# How much does weight really matter?



## TeenRacer

How much does road bike weight really matter? Will one or two pounds make a noticeable difference?


Casey


----------



## Jdub

TeenRacer said:


> How much does road bike weight really matter? Will one or two pounds make a noticeable difference?
> 
> 
> Casey


The more you go up the more it matters. If you stay on the flats it matters relatively little (within reason). 1 or 2 pounds is a big difference when you climb a lot though. 

That said 10 or 20 grams is a whole other story.


----------



## OJack

Rotating weight (wheels) makes the most difference but one or two lbs on the bike would be very hard to notice. Take the weight of your body...it's a lot less expensive.


----------



## TommyApplehead

If you're racing other dedicated cyclists, then it does matter.
If you're just out for a good ride, then it's not a factor.


----------



## asgelle

TeenRacer said:


> How much does road bike weight really matter? Will one or two pounds make a noticeable difference?
> 
> 
> Casey


You can get the full answer here: http://www.analyticcycling.com/WheelsConcept_Page.html
But the simple answer is that the most a change in weight can matter is roughly the ratio of the change in weight to the total bike+rider weight. So a 1 lb change for a combined bike+rider weight of 150 lbs would yield a difference of 0.67%, and then only for climbing very steep hills. For all other cases the change would be less; only you can decide if you can detect such a difference.


----------



## Spunout

*It really doesn't matter*



TommyApplehead said:


> If you're racing other dedicated cyclists, then it does matter.
> If you're just out for a good ride, then it's not a factor.


Dedicated cyclists aren't weight weenies, so I would say that it does not matter. Light bikes are mostly for bragging, posing, and money spending. Most aren't really ridden that much because they are too expensive and would break too easily.

One or two pounds will not make a difference. Spend the money on coaching, ride more, and go to more races.


----------



## Francis Cebedo

On flat roads, it hardly matters. On big climbs, it matters a bit.

But here's what I live by... It's 90% fitness and effort. 10% is equipment. A good example is a 5 mile hill that climbs 2000 feet. Let's say a good time up the hill is 30 minutes.

Now let's say it takes you 60 minutes to climb it on a 20 lb bike. If you get a 15 lb bike with light wheels I think you can climb it in around 58-59 minutes.

However, if you train your body and mind, and inevitably lose body weight, your time can improve to 30-40 minutes. It might take a year or two.

So hope my anecdotal info sheds some perspective. Fitness and effort is the key but if you've been there and want to unlock a few more seconds, shedding bike weight (specially wheels) will help.

francois


----------



## Spunout

Teen Racer: Train 10% more and smarter than the others and you'll have it covered. Petacchi won alot of races last year on 2kg wheels.


----------



## poshscot

*physically or psychologically?*

if you are not overweight and truely believe a lighter bike will improve your performance then i would be loath to tell you 2lb wont make any difference....


----------



## Deda

*not much at all...*

You might feel more of a difference if you are very light or rather unfit when you lose 2lbs from the bike. I have realised that weight do not matter much to me anymore ever since I train seriously for competitions. I am 150lbs and I do not feel any difference on flats if I am on my 20lb Giant or 16lbs Merckx. On crazy climbs, i also cant really tell the diff and i seem to climb at the same speed on the same slopes. My form that day dictates my climbing speed more. 

One thing that i have to bring up is that i actually prefer a certain heavier wheelset than another silly light one for climbing. The heavier one is freaking stiff and all my output goes to pushing me up. On the lighter set, it is flexy and i feel that i am wasting my efforts in bending the wheels instead going up. In short, stiff and strong wheels climb better for me than light flexy ones. People always think I am crazy when I leave my silly light wheelset at home for races with crazy gradient and use my 1.8kg wheelset instead.


----------



## Kuma601

For me, I have two bikes to alternate between. One comes in at 20#'s and the other is 23#'s. The lighter bike has the lighter wheel set BTW. Over the same route, I post similar times on either bike. Mostly the differences in my rides is based on food intake and how well rested I am.

As poshscot commented, it may be a mental aspect too. If the lighter bike motivates you to perform, you likely will. Within reason but that is also the joy of riding a finely crafted machine.


----------



## atpjunkie

*rotational mass most important*

but to the extent that some here carry it (and the cost it incurs) is silly. Unless you race seriously and have a body fat of less than 10% you can shave weight far cheaper off of the rider than the bike. I'd like to see a 'show us your light bike (with weight scale) and show us yourself (with fat calibrator)' board.

Eddy said it best "Don't buy upgrades, Ride Up Grades"


----------



## FTF

I have a couple bikes one is like 19-18 lbs (never weighed so I do not know), and another one that is pretty light 15ish lbs (weighed simply because the guys at the bike shop couldn't resist, they had some goofy looks on their face when I came to get it). I bought the light one as a reward to myself, and for no other reason. I've actually recently made it heavier, by putting heavier bars and stem on it, so that's how much I give a rip about weight. Still though riding the light one it feels good, it seems to accelerate a little faster (in my head, yeah probably), and it's easier to toss around in a sprint, but that could have to do with geometry too. 

I race them both, and I don't think my bike has ever prevented me from winning, I only have myself to blame when I can't pull it off. I have a race this weekend, and most likely I'll be breaking out the heavier one. 

I ride the light one more, I find, because I like it a little more, simply because it seems to fit better, nothing more. I ride it because I bought it to ride, not sit on the wall, when it breaks or wears out, I'll buy another bike (I’m seriously not rich, but why buy something and not use it. 

Oh, yeah I'm with Deda, when he said he prefers the heavier wheelset to a lighter one, me too, I have reynolds stratus wheels, and honestly, I ride my heavier ones more, not because of cost or anything, but I just like the way they feel better. I think it's all totally subjective, the whole thing. Bikes are subjective, it's like which car is better, who your attracted too, all preference.


----------



## TurboTurtle

TeenRacer said:


> How much does road bike weight really matter? Will one or two pounds make a noticeable difference?
> 
> 
> Casey


What's with all of these sensible answers - the pre-spring blahs? Where is that good old "82 grams will save you 14 hours on the RAAM" spirit? I think everybody knows it doesn't matter, but that's not what I want to hear. I want that new set of DA levers and I "need" those wheels! Help me out here. - TF


----------



## benInMA

I think it says a lot when people mention the kinds of hills that they think weight might make a difference on.

2000ft in 5 miles to me is not difficult. Not in the least. 5000 ft in 5 miles is the kind of hill I might start wondering about it on. I like to climb a lot.

There is far, far, far more concern about bike weight here than there is at the Mt. Washington hillclimb in my experience. And there isn't that much talk in the Mt. Washington forum of weight weenie stuff. No one really ever seems to do the Mt. Washington race and then go, "Man, if I only had a 1lb lighter bike I would have done so much better." It's always, "Oh man, my gearing was not exactly right". It's, "Hmm.. I did something wrong with my fitness". "My fit was not quite right and it caused my knee to hurt a little since this climb is so extreme", "My fit didn't feel right and I was pulling wheelies", "My fit didn't feel right and I think I lost some power." "My nutrition/clothes were not right." "The weather conditions between miles 3-4 really screwed me up this year." All of these factors make a FAR bigger difference than bike weight on an extreme climb.

I am hoping to take 10 minutes or more off my time this year, I am riding a bike that is maybe 2lbs lighter (20.5lbs to maybe 18.5lbs) , but the fit is much improved. I will be at the same body weight or slightly less based on where I am right now with 5 more months to train. But the biggest thing is the gearing. I am hoping to make up that 10 minutes with more appropriate gearing. Even if I get my bike down to 15lbs it is almost impossible for me to believe that could make anywhere near a 10 minute difference.

The other issue is any nasty hill I ride up, I am going to ride down if I am allowed to. I want to enjoy the ride down as well. Weight weenie stuff IMO detracts from the fun of descending. If you gotta worry about stiffness, durability, or handling due to lightweight stuff, it is no good. Super light wheelsets that give up stiffness, etc.. are not fun on roads that are over 10% with switchbacks and other hard cornering and high speed on the descent.

edit: Just hopped over to the Mt. W. forums and there wasn't a single bike weight related post on the first page of the forum (200 topics or so). And these are the people preparing for one of the toughest climbs in the world. You only get so many chances to climb a mountain that is actually steep enough for bike weight to matter in your riding career, chances are you will never control the other variables enough to realize any benefit by reducing bike weight.


----------



## Francis Cebedo

benInMA said:


> I think it says a lot when people mention the kinds of hills that they think weight might make a difference on.
> 
> 2000ft in 5 miles to me is not difficult. Not in the least. 5000 ft in 5 miles is the kind of hill I might start wondering about it on. I like to climb a lot.


That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. The only point I got is that you're a climbing stud.

francois


----------



## BugMan

benInMA said:


> I think it says a lot when people mention the kinds of hills that they think weight might make a difference on.
> 
> 2000ft in 5 miles to me is not difficult. Not in the least. 5000 ft in 5 miles is the kind of hill I might start wondering about it on. I like to climb a lot...


Geez, you should race here in the Ozarks! We have to go 20 miles on our tougher routes to reach 2000 ft of climbing - enough to string us all out pretty good. You could really clean up around here!

Holy crap - 5000 ft in 5 miles is a 19.29% grade - you should try to sign up for the TdF.


----------



## TurboTurtle

BugMan said:


> Geez, you should race here in the Ozarks! We have to go 20 miles on our tougher routes to reach 2000 ft of climbing - enough to string us all out pretty good. You could really clean up around here!
> 
> Holy crap - 5000 ft in 5 miles is a 19.29% grade - you should try to sign up for the TdF.


I would have ride about 550 miles to get 2000' elevation climb. - TF


----------



## poshscot

*i'll help you out..*

if you want a superlight/expensive bike or you just like the fact that you can have a bike that weighs 14lbs then so be it - it might not make you quicker or faster but i for one love the tech just as much as the riding - those who say its not about the bike are the ones who couldnt afford to have their dream bike and are maybe just jealous......


----------



## rwbadley

benInMA said:


> 2000ft in 5 miles to me is not difficult. Not in the least. 5000 ft in 5 miles is the kind of hill I might start wondering about it on. I like to climb a lot.


Wow, I'm impressed.You must be quite a climber. 2K in five miles is a good hill around here. 5K in five miles I've never seen on our roads. 

Doing 1k/mile, bike weight might enter into it. I would be more concerned about gearing- and if I could find a forty tooth for the rear set ;-) 

After a few hundred yards of 20% I'm looking at some serious terracing. (woobling from side to side to shallow the angle)


----------



## homebrew

*simple test*



TeenRacer said:


> How much does road bike weight really matter? Will one or two pounds make a noticeable difference?
> 
> 
> Casey


Two waterbottles are a bit over 2lbs. Try a sprint with and without the bottles. Now do the same on a long climb. I can feel the differance. If you watch a big road race they always toss the bottles before the last sprint or climb. Some people on this forum claim that anyone on a light bike (weight weenie) is not a dedicated bike rider. In my experence that is untrue. It is sometime true that those that can afford a light bike tend to be older but compaire them to others in the same age bracket they will put in more and faster miles on the whole. Do you need a light bike, no. Very few of us NEED a bike. A light bike is however more responsive, attacks in a sprint faster and climbs better. It also costs a bundle and may need more service. If you are just going on short club rides or tour light is not needed. I own road bikes from a 26 lb tour bike with panners to a 15.8 lb race bike to a 27lb all mountain bike and a 19lb fixed gear. The only bike I plan on making lighter is my race bike (lighter and more areo wheels). Fit your bike to your needs. Happy riding.


----------



## cityeast

benInMA said:


> I think it says a lot when people mention the kinds of hills that they think weight might make a difference on.
> 
> 2000ft in 5 miles to me is not difficult. Not in the least. 5000 ft in 5 miles is the kind of hill I might start wondering about it on. I like to climb a lot.


I am impressed with your climbing skills, but I would be more impressed if you can even find a sealed road with 5000ft in 5miles. 

The steepest I have found in this neck of the Alps is 4200ft in 5.5miles, and that is a gravel goat track. I consider myself a reasonable climber and I could only tackle this one in MTB granny gear and took me nearly 2 hours. The Swiss start digging tunnels well before sealing a road that steep.


----------



## TurboTurtle

homebrew said:


> Two waterbottles are a bit over 2lbs. Try a sprint with and without the bottles. Now do the same on a long climb. I can feel the differance. If you watch a big road race they always toss the bottles before the last sprint or climb. Some people on this forum claim that anyone on a light bike (weight weenie) is not a dedicated bike rider. In my experence that is untrue. It is sometime true that those that can afford a light bike tend to be older but compaire them to others in the same age bracket they will put in more and faster miles on the whole. Do you need a light bike, no. Very few of us NEED a bike. A light bike is however more responsive, attacks in a sprint faster and climbs better. It also costs a bundle and may need more service. If you are just going on short club rides or tour light is not needed. I own road bikes from a 26 lb tour bike with panners to a 15.8 lb race bike to a 27lb all mountain bike and a 19lb fixed gear. The only bike I plan on making lighter is my race bike (lighter and more areo wheels). Fit your bike to your needs. Happy riding.


That "simple test" isn't worth the time you took to type it. Unless you (and preferably any one you come in contact with) don't know what's in the bottle, it's meaninless. - TF


----------



## homebrew

TurboTurtle said:


> That "simple test" isn't worth the time you took to type it. Unless you (and preferably any one you come in contact with) don't know what's in the bottle, it's meaninless. - TF


Try and be a little more spicific please.
I have read all the computer models and IMO they are very limited. It all depends on what you are trying to do. In the RAAM comfort and areo seem to be most important but how does that relate to me? With a light bike I have a bit better chance of staying with a breakaway of staying with the pack on a climb. Its funny, how many people own an SUV that they don't NEED or a hot sports car that can go 150mph but if you own or want a light bike you are labeled a posser. Hogwash, this site is set up for people that wish to share ideas with others but is being trashed bysome that are threatened by those that like to ride light bikes. In my younger days I used to wonder why all those "old guys" got the light bikes, well its the same reason that they have the cool cars, MONEY. I like all bikes. I like the old 10 speeds with the bars upside down. Like beach bikes and BMX. Anyone riding anything is cool with me.


----------



## TurboTurtle

homebrew said:


> Try and be a little more spicific please.
> I have read all the computer models and IMO they are very limited. It all depends on what you are trying to do. In the RAAM comfort and areo seem to be most important but how does that relate to me? With a light bike I have a bit better chance of staying with a breakaway of staying with the pack on a climb. Its funny, how many people own an SUV that they don't NEED or a hot sports car that can go 150mph but if you own or want a light bike you are labeled a posser. Hogwash, this site is set up for people that wish to share ideas with others but is being trashed bysome that are threatened by those that like to ride light bikes. In my younger days I used to wonder why all those "old guys" got the light bikes, well its the same reason that they have the cool cars, MONEY. I like all bikes. I like the old 10 speeds with the bars upside down. Like beach bikes and BMX. Anyone riding anything is cool with me.


What I am saying is that your test method doesn’t prove a thing. Without, at least, single blind (you don’t know if the bottles are empty or full) testing, you cannot remove the variable of you knowing from the test.

One of the popular books ("Serious Cycling"??) has a story by the author of when he "proved" that the caffeine in his coffee yogurt was giving him better TT times. He not only felt stronger, but his TT times proved it. Years later he found out that it was only coffee flavored - never did have any caffeine. “Two waterbottles are a bit over 2lbs. Try a sprint with and without the bottles. Now do the same on a long climb. I can feel the differance.” Same thing.

I did not say (in this post anyway) that weight doesn’t matter, only that your “simple test” doesn’t prove that it does.

Try it. Leave your bike where you cannot see it and get someone to put two bottles in the cages that may or may not have 2# of water. Be sure that there is no way you can tell, other than the feel of the ride, and that you do not have any contact with anyone who knows. Take your 10 minute test ride and say yes or no. Repeat several times.

TF


----------



## homebrew

*OK I 'll buy that*



TurboTurtle said:


> What I am saying is that your test method doesn’t prove a thing. Without, at least, single blind (you don’t know if the bottles are empty or full) testing, you cannot remove the variable of you knowing from the test.
> 
> One of the popular books ("Serious Cycling"??) has a story by the author of when he "proved" that the caffeine in his coffee yogurt was giving him better TT times. He not only felt stronger, but his TT times proved it. Years later he found out that it was only coffee flavored - never did have any caffeine. “Two waterbottles are a bit over 2lbs. Try a sprint with and without the bottles. Now do the same on a long climb. I can feel the differance.” Same thing.
> 
> I did not say (in this post anyway) that weight doesn’t matter, only that your “simple test” doesn’t prove that it does.
> 
> Try it. Leave your bike where you cannot see it and get someone to put two bottles in the cages that may or may not have 2# of water. Be sure that there is no way you can tell, other than the feel of the ride, and that you do not have any contact with anyone who knows. Take your 10 minute test ride and say yes or no. Repeat several times.
> 
> TF


Yes if you want to prove to a scientific certainty, I was just thinking for the posters question he could find what works for him and the way he rides. You are correct however that a blind test would be more accurate. An reverse question, how many here would like to add two pounds (provided it served no other purpose i.e. lights or something)? I think the list would be very small. I once 1/2 filled a friends innertubes with water before a ride, it was several days before he figured out why he felt so slugish. Should have seen him climbing hills! About a year later he painted my bike pink.


----------



## AJS

For me it comes down to this, (general order of importance):

#1 - overall fit/geometry/comfort
#2 - appropriate gearing & sufficient braking ability (tied)
#3 - accurate, predictable, reliable shifting
#4 - good handling and/or power transfer (stiffness/strength/durability)
#5 - aerodynamics
#6 - weight

Only when I've satisfied something higher on the list first will I try to improve something else lower on the list. Seldom will I sacrifice something of higher importance for something of lesser, like suffering with a lighter saddle for the sake of losing 100 grams of weight, or changing to a lighter fork that won't handle as well or be strong enough in the long run.

Also, "appearance" counts for something, and that's harder to qualify. Generally, a part has to cover at least the top 4 issues well enough before I give appearance/aesthetics much weight.


----------



## benInMA

Of course you wankers had to go "Oh there is no road that is 5000ft in 5 miles." (I would still expect to be able to climb that with appropriate gearing though)

My point was when I punched in Mt. Washington into analytic cycling, 3lbs of bike weight saves something like 30 seconds.

As I said, there will be 5 other factors besides the weight which could cost you 10 minutes or more on a climb like that, so stop worrying about the bike weight.

I still hold by my statement that 2000ft in 5 miles is not a climb that should be striking fear into anyone, and it is not steep enough that your bike weight is going to allow you to beat a better climber.


----------



## burlguy

benInMA said:


> Of course you wankers had to go "Oh there is no road that is 5000ft in 5 miles." (I would still expect to be able to climb that with appropriate gearing though)
> 
> My point was when I punched in Mt. Washington into analytic cycling, 3lbs of bike weight saves something like 30 seconds.
> 
> As I said, there will be 5 other factors besides the weight which could cost you 10 minutes or more on a climb like that, so stop worrying about the bike weight.
> 
> I still hold by my statement that 2000ft in 5 miles is not a climb that should be striking fear into anyone, and it is not steep enough that your bike weight is going to allow you to beat a better climber.


The only time it is scary is when you on a thirty pound foes fxr and there is an inch of mud down with 2500 ft in 4 miles of climbing and it is your 2nd ride in 4 years. Thats when it starts to suck ....ah but coming back down and knowing it will be that much easier. I lost two pounds of rotating weight going to am classic 350 and conti super sonic . Rotating weight is where its at.


----------



## rwbadley

benInMA said:


> I still hold by my statement that 2000ft in 5 miles is not a climb that should be striking fear into anyone, and it is not steep enough that your bike weight is going to allow you to beat a better climber.


Here in Reno we have access to hills if we want them. Sometimes even if we don't.

A good riding buddy of mine rides a nice, (tho older) steel bike. It weighs around 23# or so. I have a few different bikes. One is about the same weight as his. One is about three pounds lighter than his and one is about five pounds lighter.

Most routes we ride and are consistently about equal at any given time on climbing hills. If I ride the five pound lighter bike it shows, as I am able to walk away at will if I'm feeling good. One day I let him ride the (three pound lighter) bike and I rode something else. He liked it but it didn't change the status quo. Another time I let him ride the (five pound lighter) bike and he quite frankly kicked my freakin' arse. This may not have been just due to the lighter weight only. It may have been the different wheels etc. That bike is ultra responsive and it showed. On that day he beat me up a 2500 ft 7.5 mile climb by maybe thirty to forty seconds. 

It doesn't sound like much? If you ride you know when you are looking at the @ss end of a guy forty seconds ahead of you it seems like miles. My paycheck doesn't depend on it- but if it did, I would be looking at an upgrade right fast. 

Your assessment is right on- a better climber will beat a less so one. Having ridden many different types, makes and weights of bike; I'm feeling lucky to have a nice responsive lightweight bike that feels like it wants to jump, even if I feel a little slower than I did last season...


----------



## cityeast

benInMA said:


> Of course you wankers had to go "Oh there is no road that is 5000ft in 5 miles." (I would still expect to be able to climb that with appropriate gearing though)
> 
> I still hold by my statement that 2000ft in 5 miles is not a climb that should be striking fear into anyone, and it is not steep enough that your bike weight is going to allow you to beat a better climber.


Well us "wankers" were just trying to put your 5K in 5M in perspective. I certainly don't doubt you could climb such a road; I doubt I could do it without a serious granny gear. Remember that the effort curve is exponential as grade increases. 

And I agree that a 2K in 5M is not scary, I do a comparable road nearly everytime I go for a ride, and do so with 39/23 as my granny gear. Its a slow climb but I am not a spinner. But if it helps answer the original question I will show you two 720i graphs below on a 3.5mile 1200ft climb. The first is last summer, mid-season, when I was around 90kg.










The second is the first ride of this season, down to85kg body weight after moderate rowing training/dieting over winter. Same bike, same equipment. 










The difference? 5kg (10lbs?) of body weight saved me around 10% time. I haven't been able to do a flat ride comparison yet. I doubt a slightly lighter or heavier bike will make a noticeable difference that could not be excluded from other factors.

Weight will always make a difference, its whether you will, or need, to notice the difference it makes that matters.


----------



## Francis Cebedo

benInMA said:


> Of course you wankers had to go "Oh there is no road that is 5000ft in 5 miles." (I would still expect to be able to climb that with appropriate gearing though)
> 
> My point was when I punched in Mt. Washington into analytic cycling, 3lbs of bike weight saves something like 30 seconds.
> 
> As I said, there will be 5 other factors besides the weight which could cost you 10 minutes or more on a climb like that, so stop worrying about the bike weight.
> 
> I still hold by my statement that 2000ft in 5 miles is not a climb that should be striking fear into anyone, and it is not steep enough that your bike weight is going to allow you to beat a better climber.


No disrespect but exagerating undermines your credibility. Mt. Washington looks like 4700 feet of climbing in 7.6 miles.

NONE of us are scared about a 2000 ft climb in 5 miles. That's just an example so the person asking the question can relate. The issue is not whether you can make it up but how fast. It is not hard to climb it it in 1 hour but climbing it in 22 minutes is hard and you kind of need a light bike among other things. Whether it's 2000 feet in 5 miles, 2 miles or 12 miles, gravity will ask the same of you for those 2000 feet.

Of course there are other factors that affect your time on a hillclimb. However, weight matters a little bit. It is what it is. I suspect not many contenders on Mt. Washington will be riding a 30 lb. bike.

francois


----------



## rwbadley

It looks like you slashed three minutes off your climbing time! You're in good position for the riding season. I've turned into a blob this winter.... and if I were only five minutes off my climbing TT I'd feel success


----------



## BugMan

*Who's the wanker???*



benInMA said:


> Of course you wankers had to go "Oh there is no road that is 5000ft in 5 miles."


...or have you only further undermined your credibility by applying quotation marks to a fictional statement? This can't even be considered paraphrasing. The consensus here was such a road is quite uncommon and would be, for most of us, a considerable challenge - not that no such road existed. 

Definition of a wanker - someone who makes absurd statements and then namecalls when confronted with reasoned skepticism.


----------



## colker1

AJS said:


> For me it comes down to this, (general order of importance):
> 
> #1 - overall fit/geometry/comfort
> #2 - appropriate gearing & sufficient braking ability (tied)
> #3 - accurate, predictable, reliable shifting
> #4 - good handling and/or power transfer (stiffness/strength/durability)
> #5 - aerodynamics
> #6 - weight
> 
> Only when I've satisfied something higher on the list first will I try to improve something else lower on the list. Seldom will I sacrifice something of higher importance for something of lesser, like suffering with a lighter saddle for the sake of losing 100 grams of weight, or changing to a lighter fork that won't handle as well or be strong enough in the long run.
> 
> Also, "appearance" counts for something, and that's harder to qualify. Generally, a part has to cover at least the top 4 issues well enough before I give appearance/aesthetics much weight.


you forgot paint. style, color, pannels, arrows... those are more important than weight if you are riding your bike everyday. what if to have ti light you need it to be brown all over? that would make me ride less, thus i would be slow..


----------



## moosryan

some of us are forced to drop weight off the bike, as we can't drop it off ourselves (15 years old, 5 foot 7.5 and still under 115 lbs baby!).


----------



## ColdRider

moosryan said:


> some of us are forced to drop weight off the bike, as we can't drop it off ourselves (15 years old, 5 foot 7.5 and still under 115 lbs baby!).


Enjoy it while you can... Call me when you hit 30, after the keg parties of the college years, the cold pizza at 4am, then desk job the next following years where all you do is sit and think all day.

If you are still 115#, then you have the right to gloat


----------



## ukiahb

*actually it means....*

someone who engages in self abuse.....synonymous with jerkoff. Anyway, one factor that hasn't been mentioned yet is rider size and weight....a 2 lb difference will be much more significant to a 100 lb rder than a 200 lb rider. Since I'm a 200 lb rider I don't worry about it...




BugMan said:


> ...or have you only further undermined your credibility by applying quotation marks to a fictional statement? This can't even be considered paraphrasing. The consensus here was such a road is quite uncommon and would be, for most of us, a considerable challenge - not that no such road existed.
> 
> Definition of a wanker - someone who makes absurd statements and then namecalls when confronted with reasoned skepticism.


----------



## AJS

colker1 said:


> you forgot paint. style, color, pannels, arrows... those are more important than weight if you are riding your bike everyday. what if to have ti light you need it to be brown all over? that would make me ride less, thus i would be slow..


I figured someone was gonna say that. Meh!


----------



## ttug

*weight broke the wagon*

Unless you climb hills that you find goats in wheelchairs sitting with a tin cup, weight should not be an issue.NOTE: lots of folks here have differing ideas on what is REAL climbing. Others appear to live on a planet other than the earth given the gradients presented.

If you have prepared and trained to the best of your ability,weight is not going to be THE FACTOR. you are talking 2 pounds right? Go take a dump and ride on. 

HOWEVER, most of the discussion is useless without context. What are you doing? Where are you going?


----------



## Thorn Bait

ttug said:


> Unless you climb hills that you find goats in wheelchairs sitting with a tin cup, weight should not be an issue.NOTE: lots of folks here have differing ideas on what is REAL climbing. Others appear to live on a planet other than the earth given the gradients presented.
> 
> If you have prepared and trained to the best of your ability,weight is not going to be THE FACTOR. you are talking 2 pounds right? Go take a dump and ride on.
> 
> HOWEVER, most of the discussion is useless without context. What are you doing? Where are you going?


You would have some other serious problem if you take a dump that knocked 2 pounds off you (crap is not that heavy incidentally).

On my new bike, which comes in about 5 pounds lighter than my old bike, I do notice a difference in the feel and acceleration. Who knows if that is due to the weight or something else? I have no other place to lose weight other than the bike (I have trouble keeping my weight up the way it is), and like others, I love the technology of lighter stuff. Perhaps the weight advantage is all in my head, but to me, it does make a difference, and I swear I can climb certain hills a minute faster than I could before - which is probably psychologically driven more than anything - but still, there is a difference.


----------



## hrv

*Shouldn't this post be moved to the General Forum?*

Isn't the question of how having a lighter bike helps you or not, beyond the scope of this forum? Got a 'how to save some weight' question, fine. Otherwise, move on!! 

hrv,
verrrrry slow day at work


----------



## ttug

*prepared versus illness*



Thorn Bait said:


> You would have some other serious problem if you take a dump that knocked 2 pounds off you (crap is not that heavy incidentally).
> 
> On my new bike, which comes in about 5 pounds lighter than my old bike, I do notice a difference in the feel and acceleration. Who knows if that is due to the weight or something else? I have no other place to lose weight other than the bike (I have trouble keeping my weight up the way it is), and like others, I love the technology of lighter stuff. Perhaps the weight advantage is all in my head, but to me, it does make a difference, and I swear I can climb certain hills a minute faster than I could before - which is probably psychologically driven more than anything - but still, there is a difference.



Well, while there are many perceived and real benefits to a "lighter" bike. I will however take exception to statement below: 

"You would have some other serious problem if you take a dump that knocked 2 pounds off you (crap is not that heavy incidentally)." 

While I do train and prepare for specific events with gusto, I have not yet to date started tracking the average weight of my bowel movements. After a big fiber rich meal and the 3 liters of water etc etc to get ready, I do not believe it is beyond the pale as it were to drop 2 pounds after firing my rectal howitzer. I will not, much to the relief of my family, track my bowel movement weight NOR do I desire to gain some sort of perception regarding my average output in terms of weght, duration, size, shape, color, frequency etc etc etc 

HOWEVER, the pride you must feel in actually creating some sort of axiom concerning the weight of bowel movements and good health has certainly left an impression on me. That in combination with the bold statement that fecal matter does not weight that much at all must give you a sense of great pride. 

OR, its the product of potty training at gun point?????


----------



## AJS

Scatological dissonance?


----------



## homebrew

ttug said:


> Well, while there are many perceived and real benefits to a "lighter" bike. I will however take exception to statement below:
> 
> "You would have some other serious problem if you take a dump that knocked 2 pounds off you (crap is not that heavy incidentally)."
> 
> While I do train and prepare for specific events with gusto, I have not yet to date started tracking the average weight of my bowel movements. After a big fiber rich meal and the 3 liters of water etc etc to get ready, I do not believe it is beyond the pale as it were to drop 2 pounds after firing my rectal howitzer. I will not, much to the relief of my family, track my bowel movement weight NOR do I desire to gain some sort of perception regarding my average output in terms of weght, duration, size, shape, color, frequency etc etc etc
> 
> HOWEVER, the pride you must feel in actually creating some sort of axiom concerning the weight of bowel movements and good health has certainly left an impression on me. That in combination with the bold statement that fecal matter does not weight that much at all must give you a sense of great pride.
> 
> OR, its the product of potty training at gun point?????


Keep the light bike, take the 2lb poop and now your 4lbs lighter! ....................................Please kill this thread


----------



## bsdc

TeenRacer said:


> How much does road bike weight really matter? Will one or two pounds make a noticeable difference?
> 
> 
> Casey


There's an easy way to tell. Go ride your normal route with and without full water bottles on your bike. Do you notice a difference?


----------



## GaryJaz

benInMA said:


> Of course you wankers had to go "Oh there is no road that is 5000ft in 5 miles." (I would still expect to be able to climb that with appropriate gearing though)
> 
> My point was when I punched in Mt. Washington into analytic cycling, 3lbs of bike weight saves something like 30 seconds.
> 
> As I said, there will be 5 other factors besides the weight which could cost you 10 minutes or more on a climb like that, so stop worrying about the bike weight.
> 
> I still hold by my statement that 2000ft in 5 miles is not a climb that should be striking fear into anyone, and it is not steep enough that your bike weight is going to allow you to beat a better climber.



Isn't East Hawley Road in the Tour of the Hilltowns race close to 2000 ft in 5 miles? That was the toughest hill I climbed in any ride I did this year (might be closer to 4 miles). I don't know anyone who did this race who thought it was trivial. Course, it happened on the same day as the Mt. Washington race, so maybe all the psycho climbers were in New Hampshire....


----------



## crestlinefarm

*You forgot one thing...psychological warfare against your competition*

Psychology can work another way: make your competition doubt their ability to stay with you (though that only lasts until you either roll away or get dropped). The road racing guide by Eddy B. states something like "look steady when riding away from your competition, if they see you struggle they'll think they can stay with you but if you look like you're taking it easy, they'll doubt their ability to stay with you". 

That said, it still amazes me the bikes people show up to Cat4 races on. I read the magazines, I know that a Specialized Tarmac, Madone 5.9SL, and Pinarello Dogma are light. Freaky light. Rolling up to the start line, I wonder if that guy has the engine to back it up (usually if I say "nice bike" their answer is almost always something like "Thanks, I wish I was worthy of it!")

I also know that when my race bike was on the stand getting a mid-season overhaul and I pulled out my 1987 Trek (which comes in at a superfly 23 pounds) and somehow managed one of my best results of the season. 

But a nice light bike is sure fun to ride and nice to look at!


----------



## Max-Q

BugMan said:


> Geez, you should race here in the Ozarks! We have to go 20 miles on our tougher routes to reach 2000 ft of climbing - enough to string us all out pretty good. You could really clean up around here!
> 
> Holy crap - 5000 ft in 5 miles is a 19.29% grade - you should try to sign up for the TdF.


LOL Ted you beat me to it. I was just getting ready to calculate that grade. I don't think I've ever seen a 19+% grade around here. I normally will climb about 5,200 feet on an 80 mile ride targeting all the tough hills in the area.


----------



## benInMA

Interesting this thread is still going.

I chopped 13 minutes off my Mt. Washington hillclimb time last month. No weight weenie stuff really going on there.

The whole point of my rant several months ago was you pick the toughest hillclimbs in the world and the mathematical formulas say 1lb of bike weights is worth 30 seconds on a 1 hour + event. This is straight uphill the entire way, 13% averages, sections over 20%.

When it matters that little on a climb like that, if you are not doing the toughest climbs in the world it is pointless to spend thousands on weight weenie stuff as people on this forum seem to advocate.

And since your physiology makes far more of a difference, unless you can ride these super tough hillclimbs every week, you can't even establish a baseline in your performance to measure a 30 second difference based on bike weight. The weather alone on climbs like that will keep you from ever seeing repeatable results.

Now take that to the typical roads must of us ride and the effects of bike weight become negligible. But if the psychological effect is that important, maybe it is worth spending lots and lots of money.

In the end it all comes down to bicycle industry marketing programming us all to believe we need lighter stuff.


----------



## sevenfootglass

*reality*

the difference between a 14 pound bike and a 20 pound bike is around 4000 dollars - leaving $600 plus per pound for those savings - while i am happy to spend this - if i am honest with myself the fastest way to achieve this is with a few salads instead of pizzas


----------



## haz a tcr

I can quite noticably feel the difference between riding with a water bottle and riding without... my bike feels a lot more sluggish, especially when climbing standing up. So personally.... i think if you can afford a light bike and you want one, get it! Btw I have no room at all for body weight loss so the bike is the only place i can lose weight now.


----------



## bonkmiester

*You are one funny .......*



ttug said:


> Well, while there are many perceived and real benefits to a "lighter" bike. I will however take exception to statement below:
> 
> "You would have some other serious problem if you take a dump that knocked 2 pounds off you (crap is not that heavy incidentally)."
> 
> While I do train and prepare for specific events with gusto, I have not yet to date started tracking the average weight of my bowel movements. After a big fiber rich meal and the 3 liters of water etc etc to get ready, I do not believe it is beyond the pale as it were to drop 2 pounds after firing my rectal howitzer. I will not, much to the relief of my family, track my bowel movement weight NOR do I desire to gain some sort of perception regarding my average output in terms of weght, duration, size, shape, color, frequency etc etc etc
> 
> HOWEVER, the pride you must feel in actually creating some sort of axiom concerning the weight of bowel movements and good health has certainly left an impression on me. That in combination with the bold statement that fecal matter does not weight that much at all must give you a sense of great pride.
> 
> OR, its the product of potty training at gun point?????




...sum*****.........

ttug......this is the funniest post I have seen on any BB ever


----------



## wzq622

weight only matters for the pros...or the posers.


if you're not one, then you're the other


----------



## homebrew

wzq622 said:


> weight only matters for the pros...or the posers.
> 
> 
> if you're not one, then you're the other


1) they should loose this thread IMO
2) being 50 I am to old to be a poser or a pro. I ride a 15.5 lb bike, not super WW these days but still. I also own an 19lb bike. Guess what I grab for on those fast group rides. 
3) things I look for in a bike are fit, safety, handling (I'm a big guy and need a strong bike), will it fit my inteded use?areo, weight, durablity, value, Weight alone will not make a sale for me but yep its on the list.


----------



## El_Toro

*Lighter rider beats lighter bike!*

I weigh 220 and race MTB and a little road with mixed results. I do well on only short courses as eventually, I have too much baggage to drag up hills reapeatadly. One thing I have noticed, is that on my 27 lb 4" Travel MTB I am much faster with a seat pack and water bottle on the bike than with a Camelback with all my tools, tubes, air and the same amount of water. Everytime you bob, scrunch, stand up etc, you are putting all the extra weight on the legs and lower back tiring faster than if it was below as static weight on the bike. 
On our meager 600' hill climbs over 1-2 miles, I usually see the group split up according to weight. Seems as though they are in 10 lb increments with the 150 guys up front and the 220 guy in the back. The longer the climb, the more pronounced the difference. There is no coorelation with bike weight or wheels overall.


----------



## haz a tcr

wzq622 said:


> weight only matters for the pros...or the posers.
> 
> 
> if you're not one, then you're the other


wow thanks for such an informative post  

I am not a pro, nor am I a poser, but a light bike makes a difference to me, because I have made the commitment to cycling to train and compete, and I want my performance to be as good as it can possibly be. It doesn't even matter to me if it doesn't make any real differences, it is at the very least a psychological boost to know that my equipment is not letting me down.


----------

