8kg - thoughts

DavidJB

My race bike is 6.7KG with pedals! Tubs save lots of weight

I reckon I could save another couple of hundred grams with ultra light bottle cages, lighter quick releases and carbon bars...Unfortunately being a bike used for racing and already writing off a set of £250 carbon bars in a crash last season I'll stick to aluminium bars...oh yeah and I like my bottles to stay in my cages when hitting potholes at race pace..

ai_1

Rolf F wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Sure theres often more potential to lose weight from the rider than the bike but that doesn't mean you have to chose. Why not use a lighter bike anyway? They're not mutually exclusive. You can have both. Your arguments just don't make sense!

To be fair, his sentences don't make sense so you can hardly expect much from his arguments!

True, I was kinda stating the obvious huh?!

downhill paul wrote:

you can only go so light as far as a bike is concerned, with your body you can lose much weight as you can be bothered to.

Have you considered checking over your logic before posting? It might save you some embarrassment.

I just bought a Canyon CF SL 9.0 which weighs somewhere around 7.2kg (including the pedals )
To think I could have just eaten less. To make it even worse there's only a few hills with gradients over 10% that I climb regularly. Several of my routes include long 5%-8% hills where I'll get no benefit whatsoever. Imagine how I must feel now that you've pointed out my mistake!

slowbike

downhill paul wrote:

What is the obsession with lightweight bikes?
unless you are seriously competing in races then carbon is pointless.
bike weight also makes no difference unless you are on a hill that is 10% or more.
bike fit and rider weight are more important.

Last sentence right, penultimate almost right - it does make a difference, but usually not significant. The first statement is wrong IMHO.

I noticed it last night - there's a section of my journey home where the road is just blummin awful. It's very rough - not currently breaking up though so it's always in the same state. Anyway, it usually throws me around and is just horrible to ride - yesterday I had my full carbon frame, seatpost & handlebars bike (it was a nice day - got to make the most!) and that horrible section wasn't half as bad as when I ride it on my Alloy bikes - even though they have carbon forks.
As I use the same tyres & pressures on all my bikes then it's not that. It could be in part down to the wheels - but they're all alloy hoops and one of the alloy bikes has wheels with the same spoke count - so unlikely to be all that.

ai_1

Slowbike wrote:

....As I use the same tyres & pressures on all my bikes then it's not that. It could be in part down to the wheels - but they're all alloy hoops and one of the alloy bikes has wheels with the same spoke count - so unlikely to be all that.

Wheels may flex a bit laterally but I think vertical flex is pretty negligible on virtually all wheels so you can probably rule that out as a significant difference regardless of the rim and spokes.
I think in order of most to least importance for comfort on rough or bumpy roads the contributing factors, in theory, should be:

1. Tyres - tyre size and type, tube type and pressure

then at the back:
2. Saddle
3. Seatpost
4. Frame
5. Wheels

and at the front:
2. Fork
3. Tape
4. Bars
5. Wheels

OP - If the above is roughly correct and tyres are the most influential contributors to comfort then buying a Roubaix frame and putting on Gatorskins seems a little inconsistent to me. I think 25mm Conti GP 4 Seasons or Michelin Pro 4 Endurance would be better options if you want a combination of comfort, grip and durability. They'll cost a little more but why spend ~2k on a bike that prioritises comfort and then sacrifice comfort for a (relatively) small saving on tyres. There's good deals on some of these outgoing tyres at the moment due to new versions coming on the market.

drlodge

Lower bike weight is a good thing, but not because of the reduced weight per se. All things being equal, a lighter *frame* will have thinner walls and hence be more resilient and giver a nicer ride. Other than that, its just weight. My 2 large bidons add 2kg, which is the difference between my bike's current weight and a jaw dropping 6kg bike.

Or put it another way, losing 850g amounts to 1% of the overall weight of me+bike. Hardly significant.

itsnotarace

drlodge wrote:

All things being equal, a lighter *frame* will have thinner walls and hence be more resilient and giver a nicer ride.

u wot m9?

DiscoBoy

downhill paul wrote:

Miles253 wrote:

downhill paul wrote:

What is the obsession with lightweight bikes?
unless you are seriously competing in races then carbon is pointless.
bike weight also makes no difference unless you are on a hill that is 10% or more.
bike fit and rider weight are more important.

Bike fit and weight are important, but there are lots of other factors to consider. Carbon offers comfort, aesthetics and weight gains, some people like a light bike to beat strava times, if they enjoy it so what?

I understand that some people like a light bike, but rider weight is far more important.
my specialized allez sport with mavic aksium race wheels weighs 10kg exactly, with pedals and bottle cages.
if I were to buy a bike right on the UCI weight limit of 6.2kg, it would weigh 3.8kg or 0.59 stone. such a bike would probably cost 10 times what my bike cost. or I could save the money and ride a bit harder to lose half a stone or more from my body weight. I currently weight just over 14 stone, so buying a bike that weighs just over half a stone less than a bike such as the one I currently own is pointless. if I weighed less then a bike lighter than my current bike would make a difference to my speed on flat roads and on climbs.
I have seen guys my size and bigger on really light bikes, personally I don't see the point of riding a carbon bike when you are over a certain weight. losing weight from your body would be far more beneficial and cheaper than buying a lighter bike. you can only go so light as far as a bike is concerned, with your body you can lose much weight as you can be bothered to.

A fat*, poor* person who has something against light, expensive bikes. Who'd have thought?

*in cyclist terms
*not necessarily

slowbike

DiscoBoy wrote:

downhill paul wrote:

Miles253 wrote:

downhill paul wrote:

What is the obsession with lightweight bikes?
unless you are seriously competing in races then carbon is pointless.
bike weight also makes no difference unless you are on a hill that is 10% or more.
bike fit and rider weight are more important.

Bike fit and weight are important, but there are lots of other factors to consider. Carbon offers comfort, aesthetics and weight gains, some people like a light bike to beat strava times, if they enjoy it so what?

I understand that some people like a light bike, but rider weight is far more important.
my specialized allez sport with mavic aksium race wheels weighs 10kg exactly, with pedals and bottle cages.
if I were to buy a bike right on the UCI weight limit of 6.2kg, it would weigh 3.8kg or 0.59 stone. such a bike would probably cost 10 times what my bike cost. or I could save the money and ride a bit harder to lose half a stone or more from my body weight. I currently weight just over 14 stone, so buying a bike that weighs just over half a stone less than a bike such as the one I currently own is pointless. if I weighed less then a bike lighter than my current bike would make a difference to my speed on flat roads and on climbs.
I have seen guys my size and bigger on really light bikes, personally I don't see the point of riding a carbon bike when you are over a certain weight. losing weight from your body would be far more beneficial and cheaper than buying a lighter bike. you can only go so light as far as a bike is concerned, with your body you can lose much weight as you can be bothered to.

A fat*, poor* person who has something against light, expensive bikes. Who'd have thought?

*in cyclist terms
*not necessarily

Weight is only really an issue when accelerating or going up hill. A carbon bike can feel totally different to an Aluminium one and weight isn't the only reason to buy one.

It may be amusing to see an overweight person on a top end carbon bike - but in reality, what are you seeing? Someone who has (or had) the money to buy a top end carbon bike (hopefully) enjoying themselves on a bike.
The only sad bit would be if they only bought the bike to save a few grams ...

stringybob

downhill paul wrote:

You agree with something that wasn't even said?
Will you marry me.

now this is getting weird

clickrumble

I f I may apply a bit more objective analysis to this debate;

Perceived Bicycle Speed (to be declared on Bike Radar) = actual speed (from Garmin or other device) x (cost of bike/weight of bike) x f,

where f is an arbitrary constant which is determined by a) rider wealth and b) rider weight.

From this we see that the perceived speed is directly proportional to the cost of the bike, but inversely proportional to the weight.

simon_masterson

Carbonator wrote:

Gatorskin Hardshells :shock: Whats the point of a light bike if you have to slow down for corners?

Get some decent tyres and maybe latex inner tubes.

A light bike is great. Don't listen to all that cr4p about water bottle or body weight :roll:

So are you suggesting that a full 750ml does not weigh about a kilo, then?

BikeAndEarly

I love the bike. I invested in the frameset by buying the cheapest Roubaix and selling off the components. I then put on everything that would make me happy focusing on durability and cost vs outright indulgence.

The end result is a lovely bike which is better and more able than me!

I take everything you said about tyres and wheels on board for future deliberations.

The gears are cool, the bar tape is awesome and frame and seat post are lovely - how lovely I cannot quantify.....

Here is a photo and please note any and all comments regarding the pedals will be ignored. unless of course it is along the lines of "OMG I want some of those on my Time Machine"

davep1

Pross wrote:

Tom Howard wrote:

I was not sure how people achieve their 6.8 etc bikes! I thought by spending 2 grand it could be done

RRP of mine starts with a 7 and it's 500g more than that. The ride is awesome though. As is the speed at which it covers ground. Weight on its own isn't everything.

Decent weight for a £700 bike.

charlie_potatoes

Simon Masterson wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Gatorskin Hardshells :shock: Whats the point of a light bike if you have to slow down for corners?

Get some decent tyres and maybe latex inner tubes.

A light bike is great. Don't listen to all that cr4p about water bottle or body weight :roll:

So are you suggesting that a full 750ml does not weigh about a kilo, then?

Read it again Simon. I think he is suggesting something else

DiscoBoy

BikeAndEarly wrote:

I love the bike. I invested in the frameset by buying the cheapest Roubaix and selling off the components. I then put on everything that would make me happy focusing on durability and cost vs outright indulgence.

The end result is a lovely bike which is better and more able than me!

I take everything you said about tyres and wheels on board for future deliberations.

The gears are cool, the bar tape is awesome and frame and seat post are lovely - how lovely I cannot quantify.....

Here is a photo and please note any and all comments regarding the pedals will be ignored. unless of course it is along the lines of "OMG I want some of those on my Time Machine"

I still can't get on with how those seatposts look, but they are functional, at least.

Those pedals are something else, though.

tom_howard

DaveP1 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Tom Howard wrote:

I was not sure how people achieve their 6.8 etc bikes! I thought by spending 2 grand it could be done

RRP of mine starts with a 7 and it's 500g more than that. The ride is awesome though. As is the speed at which it covers ground. Weight on its own isn't everything.

Decent weight for a £700 bike.

8)

Initialised

Simon Masterson wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Gatorskin Hardshells :shock: Whats the point of a light bike if you have to slow down for corners?

Get some decent tyres and maybe latex inner tubes.

A light bike is great. Don't listen to all that cr4p about water bottle or body weight :roll:

So are you suggesting that a full 750ml does not weigh about a kilo, then?

No, at 0 degrees centigrade 750ml of water will weigh 750g, a 750ml water bottle weighs ~80g so the total weight will be 830g which isn't about 1kg in the same way that an 8.3kg bike isn't about 10kg.

Back on topic, love the look of the bike, does the Coblr Goblr actually work as a suspension seatpost?

davep1

Clickrumble wrote:

I f I may apply a bit more objective analysis to this debate;

Perceived Bicycle Speed (to be declared on Bike Radar) = actual speed (from Garmin or other device) x (cost of bike/weight of bike) x f,

where f is an arbitrary constant which is determined by a) rider wealth and b) rider weight.

From this we see that the perceived speed is directly proportional to the cost of the bike, but inversely proportional to the weight.

Great post but you need to expand on the derivation of f....

mfin

BikeAndEarly wrote:

I love the bike. I invested in the frameset by buying the cheapest Roubaix and selling off the components. I then put on everything that would make me happy focusing on durability and cost vs outright indulgence.

The end result is a lovely bike which is better and more able than me!

I take everything you said about tyres and wheels on board for future deliberations.

The gears are cool, the bar tape is awesome and frame and seat post are lovely - how lovely I cannot quantify.....

Here is a photo and please note any and all comments regarding the pedals will be ignored. unless of course it is along the lines of "OMG I want some of those on my Time Machine"

Well, now you've posted a photo and it has those pedals on it all the other debate about performance/weight is mute, you're giving away way way more in the way of performance by not using clipless. (note, I haven't commented on what they look like, because that's completely irrelevant)

sparklehedgehog

I was 18 stone and i bought a Specialized Roubaix SL4 Sport Compact 2014.

I'm now 15.5 stone and loving it (all without changing diet, just the riding has done this for me)

Now tell me a fat bloke shouldn't have a nice bike! Yeah i'm still fat but i'm getting there and when i have lost this weight i'll have a nice bike, low weight and immense pride and achievement!

P.s. my standard factory built SL4 weighs just 8.1kgs with Ultegra pedals and wheels on

sigorman85

D O G wrote:

No comment on the weight, but when they wear out, change the hardshells for Schwalbe Durano Plus. Amazing tyres, loads of grip and fantastic puncture resistance.

Not true I had these and found they are crap on the roads in Dorset 90psi and after one ride they had splits and all sorts maybe a bad set but it put me off

sigorman85

sparklehedgehog wrote:

I was 18 stone and i bought a Specialized Roubaix SL4 Sport Compact 2014.

I'm now 15.5 stone and loving it (all without changing diet, just the riding has done this for me)

Now tell me a fat bloke shouldn't have a nice bike! Yeah i'm still fat but i'm getting there and when i have lost this weight i'll have a nice bike, low weight and immense pride and achievement!

P.s. my standard factory built SL4 weighs just 8.1kgs with Ultegra pedals and wheels on

Well done to you buddy.a bloke at work has done the same sort of thing and lost 6 stone in just under a year it's amazing when you set a goal the difference is mental

andy_s_t

sparklehedgehog wrote:

I was 18 stone and i bought a Specialized Roubaix SL4 Sport Compact 2014.

I'm now 15.5 stone and loving it (all without changing diet, just the riding has done this for me)

Now tell me a fat bloke shouldn't have a nice bike! Yeah i'm still fat but i'm getting there and when i have lost this weight i'll have a nice bike, low weight and immense pride and achievement!

P.s. my standard factory built SL4 weighs just 8.1kgs with Ultegra pedals and wheels on

I'm 18 stone and have a carbon bike (and an Ali bike, oh and a steel bike) I love it. My Orca frame cost me all of £120 so I didn't join the big spenders, just wanted a carbon bike to feel the difference, and my big 'fat' arse enjoys the smoother ride and the lighter frame is nice too. I can put out plenty of watts, and I like riding my carbon bike (that ways under 9kgs, if you care about such things) and I can keep up with a lot lighter riders up the hills and smash them on the flat, don't judge us heavyweights, we may surprise you.

BikeAndEarly

It is funny how when you have no point of reference you should not and cannot compare the bike to anything else. But what you can do is to comment on how it feels in an honest way.

I lack the experience but I feel the tyres should have more grip. Still though 20 miles is not enough to get anything worn in. I like the group set. The seat post has not really convinced me but I suppose it could also be the saddle. The frame is good. agile, positive. The pedals are louzy (ok I said it) but in an urban environment and whilst I am still learning how to ride a road bike properly they will suffice.

The handlebars are nice and comfy but I am not convinced now I should have gone with aftermarket stuff for the stem and handlebars.

I could have have saved the money and put in on wheels and tyres. The tubes though are these supersonic ones by Continental.

Anyways. I look forward to riding which is something I never did in the past because of how crap my bikes were. Fat, fit or in-between when you buy something you like and works you will use it. Spending more is not usually a problem but when I rode a Specialized Secteur with Claris components (£650) I could not help but laugh at how CARP it was!

the gears were rattling and the brakes could have been used as chopsticks.

Thank you for the advice

The hard-shells are truly outstanding in puncture resistance. When I get more mechanically savvy I will consider GP4000 and if I ever upgrade anything it will be the wheels only because I am a numbers person and I know that hills, speed etc will be greatly helped by your rolling bits and suspended weight.

thank you all. This forum is actually amazing and very helpful.

Take care and enjoy this lovely sunny weekend

Anonymous

downhill paul wrote:

What is the obsession with lightweight bikes?
unless you are seriously competing in races then carbon is pointless.
bike weight also makes no difference unless you are on a hill that is 10% or more.
bike fit and rider weight are more important.

What a load of utter tosh!
Lighter bikes are always better, from the cradle to the grave.

Why are you suggesting you would not be just as likely to get a light bike that fits?

Rider weight is a completely separate issue :roll:

Keep spreading the rumour though because it makes people with cheap heavy bikes feel better.
Especially if they then think everyone who spent more on a light bike are mugs.

Anonymous

Simon Masterson wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Gatorskin Hardshells :shock: Whats the point of a light bike if you have to slow down for corners?

Get some decent tyres and maybe latex inner tubes.

A light bike is great. Don't listen to all that cr4p about water bottle or body weight :roll:

So are you suggesting that a full 750ml does not weigh about a kilo, then?

What does it matter what it weighs? You still have to have water whichever bike you ride :roll:

Your options on water and what you weigh do not change depending on the weight of your bike so why do people even mention it?

Buy a light bike, get to an ideal weight (assuming the people being told to lose weight are not already :roll: ) and be smart about carrying excess water..............simples (noise of meerkat).

Anonymous

Clickrumble wrote:

I f I may apply a bit more objective analysis to this debate;

Perceived Bicycle Speed (to be declared on Bike Radar) = actual speed (from Garmin or other device) x (cost of bike/weight of bike) x f,

where f is an arbitrary constant which is determined by a) rider wealth and b) rider weight.

From this we see that the perceived speed is directly proportional to the cost of the bike, but inversely proportional to the weight.

Rider wealth? A light bike is not exactly lottery winning sums of money.

People will spend several thousand pounds on far worse things but a/ not think its a waste because society says its ok, and b/ not have anyone say "you spent how much on that?"

The problem comes because people want the light bike and all the other things they spend their money on.
Because they cannot have both they abuse those that can/choose to just have the bike to make themselves feel better.

I have a light bike and a heavy bike. The light bike is worth every penny even if its not faster..........but it is (tounge out smiley)!

ednino

My aluminium bike is 7kg. No carbon fibre parts. Don't be fooled into thinking buying carbon saves weight. You can buy Scandium seatpost,stem,bars for half the price that are often lighter than carbon ones

simon_masterson

Carbonator wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

Gatorskin Hardshells :shock: Whats the point of a light bike if you have to slow down for corners?

Get some decent tyres and maybe latex inner tubes.

A light bike is great. Don't listen to all that cr4p about water bottle or body weight :roll:

So are you suggesting that a full 750ml does not weigh about a kilo, then?

What does it matter what it weighs? You still have to have water whichever bike you ride :roll:

Your options on water and what you weigh do not change depending on the weight of your bike so why do people even mention it?

Buy a light bike, get to an ideal weight (assuming the people being told to lose weight are not already :roll: ) and be smart about carrying excess water..............simples (noise of meerkat).

It's just a matter of perspective, and nothing to do with whether or not you should have a light bike. If you take 1 bottle, 2 bottles, or no bottle, your bike might be up to around 2 kilos heavier or lighter on any given ride. How much this bothers you or affects your time on any given run is a pretty good indicator of how much bike weight matters to you.

There's plenty to be said about overstating the importance of weight in cycling, but generally the better your bike is the lighter it will be anyway.

downhill paul

Carbonator wrote:

downhill paul wrote:

What is the obsession with lightweight bikes?
unless you are seriously competing in races then carbon is pointless.
bike weight also makes no difference unless you are on a hill that is 10% or more.
bike fit and rider weight are more important.

What a load of utter tosh!
Lighter bikes are always better, from the cradle to the grave.

Why are you suggesting you would not be just as likely to get a light bike that fits?

Rider weight is a completely separate issue :roll:

Keep spreading the rumour though because it makes people with cheap heavy bikes feel better.
Especially if they then think everyone who spent more on a light bike are mugs.

I am not suggesting that you won't find a light bike that fits. where on earth did you get that from? I said that bike fit is far more important than bike weight. and rider weight is more important than bike weight.
I also didn't say that anyone who buys a light bike is a mug. but it sounds to me like you think anyone on a cheaper or heavier bike than you is a mug.