Bike weight

andyh01

Hi.

I currently only really ride to commute a short 5 mile distance each way, but looking to get into cycling more, some further 30-50 miles solo and possibly join a club just to train, as well as family rides. I'm not interested in out and out racing. I need a new bike anyway and have been looking at adventure/gravel type bikes. I've mainly been looking at Aluminium and Titanium, staying away from Carbon as I know how knocked my bikes get.

Looking at some reviews CF bikes seem to weigh as little as 1kg whereas the alloy bikes I've looked at weigh over 8kg !!?? Group-set same
I myself weigh about 11 stone and know its cheaper to lose off body than pay for lighter bike, but how much difference will the weight make especially when not racing? Whats a decent weight that I should look for?
Thanks
Andy

jlloyd

Think you might be confusing frame weight with bike weight there. No bike weighs under 1kg. Think there are are some stupidly expensive CF bikes under 5kg.

In terms of weight there's no much difference between carbon and alu.

And we could all lose weight :-)

andyh01

Thanks - I did start to wonder and it is confusing when I looked a bit more closely what they're actually including - full bike, frame-set or frame only. A similar spec carbon full bike was stated as being 8650g but the professional reviewer in the article rounded it down to 8.5kg.
Saying that, just looked back on one of the bikes I'm considering full bike and tech spec says weight 9.2kg but I think that's just frame and fork rather than whole bike so by time added wheels and group set be looking another 2kg so difference of around 3kg difference. Would I really notice it? I live in Leicester Midlands so relatively flat too.

surfercyclist

Hmmm I disagree, CF bikes generally are lighter than alu and basically the more you pay the lighter it can get. And weight makes a BIG difference.

jgsi

Commuting is a great way of introducing yourself to the rigours of cycling , no matter how short it is.
You really don't want anything prestige though... eg entry level Allez is good enough.... when it is parked up in that bike shed, no matter how posh your company, there are enough fckwits about, to not exactly damage the bike, but enough not to give a fck.. and like kick mudguards which took a days work to be silent....

Alex99

AndyH01 wrote:

Hi.

I currently only really ride to commute a short 5 mile distance each way, but looking to get into cycling more, some further 30-50 miles solo and possibly join a club just to train, as well as family rides. I'm not interested in out and out racing. I need a new bike anyway and have been looking at adventure/gravel type bikes. I've mainly been looking at Aluminium and Titanium, staying away from Carbon as I know how knocked my bikes get.

Looking at some reviews CF bikes seem to weigh as little as 1kg whereas the alloy bikes I've looked at weigh over 8kg !!?? Group-set same
I myself weigh about 11 stone and know its cheaper to lose off body than pay for lighter bike, but how much difference will the weight make especially when not racing? Whats a decent weight that I should look for?
Thanks
Andy

I'd put bike weight a bit down the list when you're looking. 1 kg either way won't make a practical difference. One that fits properly features that you need (space for mudguards?) should be high up. Weight is a component of how a bike feels, but it's not the only thing.

cougie

There's no way that a similar frame and forks is going to be 8.5kg. How could it be ?

Weight isn't really that important unless all you do is climb mountains.

Just check out some reviews.

Matthewfalle

SurferCyclist wrote:

Hmmm I disagree, CF bikes generally are lighter than alu and basically the more you pay the lighter it can get. And weight makes a BIG difference.

hmmm. good ali is far better than average/middling cf.

even compared to top of the range cf,
n1 bike is ali.
my Cervelo was ali
My top of the range Madone is cf (albeit a couple of years old model).

both ali bikes are nicer and more fun to ride.

simon_masterson

SurferCyclist wrote:

Hmmm I disagree, CF bikes generally are lighter than alu and basically the more you pay the lighter it can get. And weight makes a BIG difference.

Aluminium bikes are usually heavier because they are second tier; the material isn't usually used on top end frames anymore. Top end aluminium frames can be made very, very light.

lakesluddite

AndyH01 wrote:

Thanks - I did start to wonder and it is confusing when I looked a bit more closely what they're actually including - full bike, frame-set or frame only. A similar spec carbon full bike was stated as being 8650g but the professional reviewer in the article rounded it down to 8.5kg.
Saying that, just looked back on one of the bikes I'm considering full bike and tech spec says weight 9.2kg but I think that's just frame and fork rather than whole bike so by time added wheels and group set be looking another 2kg so difference of around 3kg difference. Would I really notice it? I live in Leicester Midlands so relatively flat too.

It will be the whole bike Andy, no frame and fork would be 9.2kg these days. Unless it's made of iron. Also, it will depend on the components but you are usually looking at the other components to add up, weight wise, to far more than the frame/fork.

Example - you could get a CF bike with frame and fork for around 1-1.2kg, but add on everything else and it'll usually be around the 7kg mark at least (although you cold get it lower if you specced very lightweight components).

Might be good to post links to the bikes you are interested in.

Matthewfalle

Simon Masterson wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Hmmm I disagree, CF bikes generally are lighter than alu and basically the more you pay the lighter it can get. And weight makes a BIG difference.

Aluminium bikes are usually heavier because they are second tier; the material isn't usually used on top end frames anymore. Top end aluminium frames can be made very, very light.

This - top end Ali frames - and not even top, top end, for example something like a CAAD 10 - are only a few hundred quid and far better than most cf frames.

jgsi

It does actually grind my gears when someone with very limited knowledge posts that alloy frames are inferior to cf just because.
Idiot.

ZMC888

Andy,
Most complete bikes will weigh between 7-10kg. You'll find that high end aluminium alloy frames can be lighter than low end carbon fibre frames. Most frames and fork combos weigh in the 1-3kg range. It's the way the material feels to ride that's the important thing. Personally I find carbon fibre to be a nicer feel than aluminium alloy which is often harsh. Others will disagree, but honestly this is purchaser's confirmation bias in nearly all cases. People with multiple bikes that have frames made from many materials nearly all agree aluminium alloy is never a preferred material, but honestly it's not that important compared to all the other components.

As you only weigh 11 stone I'd say for you that bike weight is important. Those with body weights substantially higher than 25 BMI in the overweight and obese range are recommended to work on their body weight and get a robust bike. BMI under 25 then by all means work on the bike weight. It does make a difference - some say it only matters for climbing, but bike acceleration, handling and braking are all helped too.

You can do this cheaply as you'll find wheels and tires on new bikes are very heavy, then you can look at saddles, seat posts, wheel skewers to save a few extra grams, but it gets addictive and you can end up wasting money buying butter soft titanium and aluminium can carbon fibre parts on ebay that are made of cheese and last 5 minutes all to save hardly any weight.

With bike weight go for the low-hanging fruit, maybe 5 heavier than normal things, then leave it.

What the original bike will weigh depends largely on the cost, also I'd be more concerned that a bike has geometry that suits you and a bike that fits you well, especially not too big, rather than weight.

Matthewfalle

JGSI wrote:

It does actually grind my gears when someone with very limited knowledge posts that alloy frames are inferior to cf just because.
Idiot.

This and ZMC above unfortunately is a prime candidate.

Methinks he believes the hype.

surfercyclist

The point is carbon fibre frames are not necessarily better than aluminium but by volume CF is lighter than alu, this is an engineering fact so yes some alu frames can be made lighter than some CF frames BUT ultimately by volume CF is lighter. Whether you choose to go alu or CF is up to the individual and (usually) depends on money.

davidof

Within the type of bikes you are looking at then weight is not the major factor.

If you are doing a 1000 meter climb at 8% (a typical alpine col) then a 8kg bike will probably be no more than 1 minute quicker than an 10kg bike for an 11 stone rider and probably no real difference on the flat. (I'm going on my Strava times here.)

Indeed if I plug the figures into

http://bikecalculator.com/

I see the difference is about a minute. I that significant for you?

During the year I ride a lightweight carbon bike, a top steel bike from the 90s and a top steel bike from the 70s. On my local lunch training ride, a 500 meter climb, the difference between them can be measured in seconds. If you are not racing then I wouldn't worry about it too much. It is always good to beast people on a 1970s bike when they've laid out 6 grand for some carbon speed machine too :-)

If I had a choice of 1 bike I would probably take a good steel frame with good components but I wouldn't discount aluminium which is pretty low maintenance. I think some of the ride issues have been addressed with recent Al. frames.

norvernrob

My commuting bike is a 10kg (originally) CX bike, but it's got marathon plus tyres, mudguards, lights, saddlebag with all sorts in it, and a steel bar from seatpost to head tube that my daughters bike seat fits on and I can't be bothered to remove. It must weigh 13-14kg now, my commute is a fairly hilly 6 miles on the trans Pennine (500-600ft of elevation both ways) and I don't even notice the weight.

When I first fitted the marathon tyres they felt heavy for one day then I never noticed again. I'd be more than happy doing 30-50 mile rides on it, and this winter I will be.

My best bike weighs 6.5kg all in and I haven't ridden it for about 3 months!

surfercyclist

davidof wrote:

Within the type of bikes you are looking at then weight is not the major factor.

If you are doing a 1000 meter climb at 8% (a typical alpine col) then a 8kg bike will probably be no more than 1 minute quicker than an 10kg bike for an 11 stone rider and probably no real difference on the flat. (I'm going on my Strava times here.)

Indeed if I plug the figures into

http://bikecalculator.com/

I see the difference is about a minute. I that significant for you?

During the year I ride a lightweight carbon bike, a top steel bike from the 90s and a top steel bike from the 70s. On my local lunch training ride, a 500 meter climb, the difference between them can be measured in seconds. If you are not racing then I wouldn't worry about it too much. It is always good to beast people on a 1970s bike when they've laid out 6 grand for some carbon speed machine too :-)

If I had a choice of 1 bike I would probably take a good steel frame with good components but I wouldn't discount aluminium which is pretty low maintenance. I think some of the ride issues have been addressed with recent Al. frames.

True and basically it's all about the rider. I could have the best and lightest bike in the world and still get beaten by a million others on a Halfords special. However, from personal experience I find climbing much easier on my light bike and the few kgs difference make a big difference, it's not necessarily about only being a minute quicker it's the overall feel of it.

StillGoing

SurferCyclist wrote:

Hmmm I disagree, CF bikes generally are lighter than alu and basically the more you pay the lighter it can get. And weight makes a BIG difference.

Err disagree with that. My two road bikes are both Merida and both running SRAM Force 22 or Rival 22. My Reacto 4000 is carbon framed with carbon bars, seat post and Rotor 3D24 cranks, aero rings and a P2M, using Dura Ace C35 wheels. That weighs more than my aluminium winter trainer, a Ride 400 with aluminium bars, SRAM Red cranks and Fulcrum Racing 3 wheels. Admittedly, the P2M adds some weight, but not enough to for the difference between them.

The sum of the component parts obviously make a difference, but that's negligible in my example including the wheel weights.

surfercyclist

Generally being the word, not specifically as in your case.

Matthewfalle

Or my case - ali framed n1 bike is lighter, stiffer, prettier and far better looking than cf framed n2 bike.

Me thinks that you have not tried top end ali?

I for one would rather have a sorted CAAD 10 than most cf framed things out there and know lots of people who have.

Matthewfalle

SurferCyclist wrote:

The point is carbon fibre frames are not necessarily better than aluminium but by volume CF is lighter than alu, this is an engineering fact so yes some alu frames can be made lighter than some CF frames BUT ultimately by volume CF is lighter. Whether you choose to go alu or CF is up to the individual and (usually) depends on money.

errrr - incorrect my friend. Sorry.

surfercyclist

Matthewfalle wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

The point is carbon fibre frames are not necessarily better than aluminium but by volume CF is lighter than alu, this is an engineering fact so yes some alu frames can be made lighter than some CF frames BUT ultimately by volume CF is lighter. Whether you choose to go alu or CF is up to the individual and (usually) depends on money.

errrr - incorrect my friend. Sorry.

Yeah these engineering types know sod all. Deary me.

http://www.dexcraft.com/articles/carbon-fiber-composites/aluminium-vs-carbon-fiber-comparison-of-materials/

Matthewfalle

Oh - an impartial article from a company that makes carbon bits for cars and so wants to sell you carbon bits for your car not an ali bike frame?

Deary you indeed. No problem though, we forgive you. We are kind like that.

cougie

It really doesn't make much difference to the average rider if the frame is carbon or aluminium or what the weight is.

Just ride the bike.

surfercyclist

Matthewfalle wrote:

Oh - an impartial article from a company that makes carbon bits for cars and so wants to sell you carbon bits for your car not an ali bike frame?

Deary you indeed. No problem though, we forgive you. We are kind like that.

Thanks. It was just an example of how by volume CF is lighter than aluminium that's all.

w00dster

My take on the Alu / Carbon discussion.
Generally top end carbon bikes are lighter than top end alu. I have both plus mid range carbon. The top end carbon (Trek Emonda SLR) is damn light and I don't think a CAAD is going to compare weight wise.
However weight isn't everything, I used to race on CAAD's and they are awesome. In fact I'm tempted to race on the CAAD12 next year. But the CAAD has always been a strong racing bike, not just because of the frame but the aggressive geometry has always helped.
My alu bike is disc braked so this is relatively heavy as a stock bike. With my light weight wheels (tubeless) and fast 25mm tyres, its a bit lighter and is absolutely fine for fast club rides. But its not fair to compare it to an out and out light weight carbon bike. The carbon frame has a retail of £2.5k, this is nearly a grand more than the entire alu bike cost. In fact the retail of the wheels on the carbon bike is more than the entire alu bike.
Again generalising, but when people buy high end lightweight frames they tend to install the "nicer" componentry which again is lighter and much more expensive. Yeah I know the CAAD is available with Dura Ace, but its still close to a whole 1kg heavier than the Emonda SLR. Be interesting to see the weight difference between the Supersix and the CAAD frames? I could get my Emonda SLR down to 6.2kgs, which doesn't in itself make it "fast", but its a very good frame. Also has a nice geometry (Trek H1), so this again helps. All that said, I still get dropped out of the back of some races by guys on much cheaper alu bikes.
Mid range carbon is a bit meh, no performance or comfort improvement over the alu frame. Other people will differ, but I just don't really notice the difference between mid range carbon bikes and my alu bike.

My view is that a good top end alu bike is still an awesome piece of kit, especially the CAAD's and even the Emonda ALR. However weight wise they don't compare with a silly expensive lightweight bike. In terms of performance, especially for short crit style races then they are pretty close and I would opt for the CAAD, but for longer lumpier hilly races I would be asking for the carbon SLR.

Matthewfalle

SurferCyclist wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Oh - an impartial article from a company that makes carbon bits for cars and so wants to sell you carbon bits for your car not an ali bike frame?

Deary you indeed. No problem though, we forgive you. We are kind like that.

Thanks. It was just an example of how by volume CF is lighter than aluminium that's all.

Its a pleasure - any time.

It wasn't a very good example though as I don't have car parts on my bi-cycle but it was nice to know about some car parts if I did want to buy some for my bi-cycle.

ZMC888

davidof wrote:

Within the type of bikes you are looking at then weight is not the major factor.

If you are doing a 1000 meter climb at 8% (a typical alpine col) then a 8kg bike will probably be no more than 1 minute quicker than an 10kg bike for an 11 stone rider and probably no real difference on the flat. (I'm going on my Strava times here.)

Indeed if I plug the figures into

http://bikecalculator.com/

I see the difference is about a minute. I that significant for you?

During the year I ride a lightweight carbon bike, a top steel bike from the 90s and a top steel bike from the 70s. On my local lunch training ride, a 500 meter climb, the difference between them can be measured in seconds. If you are not racing then I wouldn't worry about it too much. It is always good to beast people on a 1970s bike when they've laid out 6 grand for some carbon speed machine too :-)

If I had a choice of 1 bike I would probably take a good steel frame with good components but I wouldn't discount aluminium which is pretty low maintenance. I think some of the ride issues have been addressed with recent Al. frames.

How dare you not laud the properties of aluminium alloy! This unbiased assessment of frame materials from years of experience isn't not good enough! You must say that Aluminium alloy can be as good as any other material otherwise it will trigger the noob 'experts' that only have an aluminium alloy bike into a toddler rage. You said 'some of the issues' with alu bikes have been addressed, when you should have said 'alu are just as good as carbon fibre often better'.

surfercyclist

Matthewfalle wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Oh - an impartial article from a company that makes carbon bits for cars and so wants to sell you carbon bits for your car not an ali bike frame?

Deary you indeed. No problem though, we forgive you. We are kind like that.

Thanks. It was just an example of how by volume CF is lighter than aluminium that's all.

Its a pleasure - any time.

It wasn't a very good example though as I don't have car parts on my bi-cycle but it was nice to know about some car parts if I did want to buy some for my bi-cycle.

Is this the 5 minute argument or full half hour? Anyway, it doesn't matter what the bits are for, the physical principle is the same. So, just to clear it up it doesn't matter if the bits are for your bi-cycle as you put it or your washing machine, car or anything else.

ZMC888

Matthewfalle wrote:

JGSI wrote:

It does actually grind my gears when someone with very limited knowledge posts that alloy frames are inferior to cf just because.
Idiot.

This and ZMC above unfortunately is a prime candidate.

Methinks he believes the hype.

I own 10 bikes made from many materials, I have no horse in the race.

You own an aluminium alloy bike. It's called Choice-supportive bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias