How much are you willing to spend to save a gram?

dinyull

ChippyK wrote:

neeb wrote:

It seems to be fashionable these days to proclaim no interest in weight saving, which I find utterly bizzare. Anyone who has ridden two bikes where one is 3kg lighter than the other (assuming they are not carrying too much extra weight themselves) will know that a lighter bike is just much more fun to ride, all else being equal. If you don't thnk that weight makes any difference to short, sharp climbs especially, try running up four flights of stairs with and without a 3kg rucksack on your back. Of course a 6kg bike only differs from a 9kg bike because of many different 50g savings, so if you want a noticeably light bike you have to pay for many indidually non-noticeable weight savings.

You're correct but it's arguably a simplistic view and I don't think it's a case of I don't care about weight at all but more along the lines of I don't care about weight at the expense of all else. There is a difference between buying a heavy bike or a lighter bike and between when upgrading specifically looking for the lightest kit. So when buying a saddle, looking for a comfy one and not always the lightest, buying a Chorus groupset because it's almost as good as Super Record and half the cost, forgoing the extra grammes. Dura Ace pedals are twice the cost of 105 but save 50g, personally I'd buy the 105 probably and spend the difference on something else, but each to their own and all that.

In my opinion, that's what not bothering about weight means, not any old shoot will do.

Spot on.

keef66

^ This. Look, the thread started as a poll, and one of the options was 'Nothing - I don't care about weight'. At the time of writing this has attracted 50% of the votes, so it's far from an exclusively weight weenie thread.

I've never bought any component with the express intention of reducing the weight of the bike.

I chose the Racelight Tk for my winter bike based on it's reviews and suitability for purpose. It's a bonus that it's fairly light, but that wasn't one of my buying criteria. Indeed the steel Equilibrium was also a consideration.
I've kitted it out with mid range gear, again focusing on function and durability. The Brooks saddle means I can ride it all day in complete comfort, something I never managed with the 3 synthetic saddles which preceded it.

I also bought a CR1-SL which is an astonishingly light frame and fork, but if I'm honest I bought it because they were selling them off for £500, I'd always wondered what a decent carbon bike would be like, and the geometry suited me perfectly. Again I only kitted it out with budget stuff, and another leather saddle, so I probably haven't made the most of it.

The CR1 feels a bit more nimble, and the carbon soaks up a bit more road buzz, but again, if I'm honest, I'm no faster on it than the heavier winter bike and I find them both similarly rewarding to ride. The biggest difference I ever noticed was when I realised my own weight had slowly crept up, and I set about losing 18 pounds. That did improve my climbing ability.

So in answer to the OP's question, I'm not willing to spend anything in order to save a gram.

bernithebiker

I was a hardcore weightweenie back in the day (and still am a bit, it never really leaves you)!

I had a 9kg FS MTB back in 2002, that saw lots of drilling action....(a Gary Fisher Sugar 1)

My road bike is now 6kg and that's nice - it's lively, flickable, keen on the hills, etc. BUT there's no disputing the fact that unless you ride everywhere at 20km/h, or live in the Alps, aero is superior to weight, even though it's taken me a good few years to come round to this idea.

Thus an aero handlebar that weighs say 30g more, is probably far more beneficial to you than a normal 'lighter' bar.

Then it gets complicated as you have to factor in cost, stiffness, ride feel, etc.etc......

dinyull

Would be interesting to see if aero drag was as easy to measure as weight if people would be falling over themselves buying aero frames, wheels, helmets etc.

buckmulligan

True enough. As I said earlier, I'd probably rather save a gram of drag than a gram in weight, but I'd contend that the argument for aerodynamics-over-weight is a bit more nuanced.

First of all, anyone can use a set of kitchen scales and start "improving" their setup. It's much more difficult to quantify drag accurately and reliably, you need a power meter and a lot of time, experience and money to invest in testing before you're likely to see any reliable data out of it.

Secondly, you might make a ton of aero-savings that are amazing when you're riding alone, but as soon as you sit behind someone in a group the majority of those savings are wiped out; you're always going to have to heave your own weight up a hill.

I do more solo-riding than group riding (TTs, non-draft triahtlon/duathlon, solo training rides etc etc) so I'm definitely inclined to agree with you, but it's much harder to stick a solid number on it as it is with weight. Plus most people wouldn't have a clue what a gram of drag is, so it wouldn't make for a very good discussion!

dinyull

That's it, isn't it.

You can't roll up at the chaingang and say it's only such and such drag whereas you can can say it's 6.9kg and someone can pick it up and say "yeah, impressive".

bernithebiker

Dinyull wrote:

Would be interesting to see if aero drag was as easy to measure as weight if people would be falling over themselves buying aero frames, wheels, helmets etc.

True. As with weights, don't believe what the manufacturers tell you. A '180g' seatpost is often more like 200 for example.

Same with aero; the '10 watts' saved is probably more like 5, and watch out for the old trick of quoting savings at 50km/h - 40 is far more realistic. (Especially as power is a cube function of speed).

A flattering result at say 12' yaw angle will be the one used for ads, whereas other angles may be much worse.

So all in all, much tougher for the consumer to judge which products really are aero, but common sense and a good dose of healthy scepticism goes a long way.

You can also have a stab at working out drag reduction by yourself using the drag formula - you just need to work out the change in surface area of the part in question (easy enough to measure for a handlebar say), and estimate the drop in Cd, (round shapes have a poor Cd, aerofoil shape = much lower).

iPete

Plugged the details of a race finish into http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLe ... _Page.html
320 meters segment with an average 4% gradient.
Taking 0.5kg off the total weight puts you theoretically 1.25 meters up the road.

964cup

I have been completely OTT on this. My best bike is 5.1kg, and absurd expenditures include £450 to save 100g on brakes (from Dura Ace to eeBrakes) and £2.5k to save 416g on wheels (from Enve 45s to AX Lightness Ultra 24T). This bike has Nokon, and Red cassettes, and a carbon rear derailleur cage and and and.

Is it faster? Well, yes, but (placebo effect apart) it's not hard to work out by how much. Any of the calculators will tell you how many watts you need to move a given system weight up a hill. I think I worked out before our last Alps trip that each kilo saved meant 3 watts at 7% gradient. So you could think of it in terms of £1.3k per watt based on the cost of the last round of marginal gains.

Naturally I didn't do it for that reason, I did it because I could - it's fun, it's another way to enjoy the hobby, and some of the components are very beautiful things. However, I will say that my favourite bike at the moment is an Enigma Excel titanium; it's a couple of kilos heavier, but rides sublimely. It's got some expensive bits on it, but they were chosen more for aesthetics and comfort than outright weight saving - it has a Brooks Cambium C15 saddle, for example, which is probably among the heaviest "racing" saddles currently on sale. Weighty, but so comfy that I now have two of them.

simon_masterson

neeb wrote:

It seems to be fashionable these days to proclaim no interest in weight saving, which I find utterly bizzare. Anyone who has ridden two bikes where one is 3kg lighter than the other (assuming they are not carrying too much extra weight themselves) will know that a lighter bike is just much more fun to ride, all else being equal.

I've tried and failed to care about bike weight, and my bikes range from about 7kg (TT bike in hill climb mode) through to about 11kg (531 road bike). Unless it's a hill climb - and that's mostly psychological - it doesn't bother me at all. Being more aero on the other hand, and having faster tyres on, makes a very noticeable difference.

bernithebiker

964Cup wrote:

I have been completely OTT on this. My best bike is 5.1kg, and absurd expenditures include £450 to save 100g on brakes (from Dura Ace to eeBrakes) and £2.5k to save 416g on wheels (from Enve 45s to AX Lightness Ultra 24T). This bike has Nokon, and Red cassettes, and a carbon rear derailleur cage and and and.

Is it faster? Well, yes, but (placebo effect apart) it's not hard to work out by how much. Any of the calculators will tell you how many watts you need to move a given system weight up a hill. I think I worked out before our last Alps trip that each kilo saved meant 3 watts at 7% gradient. So you could think of it in terms of £1.3k per watt based on the cost of the last round of marginal gains.

Naturally I didn't do it for that reason, I did it because I could - it's fun, it's another way to enjoy the hobby, and some of the components are very beautiful things. However, I will say that my favourite bike at the moment is an Enigma Excel titanium; it's a couple of kilos heavier, but rides sublimely. It's got some expensive bits on it, but they were chosen more for aesthetics and comfort than outright weight saving - it has a Brooks Cambium C15 saddle, for example, which is probably among the heaviest "racing" saddles currently on sale. Weighty, but so comfy that I now have two of them.

Photos please! (Bike porn....)

keezx

londoncommuter wrote:

CUT
There must be a site somewhere that people who are happy to ride round on Raleigh Grifters can post on.

What are you still here?
There must be a site dedicated to weight on which people can happily debate about saving 13 grams.

londoncommuter

Keezx wrote:

londoncommuter wrote:

CUT
There must be a site somewhere that people who are happy to ride round on Raleigh Grifters can post on.

What are you still here?
There must be a site dedicated to weight on which people can happily debate about saving 13 grams.

No, sorry, I've been stuck at the side of the road for a week after foolishly drilling holes in my inner tubes to save weight.

fat daddy

londoncommuter wrote:

No, sorry, I've been stuck at the side of the road for a week after foolishly drilling holes in my inner tubes to save weight.

your 1st mistake was actually running innertubes

flanners1

Haven't read all the posts

Strong Light Cheap....pick two.

Good mantra from Mr Bontrager and I reckon still as valid today. This article was interesting https://spokeydokeyblog.com/2014/01/26/ ... -pick-two/

I was mildly amused the other day when I overheard/ear-wigged a salesman and a prospective customer looking at some Parlee's and Scott's, the customer in his mid 50's with a large visible paunch and rosy face was happily narrowing down his decision and discounting bikes on their weight and getting the salesman to weigh them on some digital baggage scales. Horses for courses I guess.....just pick a colour you like (I do).

iPete

Flanners1 wrote:

Strong Light Cheap....pick two.

Not sure if this is still true, you can get sub 1.3kg framesets for under £500 that are perfectly capable of racing on.
Although someone will move the bar and point out that the new 'light' is now sub 1kg framesets made from Graphene, etc.

rolf_f

iPete wrote:

Flanners1 wrote:

Strong Light Cheap....pick two.

Not sure if this is still true, you can get sub 1.3kg framesets for under £500 that are perfectly capable of racing on.
Although someone will move the bar and point out that the new 'light' is now sub 1kg framesets made from Graphene, etc.

+1. Definitely not true and not for some time now. The cost/quality relationship seems to be pretty much random these days at least to a point! eg it probably applies to the highest cost categories in this thread but not really to the lower cost categories. And the strength category of course is impacted by the riders weight. Strong, light and cheap is easier if you don't weigh 18 stone!

mrfpb

Horse for courses indeed. I would be interested in having a lighter bike than my 13kg CdF, but it suits the way I use it. It was a bit lighter thant the hybrid it replaced at least. If I could have aforded a lighter model that performed the same on the proad and on forest/canal paths thenI wold have gone for it. Not sure how much more I'd have paid for a 2kg weight saving though - maybe £200-£300, so that would be 10p-15p/gram.

If you are into racing then weight/aero benefits are worth paying for, but the law of diminishing returns applies.

964cup

bernithebiker wrote:

Photos please! (Bike porn....)

(with pedals, garmin mount etc)

...and the Ti bike:

bernithebiker

Nice!

flanners1

Rolf F wrote:

iPete wrote:

Flanners1 wrote:

Strong Light Cheap....pick two.

Not sure if this is still true, you can get sub 1.3kg framesets for under £500 that are perfectly capable of racing on.
Although someone will move the bar and point out that the new 'light' is now sub 1kg framesets made from Graphene, etc.

+1. Definitely not true and not for some time now. The cost/quality relationship seems to be pretty much random these days at least to a point! eg it probably applies to the highest cost categories in this thread but not really to the lower cost categories. And the strength category of course is impacted by the riders weight. Strong, light and cheap is easier if you don't weigh 18 stone!

I don't agree as it's a subjective argument; the added variables of technology, rider weight, materials, longevity, cost, usage et al. still impacts upon the fact you cannot have all three. I think IPete's real world example of graphene framesets etc illustrates this point.

ForumNewbie

964Cup wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Photos please! (Bike porn....)

(with pedals, garmin mount etc)

...and the Ti bike:

Nice bikes, but seems strange to have spent so much to get the first bike down to 5.1kg, yet you have two bottle cages on it?

Of the two bikes I like the Enigma best, and good to know that the Cambium saddle is comfortable. I had read somewhere that the top covering wore quite quickly and that put me off it. Maybe I should reconsider it as still looking for a comfortable saddle.

964cup

ForumNewbie wrote:

Nice bikes, but seems strange to have spent so much to get the first bike down to 5.1kg, yet you have two bottle cages on it?

I quite like riding it, and find I need two bottles for the sorts of rides it's used for. I do draw the line at a bike that's just for show, otherwise I reckon I could get it down to 4.5kg-ish (and that's with Di2). But it would mean ditching the power meter and going with an uncomfortable carbon post/saddle combo, ultra lightweight (and therefore less stiff) bars and stem and daft things like thin bartape wrapped only on the drops and unusable carbon chainrings and aluminium show cassettes. Oh, and those stupid aero pedals (basically just a cylinder) that are pigs to get in and out of.

What I'm proud of about this bike, I suppose, is that it's that light with full Di2 including a climber switch, a proper saddle, power meter, normal Enve finishing kit and a sensible gear range (an 11-23 cassette would be much lighter, but not much use to me on the Joux Plane). It's still under six kilos with a saddle bag including a spare tub, and a Garmin, so kind of real world weight.

Of the two bikes I like the Enigma best, and good to know that the Cambium saddle is comfortable. I had read somewhere that the top covering wore quite quickly and that put me off it. Maybe I should reconsider it as still looking for a comfortable saddle.

They do wear - mine certainly looks used after about 4,000kms, but in a good way. And they're hardly dear, so if they don't last a lifetime like the leather ones it won't be a disaster. I'm toying with getting a C13 carved (which has carbon rails and is lighter) but can't help feeling that rather misses the Brooks point.

evodeda

People say Aero is better but ... I'm happy on the flats and can churn along quite nicely but always struggle on the hills with my pathetically low power to weight. An aero bike may help on the flats but surely will be worst on the hills as the lower climbing speed with result in less aero benefit..

At what speed does aero benefit over weight when climbing?

None of this stops me from wanting an aero bike mind, we all like bikes and any excuse to add another to the stable is welcome! Weight is obviously important but I tend to stick with standard stuff nothing too weightweenie exotic.

My Supersix is about 7kg and my Burls Ti is around 7.5 - 8kg ish. The only difference in the two bikes apart from the frameset is SS (Ultegra) & Ti (Dura-ace)..

964cup

https://www.gribble.org/cycling/power_v_speed.html sets it all out. On the flat, drag is everything (75% of power requirement at 30kph). On a 7% gradient, gravity is everything (74% of power requirement at 30kph). Using the starting values on that page (75kg rider, 8kg bike, riding a gaspipe frame on the tops from the look of the CdA) you need 154w to do 30kph on the flat, and 643w to do 30kph up 7%.

Drop the CdA to 0.43 by riding in the drops with an aero frame and kit and you need only 116w to do 30kph on the flat, and 605w up the hill. Removing 2kg from the bike makes no difference on the flat, and takes you down to 628w up the hill.

So aero wins.

fat daddy

All these calculators ... they are all designed around nice flats ... steady climbs and racing.

I want to know about commuting

I require lots of 0-25mph starts, lots of 20-35mph sprints, excessive weaving with breaking and accelerating again. Plenty of 7-24mph acceleration.

Someone needs to research that ... I am sure weight rules though when it comes to SCR

bernithebiker

fat daddy wrote:

All these calculators ... they are all designed around nice flats ... steady climbs and racing.

I want to know about commuting

I require lots of 0-25mph starts, lots of 20-35mph sprints, excessive weaving with breaking and accelerating again. Plenty of 7-24mph acceleration.

Someone needs to research that ... I am sure weight rules though when it comes to SCR

At any point that you accelerate (such as you describe above), weight is primordial (F=ma). Braking and cornering are also accelerations, so again weight plays a big (the only) part.

This is why 'calculators' such as the one 964Cup mentioned tend to underplay the impact of weight as they ignore these almost constant accelerations that we all undergo almost all the time we ride. Doesn't change that aero is king on the flats, but it does change the way a bike feels.

It can also be argued (somewhat contentiously) that,( especially when climbing) your bike undergoes many micro-acceler / decelerations with each pedal stroke, (especially at low cadence) as each pedal push accelerates the bike, and each dead spot decelerates it.

webboo

fat daddy wrote:

All these calculators ... they are all designed around nice flats ... steady climbs and racing.

I want to know about commuting

I require lots of 0-25mph starts, lots of 20-35mph sprints, excessive weaving with breaking and accelerating again. Plenty of 7-24mph acceleration.

Someone needs to research that ... I am sure weight rules though when it comes to SCR

Why you are only going to work, it takes as long as it needs to. If you are risking life and limb for a gap, well :shock:

ForumNewbie

964Cup wrote:

ForumNewbie wrote:

Nice bikes, but seems strange to have spent so much to get the first bike down to 5.1kg, yet you have two bottle cages on it?

I quite like riding it, and find I need two bottles for the sorts of rides it's used for.

Fair enough. I didn't realise anyone had bikes as light as 5kg as I thought the pros legal limit was 6.8kg or something like that. My winter bike is a Dawes 'light' tourer coming in at over 11kg, so I'd love to find out the difference a 5kg bike would make on the hills. Thinking about it though, I should be riding my tourer like a 5kg bike as I've lost over 5kg of my own weight since the summer!

964Cup wrote:

ForumNewbie wrote:

Of the two bikes I like the Enigma best, and good to know that the Cambium saddle is comfortable. I had read somewhere that the top covering wore quite quickly and that put me off it. Maybe I should reconsider it as still looking for a comfortable saddle.

They do wear - mine certainly looks used after about 4,000kms, but in a good way. And they're hardly dear, so if they don't last a lifetime like the leather ones it won't be a disaster.

Thanks, I may look at that or even try a normal Brooks leather saddle.

chris_bass

apparently lipo suction can remove up to 6 litres of fat at a time and costs between 2 to 6 grand so that is a potential saving of 5.4kg for £2000 or 2.7 grams per £