noticed from, less vibration, comfort, stiffness not to mention in theory better quality parts all round, with no hidden cheap bits

However I do believe their is a price point to which the gains are marginal and perhaps immaterial depending on level and ability.

But what you can afford and what you like the look of. nothing worse than buying a bike that has a colour scheme you dont like etc...as youll truely never like it!

Wirral_paul

Well regardless of the weight, you will be fastest on the bike you are most comfortable on and fits you the best - as this makes a bigger difference then a few hundred grams.

There's a lot more to a £2000 bike over a £1000 bike than just less weight. I'm actually looking at a new bike that will be closer to £8k and it wont be any lighter than my current bike (worth about £3k)

smidsy

LeicesterLad wrote:

BUT, having said all this, why does the average road bike user (not racer, I'm talking weekend rider, commuter, the odd sportive) strive to pay out £2000 on a bike, when for a few hundred grams more of weight they need only spend £1000. Unless extremely fit and racing then surely it makes little sense?

Same reason they buy Mavic Cosmic , Shimano C50, Fulcrum Racing, Zipp firecrest etc. etc. They like the look of it and the media tell them that it has to be done. And they can turn up in the pub car park wearing their Assos head to toe with pride. :P

Mikey41

LeicesterLad wrote:

I only ask because I'm in the market for a new bike around the £1000 mark and for no conceivable reason I've suddenly become obsessed over a few hundred grams here and there. If somebody drums it home that there are likely to be very, very little noticeable differences then It might make my choice easier.

BUT, having said all this, why does the average road bike user (not racer, I'm talking weekend rider, commuter, the odd sportive) strive to pay out £2000 on a bike, when for a few hundred grams more of weight they need only spend £1000. Unless extremely fit and racing then surely it makes little sense?

A normal weekend rider will never notice that small a weight difference. The difference it would make to the likes of us is tiny.

Depends where the weight is lost from though. Lighter wheels will be noticeable, a lighter frame alone will not be IMO. The lighter bikes frame may handle or ride better / more comfortably etc..

People spend £2k cos they've got it and want to spend it on a shiny new toy. They want to get the best they can afford, and there's nothing wrong with that as such. Why do people buy Audis when a Skoda does the same job?

Seems to me that once you look above the £2k point you are into diminishing returns and it gets very silly very quickly. I chose the bike I did as it was relatively cheap and so I would not have lost loads if it turned out badly. It's turned out well, and I'm looking to get a new bike this year. Since I'm rather poorer, my sights are set somewhat lower than £2k.

LeicesterLad

Wirral_Paul wrote:

Well regardless of the weight, you will be fastest on the bike you are most comfortable on and fits you the best - as this makes a bigger difference then a few hundred grams.

There's a lot more to a £2000 bike over a £1000 bike than just less weight. I'm actually looking at a new bike that will be closer to £8k and it wont be any lighter than my current bike (worth about £3k)

Obviously I understand this, it's all personal choice and of course more money means better components etc. But a lot of £1000 upto £2000 have little in the way of component variation and some of the higher priced ones are based so purely on the brand name. Like you say though, style, looks and personal choice are just as important. BUT what if you had two bikes with identical components, one weighed 8.5kg and the other weighed 8.3kg, which one would you choose! OK, i'll stop now.

Wirral_paul

LeicesterLad wrote:

BUT what if you had two bikes with identical components, one weighed 8.5kg and the other weighed 8.3kg, which one would you choose! OK, i'll stop now.

I'd ride both and go with the one that felt the best to me - irrespective of which was the lightest

smidsy

The one with Pinarello on it obviously :-)

LeicesterLad

smidsy wrote:

The one with Pinarello on it obviously :-)

Suit yourself

smidsy

Wow, now with added Charisma :-)

zardoz

A red one will go up hills faster regardless of weight.

LeicesterLad

zardoz wrote:

A red one will go up hills faster regardless of weight.

I really dislike red bikes. Tend to look very cheap and nasty. (especially the Allez)

t4tomo

always bear in mind a litre of water will weigh 1kg and your own weight will fluxuate with your morning ablutions.
Worrying over a fraction of a kilo is a daft game, but there is still a website dedicated to it!

keef66

I just got one of the cheap CR1-SL frames from Westbrooks and transferred all the kit from my alloy framed bike (apart from the Brooks saddle; just couldn't do it) . My guess is it's about a kilo lighter as a result. It feels lighter going uphill, but I'm not really going any faster. It's a lot more comfortable though.

So I think it was worth the £500. Not sure I could ever bring myself to spend £2k on a bike though, especially since £2k bikes often come with fairly meh wheels.