Is bike weight important to you?

KevChallis

I am looking at a couple of new bikes, and trying to decide, but one thing I like to do is compare weights, both are Giants, one the TCR advanced 2 and the defy advanced 2, yeah these two are different geometries, but I want to find the weight too, my question is though, is it important? Do you take the weight of your bike in to account when buying a new bike?

Sorry for the waffle

simon_masterson

I don't buy complete bikes, but unless the bike you buy is tip top spec, it will be by upgrading parts that you'll make it light. In other words, buy the bike you like and then get some better wheels and tyres. And a USE Alien seatpost.

bobmcstuff

Slightly important but if it's only a few hundred grams in between then no. I wouldn't be worried about the difference between those two as it will be under a kilo (maybe under 500g) and I'd be much more interested in the fit/geometry.

rick_chasey

Yes, but a bike fitting you better is more important.

pblakeney

Not until I lose multiple kgs off the engine.

First.Aspect

Most of us go through the weight weenie phase. Then we grow up a bit, and realise that 300g isn't worth the price of dura ace, a 200g saddle with padding is probably better than the 100g saddle that costs twice as much, the most important thing about brakes is how they work not how much they weigh, and so on.

If you are buying a complete bike, you get better overall value. But most parts need replacing eventually, so always go for the best frame (whatever "best" means for you).

charlie_potatoes

Simon Masterson wrote:

I don't buy complete bikes, but unless the bike you buy is tip top spec, it will be by upgrading parts that you'll make it light. In other words, buy the bike you like and then get some better wheels and tyres. And a USE Alien seatpost.

You've changed

stueys

Yeah, but mainly because it's hard to separate weight from the decent stuff. I.e the nice frames, stiff and compliant in the right places all tend to also be the light ones. Only place i think that rule changes is group sets, where the only difference between 105/Ultegra/dura (for instance) is looks and weight, you're nuts if you chose dura over Ultegra.

Having said that I always have dura on my nice bike, but at least I know I'm nuts :-)

Devastazione2

I have a 6.7 kg Tarmac Sworks and a 8.9 kg Diverge Comp Carbon,the Diverge is the one I'm having most fun with

bmxboy10

I love my Caad10 but love my Fratello more. I can tell there is a difference between the two in terms of how they ride but not sure how much of this is due to weight.

JesseD

The bike I race on weighs 9.8kg, but it fits me perfectly, I'd like a lighter one but I doubt it would make any difference to my performance, just be easier to pick it up and stick it in the workstand!

Fit first in my book, saving 500g here or there wont be noticeable really, as has already been said losing body fat is probably a cheaper way to go (for me at least)

Sleeper Service

*Stands on scales*

...

At the moment, no.

Anonymous

Light bikes are always great, so yes, it is important to me.

The assumption it will not fit as well as a heavy one or that its somehow linked to your body weight are v funny lol.
Then there are all the financial comparisons.

My wife is yet to be faster on her stupidly light bike than her pretty decent weight one though, but its still so much nicer and worth every penny.

Light bikes just feel nicer to ride. but it has to be significantly lighter, and not at the expense of any other important factor.

Anonymous

Devastazione2 wrote:

I have a 6.7 kg Tarmac Sworks and a 8.9 kg Diverge Comp Carbon,the Diverge is the one I'm having most fun with

You need a fat bike then (it need not be Specialized) as it will be more fun than the Diverge.

If you have weighed/noted your bike weights, then they must be important to you

IanRCarter

Frame quality is number one for me. The weight difference between most carbon frames is a few hundred grams and manufacturers can get a bike down to 6kg yet a cheaper model of the same/similar frame could also weigh in at 8kg - which tells you that most of the weight savings come elsewhere. Personally I prefer to buy a frame and build it up, however, if I was buying a complete bike, I'd go for the one with the frame I preferred even if it was the heavier bike; upgrades to reduce weight can be made afterwards, starting with wheels then groupset.

jgsi

Devastazione2 wrote:

I have a 6.7 kg Tarmac Sworks and a 8.9 kg Diverge Comp Carbon,the Diverge is the one I'm having most fun with

is it because everytime you get on the Sworks, you have to go 'balls out all the time, hardly conducive to enjoyable riding?

bobmcstuff

Carbonator wrote:

The assumption it will not fit as well as a heavy one

Who's said that?

REDUTOPIA

between 8kg and 7kg there is difference but near 7kg sometimes the difference is less noticeable

Anonymous

bobmcstuff wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

The assumption it will not fit as well as a heavy one

Who's said that?

If people say 'bike fit is more important' then that is suggesting that a light bike will not fit.
Why would getting a lighter bike suddenly change the fit?

You may as well say "world peace is more important".

Plenty of people have Synapses or Super Six's for example. they can be very light and exactly the same 'fit' if you throw enough money at them.

The OP is asking a question, just bloody answer it lol.

Bike weight is too linked to 'bike cost' to get a decent answer to the question!

People only have heavy bikes because they cost less, and they choose to spend their money on something else.

bobmcstuff

Carbonator wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

The assumption it will not fit as well as a heavy one

Who's said that?

If people say 'bike fit is more important' then that is suggesting that a light bike will not fit.

I don't agree that's what I meant... all I meant was if you're trying to choose between two bikes (maybe they're both at your LBS or you're buying second hand or something) then a few hundred grams is going to be less of an influence on my decision than whether they fit - and that's exactly what OP is asking.

Rigga

Bike weight is more noticeable on the wallet than anything else Imo.

Anonymous

bobmcstuff wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

The assumption it will not fit as well as a heavy one

Who's said that?

If people say 'bike fit is more important' then that is suggesting that a light bike will not fit.

I don't agree that's what I meant... all I meant was if you're trying to choose between two bikes (maybe they're both at your LBS or you're buying second hand or something) then a few hundred grams is going to be less of an influence on my decision than whether they fit - and that's exactly what OP is asking.

OK sorry. Comment was not 100% directed you though, it comes up every single time bike weights are mentioned.

I 100% agree that fit is the most important thing, so much so that I cannot see why you would be comparing two bikes that do not both fit in the first place.

Bike fit is going to be a lot less obvious than weight so as long as both frames are roughly the same (why would they not be?). Is the purchaser really going to know which one is a better fit anyway?

You are not even buying a bike that fits you perfectly most of the time. You usually have to change stuff to get that.

Often people on here will have a bike that is too big for them and ask if they should sell it.
I advocate selling it, but a lot of people are not as bothered about fit then lol, and say that the person should do all sorts of odd and extreme things to 'shrink' the bike.

I could be wrong, but suspect its sometimes the same people who cannot wait to pipe up about fit as soon as light/expensive bikes are mentioned 8)

Anonymous

Rigga wrote:

Bike weight is more noticeable on the wallet than anything else Imo.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Whats the lightest, best specced bike that you have had?

I completely agree that small weight gains on a heavy bike are a bit of a waste of money, but a significantly lighter and better specced bike is definitely a noticeably better and more enjoyable ride.

I feel a 4k road bike is better value than a 2k one (at list price) for example.
Over the years, miles, hill climbs and gear changes you will own it for, it just seems better to me IME.

A £500 fat bike is probably more fun than both though.

Pituophis

I don't think it is massively important for most of us..
My Ally wet weather bike is 2lb heavier than my "dry" carbon one. Neither was very expensive, as I am old and slow, and more importantly, tight.
I am on average 1.5 mph quicker over any set route on the lighter bike. But is this really a fair assessment? (For me, not necessarily for younger, fitter racing snakes!)
I tend to ride the ally bike in the cold and wet, with longs and a jacket and all manner of cold resisting kit. The dry bike invariable sees me semi naked in minimal lycra, reaping the benefits of soldiering on all winter.
With the state of our roads, I cannot even say that the carbon jobbie is particularly more comfortable to ride eitheir, though psychologically I "know" its the best one, as I much prefer to ride it! :oops:

JesseD

I think Carbonators comment “The assumption it will not fit as well as a heavy one” was probably aimed at me and maybe because I didn’t quantify my answer.

More than anything else I think the most important consideration is how a bike fits, I say this as I have ridden lots of bike in my time and a well fitted bike will always feel better to ride that an ill-fitting one.

With regards to how light a bike is, then yes I will agree that a light bike can be nicer to ride, I will also say it can be worse than a heavier one, but this is subjective and dependant on what you want the bike for.

I once had a Scott Addict SL (the black and yellow one), was the lightest frameset you could get at the time, it kitted out with Campag Chorus/Record mix and Fulcrum Racing One wheels and Conti GP4000s tyres, and Ritchey finishing kit, It weighed next to nothing and was fun going up climbs, however it was very harsh to ride and used to beat me up on every ride over 20 miles.

So for me if fit and everything is equal, then weight is only important if it is not at the expense of ride quality, saying a light bike is more fun to ride is incorrect IMO.

ilovegrace

I Have a Look 566 and a Planet x London Road , the difference in performance is night and day.
regards
ILG

Anonymous

JesseD wrote:

saying a light bike is more fun to ride is incorrect IMO.

Well I enjoy riding my lighter road bikes more than my not so light ones.
The kit on them is better too though.

How much weight would you add to your bike before it became less fun?
10%, 25%, 50%?
I mean if you could add weight to it evenly, not bolt stuff on.

I know we are talking road, but kids bikes are often stupidly heavy.
Are they also not more fun when light?

JesseD

Carbonator wrote:

JesseD wrote:

saying a light bike is more fun to ride is incorrect IMO.

Well I enjoy riding my lighter road bikes more than my not so light ones.
The kit on them is better too though.

How much weight would you add to your bike before it became less fun?
10%, 25%, 50%?
I mean if you could just add weight to it evenly, not bolt stuff on.

I know we are talking road, but kiss bikes are often stupidly heavy.
Are they also not more fun when light?

At least 72.5% before the fun factor gets to a palatable level IMO

KevChallis

Thanks for all the answers... Some a little odd and off on a tangent, but thanks all the same haha

I am going to ride both bikes mentioned on Thursday or Sunday, so we will see which one feels better and then decide on which exact model of the one I choose after that

Anonymous

JesseD wrote:

At least 72.5% before the fun factor gets to a palatable level IMO

They would be two very different bikes to a lot of people, but good on you if you can have just as much fun on a road bike nearly twice as heavy

imposter2.0

How on earth did people manage to enjoy cycling before realising that weight was a critical contributory factor...? :roll: