# Frame weight.. does it really matter?



## new2rd

I've come to realize over the past year that there's a huge difference between frame weight even within the same brand and model. Get a top of the line frame and you could save a couple pounds vs. the entry level carbon frame. Just the other day I was at my LBS checking out a new Trek Project One that was just put together. I believe the size was 64cm, something huge. The components were just about identical to what I had on my 54cm Roubaix, but the bike was 2 lbs less. Wow!! So, where am I going with this? Ummm... ok, I normally carry 2 bottles of water with me on rides over 90 minutes, or just about 3 lbs of liquid and then there's the saddlebag with iphone, tube, Co2 cartridge, and a few other small items. Probably 4 1/2 lbs total. 
I had an amazing discovery. If I ride with just one water bottle, shedding 800 grams I ride at the same speed. 
So, what do you think about the Frame weight importance? On a side note, it's kind of ironic that someone would spend a few hundred bucks on a seatpost to save 60-80 grams when they could just leave a few ice cubes at home.


----------



## Mdeth1313

new2rd said:


> I've come to realize over the past year that there's a huge difference between frame weight even within the same brand and model. Get a top of the line frame and you could save a couple pounds vs. the entry level carbon frame. Just the other day I was at my LBS checking out a new Trek Project One that was just put together. I believe the size was 64cm, something huge. The components were just about identical to what I had on my 54cm Roubaix, but the bike was 2 lbs less. Wow!! So, where am I going with this? Ummm... ok, I normally carry 2 bottles of water with me on rides over 90 minutes, or just about 3 lbs of liquid and then there's the saddlebag with iphone, tube, Co2 cartridge, and a few other small items. Probably 4 1/2 lbs total.
> I had an amazing discovery. If I ride with just one water bottle, shedding 800 grams I ride at the same speed.
> So, what do you think about the Frame weight importance? On a side note, it's kind of ironic that someone would spend a few hundred bucks on a seatpost to save 60-80 grams when they could just leave a few ice cubes at home.



Ask yourself, "Self? Is frame weight important to you?" Then do whatever you want. It's your money.


----------



## dcorn

After buying a lightweight bike and trying to keep it that way, I've been pondering if I'd be able to tell the difference when the weight is moved around the bike and my person. 

Examples: 

Would I notice a lighter bike under me if I took the contents of my saddle bag and placed them in my jersey pocket instead? 

Carrying one bottle of water instead of two?

Would lighter wheels make me faster, even if I'm not climbing much?

Would a much lighter frame/build make me faster even if I'm on the same (sorta heavy) wheels?

What if I dropped 10-15 lbs but kept the same weight bike, could I tell when riding?


These are all questions I'd love to know because it could potentially save me quite a bit of money haha.


----------



## DrSmile

What if they design airfoil clothing that creates lift, would you go faster because it make you and the bike weigh less?


----------



## AndrwSwitch

One of my promises for myself when I finish my Master's is a bike that comes out of the box purpose-built for racing. Probably XC, but that scene is shrinking in my state, so we'll see what I'm doing in two years.

Anyway, if I'm able to get back to my racing weight again - 140 to 145 lb - it makes sense to me to care more about weight. And if you're going to build up a bike with light weight as a goal, it makes sense to start at the frame. Especially since it's one of the higher volume and more massive elements of the bike, so there's more there to work with. Not like trying to cut weight from a chainring - it weighs only 50g to begin with, so any swing is going to be pretty small.

That said, if I had to choose a place to have ballast added to a bike, it would be the frame.

Adding and removing water bottles is a good experiment. Sometimes I think I can tell the difference with back-to-back rides with full and empty bottles. Sometimes I think it must be in my head. That's about 3 lb.


----------



## dcorn

DrSmile said:


> What if they design airfoil clothing that creates lift, would you go faster because it make you and the bike weigh less?


Nope. Creating either lift or downforce means that you are creating drag, and that only slows you down. 

Lift doesn't reduce your mass either, which is really what we are talking about here. Weight weenies sounds better, but technically everyone here is trying to cut mass from their bike. 




AndrwSwitch said:


> One of my promises for myself when I finish my Master's is a bike that comes out of the box purpose-built for racing. Probably XC, but that scene is shrinking in my state, so we'll see what I'm doing in two years.
> 
> Anyway, if I'm able to get back to my racing weight again - 140 to 145 lb - it makes sense to me to care more about weight. And if you're going to build up a bike with light weight as a goal, it makes sense to start at the frame. Especially since it's one of the higher volume and more massive elements of the bike, so there's more there to work with. Not like trying to cut weight from a chainring - it weighs only 50g to begin with, so any swing is going to be pretty small.
> 
> That said, if I had to choose a place to have ballast added to a bike, it would be the frame.
> 
> Adding and removing water bottles is a good experiment. Sometimes I think I can tell the difference with back-to-back rides with full and empty bottles. Sometimes I think it must be in my head. That's about 3 lb.


I think you're right on this. I agree that the 'best' place to have weight if you are going to have it at all is in the frame because it is the most central location on your full setup. It won't throw the balance off too much by having weight way out somewhere like the seat (saddle bag) or the bars or your helmet. Then again, I think the best place to remove weight is definitely the wheels, especially the outer rims. 

One of these days I need to do a quick 'study' to see how I can ride with just one bottle of water, especially when it's not too hot out. Plus there are usually fountains along my route that I can refill. That and reduce the number of things I keep in my seatbag and on my person. That all reduces 'frame weight' in the manner we are discussing and is a cheap way to do so. My frame and componentry itself is already pretty damn light, its just the accessories I add to it to make me self sufficient on the trail/road.


----------



## AndrwSwitch

...and this is where it becomes apparent that "Save Some Weight" is not my usual forum.

I almost never ride with less than two water bottles. Sometimes I like to have one filled with half-strength gatorade and one with water, and sometimes just because my rides are usually over an hour and I don't like to have to stop.

I could swear I could tell a difference in the handling of my mountain bike with and without the seat wedge. That only ever contains two tubes, a spare link, and sometimes a patch kit. I carry a pump and a multi tool in a jersey pocket. For a while, I was leaving it in my truck when I was racing, on the theory that if I flatted, I was out of the race anyway. A couple years ago I did flat in the last lap of a normal-length XC race. I wasn't doing especially well, but it took about twenty minutes for the back of the race to catch up to me, and a while for me to walk out. That sucked, and I can change a tube in less than twenty minutes. So I probably wouldn't have been last, and I would have finished and collected a lot more series points. Since then, the tubes and tools come with me for XC races too.

I still don't take tools with me for cyclocross, short-course XC, or a criterium. If I did a fully-supported road race, I might not. But for all other riding, I can fix a flat or a broken chain, I have water and maybe some gels or bars for the expected length (sometimes I stuff a third bottle in a jersey pocket. Longer than that, and I'm thinking about where I can find a drinking fountain. Unless it's MTB, then I add a hydration pack for up to three more hours.) I also throw fenders on most of my bikes about seven months out of the year.

I'm not one of those kitchen sink riders either, though. At least, not according to me.  I have a single tool that does all those jobs, rather than a bunch of individual tools (seriously, seen it) and I take what I consider to be a sane amount of food with me.

Anyway, I think this is an area where a sense of perspective really pays. Are you 20 lb overweight? I am right now. Are you competing? If you have a problem, can you finish the race? (Is the race long enough for that to be worthwhile?)


----------



## dcorn

Haha, not my forum either usually. I'm currently at ~190 lbs and my weight doesn't really fluctuate too much even during riding season. Might get down to 180 at the least. I figure its a bit easier to notice if I shed weight off the bike though. 

My saddle bag has a spare tube, CO2 pump, plastic tire levers and a hex/screwdriver multi-tool. Feels like it weighs quite a bit, I'd bet at least 1-1.5 lbs. I'm wondering if carrying most of that stuff in the jersey would make a difference. 

Like you I always carry two bottles because I expect my rides to run at least 2-3 hours. I used to carry a camelbak when I started and would go through a ton of water on hot days, but I've trained myself to ration more. Still, I'm a thirsty guy, so even with two bottles I'll stop and fill up when I need a gel or something. Usually have a few gels and gummy packs, maybe a clif bar or something, then my cell and keys. Pockets get pretty damn full, so not sure if there is room for the saddlebag contents anyway. 

The perspective thing is totally right though. I'm trying to take grams off my bike when I could be taking pounds off my body and gear. I don't compete and don't plan to, but I don't want to have a problem 20+ miles from home and an hour before sunset. I'm well aware that half of this weight obsession is just for bragging rights, but I don't mind that either. Still, I do think there is a difference between body weight and bike weight that actually affects performance. Just have to get out there and test it I guess.


----------



## AndrwSwitch

I think the handling cost of weight gets higher the further it is from the rider's center of mass.

It turns out that the rotating weight aspect of why there's something special about wheels isn't as big as everybody thought. They don't weigh that much and don't spin that fast. But, they're furthest away from the rider's center of mass.

I think things far from the bottom bracket and any axes of rotation matter more. For example, if you drew a line connecting the hubs, you'd rotate the bike about that line when you sprinted or climbed out of the saddle. The saddle and seat bag are far from that. The water bottles are very close. Wheels are relatively big, so there again, they matter.


----------



## dcorn

Eh, when you're throwing the bike back and forth, technically the axis of rotation is the ground where the wheels touch. You are rocking the whole bike, including the wheels, not just the frame itself. That would mean the bottom half of the wheel stays vertical. The rest of your point makes sense though.


----------



## AndrwSwitch

You're free to disagree with me, but give it some thought -

When you're behind someone and he's sprinting, watch the contact patches of his tires.

I don't think they travel in a straight line. I think they move back and forth some.

It doesn't make too much difference, ultimately, and there are a ton of moves that rotate about other axes too, like kicking the bike out to one side and turning to the other.


----------



## woodys737

new2rd said:


> I've come to realize over the past year that there's a huge difference between frame weight even within the same brand and model. Get a top of the line frame and you could save a couple pounds vs. the entry level carbon frame. Just the other day I was at my LBS checking out a new Trek Project One that was just put together. I believe the size was 64cm, something huge. The components were just about identical to what I had on my 54cm Roubaix, but the bike was 2 lbs less. Wow!! So, where am I going with this? Ummm... ok, I normally carry 2 bottles of water with me on rides over 90 minutes, or just about 3 lbs of liquid and then there's the saddlebag with iphone, tube, Co2 cartridge, and a few other small items. Probably 4 1/2 lbs total.
> I had an amazing discovery. If I ride with just one water bottle, shedding 800 grams I ride at the same speed.
> So, what do you think about the Frame weight importance? On a side note, it's kind of ironic that someone would spend a few hundred bucks on a seatpost to save 60-80 grams when they could just leave a few ice cubes at home.


The construction and how the frame and rider fit are more important than the absolute weight of the frame to me. If two frames were identical with the exception of weight I'd have to go with the lighter one. I'd say the same for all the other components as well. In the end it all adds up rather quickly and that's how you end up with a 19lbs bike v. a 14lbs bike. Given the choice I bet nearly 100% of cyclist would rather ride a 14lbs bike v. the 19lbs version. 5lbs to most people is a large enough difference where the choice is obvious. Saving 60g on a seat post seems ridiculous to most riders because well 60g relative to 5lbs seems ridiculous and no one can feel any difference anyways. But again, it all adds up so in the larger context of keeping the total bike weight down saving 60g on a post doesn't seem ironic or silly to me especially if you can afford it. 

I think where people go wrong with all this is thinking that saving 60g by itself will make a noticeable difference. I'd echo what Mdeth1313 wrote: it's your money do what you want.


----------



## shearwater

Everyone is talking in grammes!! Lose 14lbs in weight and thats 6.35 Kgs!!!!!


----------



## spade2you

shearwater said:


> Everyone is talking in grammes!! Lose 14lbs in weight and thats 6.35 Kgs!!!!!


Not everyone has weight to lose.


----------



## new2rd

woodys737 said:


> The construction and how the frame and rider fit are more important than the absolute weight of the frame to me. If two frames were identical with the exception of weight I'd have to go with the lighter one. I'd say the same for all the other components as well. In the end it all adds up rather quickly and that's how you end up with a 19lbs bike v. a 14lbs bike. Given the choice I bet nearly 100% of cyclist would rather ride a 14lbs bike v. the 19lbs version. 5lbs to most people is a large enough difference where the choice is obvious. Saving 60g on a seat post seems ridiculous to most riders because well 60g relative to 5lbs seems ridiculous and no one can feel any difference anyways. But again, it all adds up so in the larger context of keeping the total bike weight down saving 60g on a post doesn't seem ironic or silly to me especially if you can afford it.
> 
> I think where people go wrong with all this is thinking that saving 60g by itself will make a noticeable difference. I'd echo what Mdeth1313 wrote: it's your money do what you want.


Kind of my point, if you are starting with a somewhat heavy frame, there's only so far you can go. If you want a sub 15 lb bike, you kind of need to have the right frame to start with. Most would choose a 14 lb bike over a 19 lb bike. I just find it a little absurd that some feel necessary to get a bike as light as possible. It's like spending $20k to get a Kia Rio up to speed.


----------



## new2rd

dcorn said:


> One of these days I need to do a quick 'study' to see how I can ride with just one bottle of water, especially when it's not too hot out. Plus there are usually fountains along my route that I can refill. That and reduce the number of things I keep in my seatbag and on my person. That all reduces 'frame weight' in the manner we are discussing and is a cheap way to do so. My frame and componentry itself is already pretty damn light, its just the accessories I add to it to make me self sufficient on the trail/road.


I have a short steep hill near my house that I'm going to test with everything stripped off my bike (water bottles, seatbag, cell phone, etc..). This should save over 4 lbs and I would think that the weight would be noticeable. 4 lbs climing a hill that is over 20% for a little bit should be noticeable.


----------



## spade2you

new2rd said:


> Kind of my point, if you are starting with a somewhat heavy frame, there's only so far you can go. If you want a sub 15 lb bike, you kind of need to have the right frame to start with. Most would choose a 14 lb bike over a 19 lb bike. I just find it a little absurd that some feel necessary to get a bike as light as possible. It's like spending $20k to get a Kia Rio up to speed.


If you're already fast enough, it's not hard to notice the improvements of a light bike with aero tubulars vs. something much heavier and alloy clinchers.


----------



## tuck

I told my wife that she would be faster if she would simply drop the monkey that she's constantly carrying on her back.


----------



## bernithebiker

Think of it this way - would you be happy riding a 15kg, 30lb bike? I doubt it. 

This would definitely feel heavy on any hill, or with any acceleration.

Some say that weight is unimportant, especially now that aero is the new king. 

But I say call their bluff. Give them a 15kg bike and see how they get on with it. I don't think they'd last very long.


----------



## AndrwSwitch

I've been commuting by bike for years. Right now, I only ride a couple miles. I have a Trek Portland (not the lightest, though not the heaviest either) but I've bolted on fenders and a rear rack and I typically have a heavy U-lock and a medium cable bungied to it. I bet it comes in at over 30 lb. I'm quite happy with it.

Last spring, I was attending a school that was on top of a pretty stiff climb. I put my binders and text books in panniers. So that bike came in even heavier. Probably middle forties. I wasn't too happy with how flexy the rear triangle was under that load, but the weight of the bike didn't bother me all that much. With a little adjustment in timing, I even climbed out of the saddle with it.

My mountain bike has got to come in right around 30 lb, especially with fenders, full water bottles, and spare tubes. Not unhappy with that.

And while I don't have a weight on my nicer road bike, it's a steel bike with a funny adapter for the stem (1999 bike, but my favorite bars are 31.8 at the clamp) and conservatively built wheels. It's heavier than my 'cross bike, but that doesn't stop me from liking it better.


----------



## cyclist brent

I'm 135 lbs and have no weight to lose really. In fact, I'm always trying to add muscle to my body. I would say for those of us in the featherweight group, less weight on the bike equates to less muscle needed to push it. If you're overweight, then screw the carbon, get a gym membership and work your body first. That's always my advice to people on weight ...but for those of us already at a light weight and 10% body fat, then dropping a few pounds on the bike can really make a difference. I noticed a huge difference going from a 22 lb entry level bike to upgrading parts to get to 19 lbs. That 3 lbs was noticeable. Then going to a new bike at 16 pounds is a rocket...even up steep hills. Its all relative is what I'm saying. I know guys on 20+ lb steel bikes that can kick anyone's arse. And guys on 15 lb bikes that get dropped like an anchor on a climb. 

as far as the whole water bottle thing. Unless you're racing it shouldn't matter. I would rather carry two water bottles than risk running out of water and dehydrating out i the middle of nowhere. Who cares how light your bike is when you're muscles have cramped up and your vision starts to blur.


----------



## Camilo

new2rd said:


> I've come to realize over the past year that there's a huge difference between frame weight even within the same brand and model. Get a top of the line frame and you could save a couple pounds vs. the entry level carbon frame. Just the other day I was at my LBS checking out a new Trek Project One that was just put together. I believe the size was 64cm, something huge. The components were just about identical to what I had on my 54cm Roubaix, but the bike was 2 lbs less. ...


I can see a 1 pound difference between two good quality frames (500g), but two pounds, a full kilo is a lot. I'm assuming that the "heavier" one is sitll a pretty nice, fairly recent carbon fiber frame, not an older alloy frame.

First thing that comes to mind is the fork. A top end full carbon fiber fork can be less than 300 grams, while a perfectly good carbon fork with an alloy steerer can be 500+ That's over a half of that second pound right there. Even a full carbon fork, not of the highest echelon can be ~400 grams, or nearly 1/4 of that second pound.

Even if the forks are comparable, I wonder how identical the the wheels, tires, tubes, and "cockpit" parts were? Two bikes with the same basic drivetrain group (e.g. Dura Ace, etc.) can have very significant differences. There's a lot of 50-100 gram differences in those parts. Without seeing the bikes, I would guess that second 500 grams comes not from the frame, but from those things. Wheels and tires alone could easily be 300 grams by themselves. 

My only point is that a full KG difference between two modern, good quality, name brand CF frame+fork combos is an awful lot. That's more on the magnitude of what you'd see between a modern CF frame and a good quality steel frame. 

What you more often is a 500 gram overall difference, some from the frame, some from the fork. Yea it might be more, but not a kilo. For example, a "very light" frame + fork is 8-900+300. A very respectable ligth frame + fork might be more like 1200 + 400, a pound differnce, not two. I bet half of the 2 pound weight difference comes from the other stuff.


----------



## Alpinemax

*Frame's just one of the components*

I've been building and upgrading my bike for the last 3 years based on a 1.1kg Cinelli Starlight c/w 400g muscle carbon forks. On first build up using existing campag components off my old bike it came in at 9kg. Over the 3 years I've bought used lighter upgrade components on ebay UK and then sold the old components at a profit on ebay France.

Now down to 7.25Kg complete including pedals and the bikes only cost around 500€ to build taking into account the buying an selling.

So yes, Frame important as a foundation, but all the rest adds up to much more:thumbsup:.


----------



## dcorn

I did a little test finally. Went out on my normal route for a quick ride (20mi) after work with no saddlebag (tube, CO2 pump in my jersey) and only one bottle. The bike felt like it wanted to rocket up hills, and I was climbing in at least a gear or two higher than usual. Pretty sure it wasn't just me having a lot of energy because I didn't get a whole lot of sleep the day before and was kinda tired. It just felt easier to push the bike along, it was kinda nice. 

The bike weighs about 15.5 lbs, so keeping that heavy saddlebag and another bottle off really kept it light. (bag normally carries CO2 pump with 2 cartriges, multitool, spare tube and nylon levers, so it's fairly heavy)


----------



## nightfend

A rider would be hard pressed to tell a difference of less than 2lbs on a bike. So if you ride a 15lb bike and a 17lb bike, they would feel about the same. Assuming similar specs. You start dropping more than 2lbs of weight, and you can start noticing the differences, though they are often small, it will be most noticeable on climbs.

It is fun to see how light you can make your bike, but often it is diminishing returns, and we'd all probably be better off with a sturdy and durable 16 or 17lb bike.

As far as handling goes, dropping weight higher up on the bike usually helps bike handling as the bike is less top heavy and will not tend to tip over as easy.


----------



## dcorn

I hear ya. My bike came with all super lightweight parts, weighed 14.3 lbs with the factory 202's. I didn't want to ride tubulars, to switching to my alloy wheels and installing cages brought it up to nearly 16 lbs. Someday I might get some carbon clinchers to knock off some weight, but at this point, I'd have to spend a bloody fortune to shed anymore grams. 

So much cheaper, yet so much harder to lose the weight off my body


----------



## onefastbiker

From my experience, I'm just as fast on a 23lb steel bike as my 17lb carbon frame. I weigh only 145lbs. 
However, my 17lb bike accelerates quicker - less mass to change speed. Lighter wheels "spool up" quicker and can make my steel frame more lively and responsive; but the same wheels on the carbon frame? MAGIC!


----------



## new2rd

onefastbiker said:


> From my experience, I'm just as fast on a 23lb steel bike as my 17lb carbon frame. I weigh only 145lbs.
> However, my 17lb bike accelerates quicker - less mass to change speed. Lighter wheels "spool up" quicker and can make my steel frame more lively and responsive; but the same wheels on the carbon frame? MAGIC!


Having just completed my first race I can definitely see how a lighter bike can help with accelerations especially if u daydream a bit and get caught off guard.. I would rather try to latch in to someone's wheel with a 16 lb bike than with a 20 lb bike. The engine still makes the biggest difference, but not getting dropped might give the engine a chance to recover


----------



## hotwheels22

i just bought a pair of Shimano RS80 C24's for my used Javelin Titanium road bike (bought off a local racer two or three years ago) and put them in place of a straight spoked Felt front wheel and Shimano Tiagra Rear wheel and it has been a total revelation.

i'd be really curious to know what the weight drop was in doing this but the ride is definitely a world apart. actually, i am not even totally sure the difference is all due to the weight change but, man what a difference.


----------



## olr1

The bit you are all missing is that any change in weight has to be considered as part of the whole bike/rider/helmet/shoes/socks/water bottles/phone/wallet system.

Lets be kind and assume that your all up weight on the bike is 100 kgs. Now change that all up weight by 500 grammes, or by 1000grammes.... See why it's not going to make the difference you assume?


----------



## rredad

My normal bike is Cannondale Alloy Synapse. I think the last time I weighed it, it was 19lbs. My winter bike is a Redline Conquest Pro. Withe the back rack I keep on it, it weighs in @24 lbs. I've often ridden the same ride within a week on 1 or the other. avg time has been the same. I always ride with 2 full water bottles, seat bag and repair tools, I have a small frt bag I swap between bikes. I don't think a couple of pounds of frame weight are that significant. I also have a steel framed bike which I drag out every once in a while which weighs in at 25 lbs. it is noticeably slower, but the difference is in the wheel sets. The Cannondale and Redline have decent, fairly light shimano wheel set, (ultegra and something 500), the steel bike has heavy 2300 hubs and cheap mavic rims. I think the wheels are making the most difference, not the frame weight


----------



## Zachariah

Bike weight is only for that, "feel fast" factor, to most of us mere mortals...

Yes - I'm an admitted weight weenie.


----------



## hazilim

*Bang for the buck*

I ride a much-modified Trek FX 7.5. It started out at 22.5 lb. I swapped the stock Bontrager SSR wheelset (32mm tires) (4000g total) for Ksyrium Elite (23mm tires) (1950g total). The swap cost about $346 at PB. Weight loss was 2050g (4.4 lb).
I've changed to a lighter saddle, seatpost, bar, crankset; but the loss of weight starts to yield diminishing returns. The greatest "bang for the buck" was the wheelset, at $78 / lb.
I don't race, but the weight change due to the wheels & tires makes the bike feel much faster & more pleasant to ride. The rest of the mods (105 components) cost way more & yielded only about 1 lb further weight loss.
The aluminum frame weight is significant, but the cost of swapping frames looks prohibitive. Getting down to 17lb is doable in spite of the alloy frame, but the wheelset represents most of the decrease in weight & increase in performance.
Bob


----------

