# Noob question. What is considered 'heavy' for a road bike?



## StarTrekBiker

So, been riding now for a few months (btw, getting harder to do outside now with change in season), and I never thought to weigh my bike. I have an entry level aluminum bike so I know it's not going to be super light, but I was surprised to find that it weighs 27 lbs. Is this on the heavy side? or pretty average for entry levels. This is without any water bottles. I do have a fairly heavy duty light attached along with a Sigma bike computer and a rear blinky, but can't imagine those weighting more than a pound. Wheels are aluminum with steel spokes. Triple crankset has aluminum arms. Fork is CrMo.


----------



## headloss

27 is on the heavy end of adult road bicycles... but it isn't a boat-anchor. The two bikes I ride the most frequently, both commuters, are 27#. You could do better without much effort if you were purchasing a race oriented bike. 27# is average for a hybrid.


----------



## JCavilia

It doesn't matter as much as you're led to believe, of course, but that's on the heavier end. Your lights and such may weigh over a pound (the batteries may weigh more than the lights). Your triple crankset probably adds a pound compared to comparable double (some of that in the longer bottom bracket spindle). Your tires and tubes may be relatively heavy, and saddles can vary by quite a bit. Likewise pedals. Wheel weights vary a lot. One set of aluminum rims may be a pound and a half heavier than another.

Also, frames of otherwise identical construction will vary with size. If you're tall and have a big frame, it will weigh more than a small one.

But it doesn't matter that much, especially for a recreational rider.

How did you weigh it? It can be tricky to get an accurate measurement.


----------



## StarTrekBiker

headloss said:


> 27 is on the heavy end of adult road bicycles... but it isn't a boat-anchor. The two bikes I ride the most frequently, both commuters, are 27#. You could do better without much effort if you were purchasing a race oriented bike. 27# is average for a hybrid.


Hmmm. I guess I'm wondering what exactly defines a 'hybrid' then. Pretty sure I have a 'road bike'. Handle bars are road bike handle bars. Tires are 700x25C



JCavilia said:


> It doesn't matter as much as you're led to believe, of course, but that's on the heavier end. Your lights and such may weigh over a pound (the batteries may weigh more than the lights). Your triple crankset probably adds a pound compared to comparable double (some of that in the longer bottom bracket spindle). Your tires and tubes may be relatively heavy, and saddles can vary by quite a bit. Likewise pedals. Wheel weights vary a lot. One set of aluminum rims may be a pound and a half heavier than another.
> 
> Also, frames of otherwise identical construction will vary with size. If you're tall and have a big frame, it will weigh more than a small one.
> 
> But it doesn't matter that much, especially for a recreational rider.
> 
> How did you weigh it? It can be tricky to get an accurate measurement.


I weighed myself on a home scale. Then weighed myself carrying the bike. Subtract the 2 numbers. 

Good point about the batteries. Forgot about that. Frame size is not large though. I'm only 5 foot 7. Will I be able to do a century next year with this bike? Or does weight not make that much a difference?


----------



## headloss

drop bar, 25mm tire... I'd call that a road bike (subject to debate depending on a bunch of other factors).

27# is about average for a hybrid in the $6-800 dollar range. Think Trek FX, Kona Dew, etc. 

It's also about average for a "credit card" touring bike... think Jamis Bossanova, Salsa Casseroll, Trek Portland.

State of the art frames (*edit* built, not the frame itself) tend to range between 15 and 20 pounds. General consensus seems to be that anything under 20# is light. I think that 25# is a better number to aim for. I consider anything above 30# an anchor. It's all relative and personal opinion. 

I think my 27# Trek 520 touring bike is reasonable light, others would scoff at such a statement. If I'm comfortable carrying a bike up a flight of steps, that's good enough for me. I weigh close to 190#, that's where my real problem is.


----------



## headloss

StarTrekBiker said:


> Will I be able to do a century next year with this bike? Or does weight not make that much a difference?


I logged over 4000 miles this year on a 27# bike. It was often heavier than that, due to carrying junk in the panniers. You'll be fine. Just be sure to take care of your bike... oil the chain, replace it once a year (or at least every two years... it depends on how much you ride). Keep the bike indoors if possible. Wash it with rags, not a hose (and never a power washer). Make sure you have it checked by a competent mechanic before your century. 

Even if something breaks, cyclists are a great community. You'll likely have more help offered than you know what to do with... if you find yourself in a tight spot.


----------



## Mapei

Startrekbiker --

Yes, in the general scheme of things, 27 lbs. is quite heavy. Any decent quote-unquote racing bike, even a lower end one, shouldn't weigh more than about 20. If you went used, you could probably buy a reasonably priced bike that weighs under 18 pounds. Try this website's classifieds.

And not to start a weight-weenie argument, but genuinely lightweight bicycles are a heck of a lot of fun. Just lifting a light bicycle off the rack is a decided mood enhancer.


----------



## JCavilia

StarTrekBiker said:


> Will I be able to do a century next year with this bike? Or does weight not make that much a difference?


Well, whether you can do a century depends on you and your fitness. The bike certainly won't be an obstacle. The weight of the bike will make NO difference. I've seen guys do centuries on mountain bikes with knobby tires (and pass me at the end, damn them).

Think of it this way. If some guy with an expensive 19-pound bike went out for a long ride and took 2 large water bottles, plus some energy bars and a couple of bananas, his bike plus supplies would weigh the same as your "heavy" bike.

Or this way. I'm guessing you weigh around 150 pounds. Could a guy with a 16 pound superbike who weighs 160 do a century? They do it, every day.

You're still overthinking. You're new at this. Don't succumb to the temptation to become a weight weenie. Just ride. Remember that the weight of the bike makes little difference -- the difference between your "heavy" bike and the $5000 16-pound superbike amounts to about 5% of the bike-plus-rider weight. Don't matter much (and it only matters AT ALL when accelerating or going uphill -- when you're at a steady speed on the flat extra weight does NOTHING, except maybe make the tires squish a bit more).

I've been riding road bikes for more than 40 years. I can't remember the last time I weighed a bike. It just isn't that important.

What kind of a bike have you got?


----------



## Tachycardic

I agree with Mapei; if this is a racing road bike, then 27 pounds is heavy. I'm not a weight weenie as my main ride is a CX steel frame with a steel fork, Shimano 105, and Mavic Crossrides with 26 x 1.25" tires, and I'm coming in at 20.5 pounds with pedals and a bottle cage. I think a reasonable weight for an quality entry level road bike would be in the 22-24 pound range. 

That said, I also agree with JCavilia that you should not worry too much about the weight of the bicycle. Total weight (rider and bike) is so much more important. Just ride the heck out of it and get a new one when you want or can afford to. I'm interested in what bike you have too. Post some pics if you can!


----------



## StarTrekBiker

Yeah, I think you're right about me overthinking this, JCavilia. Been riding with a few buddies as we plan to do the century together, but I noticed I had a hard time keeping up (even on the flats), and also they had lighter bikes. That's why I started to wonder about the bike weight. But I think it really just has to do with my fitness level compared to theirs. 10 years of being a couch potato has put me shall we say...behind.

And as to what bike, it's a Gravity Avenue C that I bought off of bikesdirect. At the time, I wasn't sure if I was going to like riding a road bike so I didn't wan't to have too much invested in case I didn't. So far, I haven't had any problems with it, and it seems to fit ok too (no weird aches/pains other than my legs being sore all the time).


----------



## headloss

StarTrekBiker said:


> And as to what bike, it's a Gravity Avenue C that I bought off of bikesdirect.


Not to change the topic, but I'm a bit shocked that the Bike's Direct page says


> Compare this bike to the Trek 1.1 at $659 plus tax.


They are completely different bikes. And please note, I'm not trying to put down the Gravity for any personal reason, I'm sure it's a fine bike... but that comparison seems way off to me.









<img src="https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/gravity/images/avenue_geo_10_g.gif">
Trek 1.1 geometry


----------



## AndrwSwitch

I've resisted the temptation to get weights on my bikes. I just guess they all weigh 30 lb.

I feel like it takes a pretty big swing in weight to make a lot of difference. Adding and subtracting panniers full of books for example.


----------



## brucew

AndrwSwitch said:


> it takes a pretty big swing in weight to make a lot of difference. Adding and subtracting panniers full of books for example.


As a bike commuter who works at a public library, I can vouch for that. 

The weight of two panniers full of library books has an adverse effect on my speed in only two cirumstances. First, climbing. Second, accellerating from a stoplight. In each case, it's more effort and takes longer to get to speed. There are aero disadvantages too, but that's a different thread.


----------



## brucew

brucew said:


> As a bike commuter who works at a public library, I can vouch for that.
> 
> The weight of two panniers full of library books has an adverse effect on my speed in only two cirumstances. First, climbing. Second, accellerating from a stoplight. In each case, it's more effort and takes longer to get to speed. There are aero disadvantages too, but that's a different thread.


Put another way, over a 16.5 mile commute with some rollers and many stoplights, my "heavy" commuters take about four minutes longer than my "light" roadie". Most of that is in aero, I think, dragging the loaded panniers into the wind. Although some is in climbing and starting form stoplights.

Whoops. Hit reply insead of edit.


----------



## AndrwSwitch

brucew said:


> As a bike commuter who works at a public library, I can vouch for that.
> 
> The weight of two panniers full of library books has an adverse effect on my speed in only two cirumstances. First, climbing. Second, accellerating from a stoplight. In each case, it's more effort and takes longer to get to speed. There are aero disadvantages too, but that's a different thread.


Yeah, I was casting my mind back to attending community college on top of a climb of a few hundred feet. I was taking classes piecemeal, so the first quarter I didn't change much of anything. When I signed up for another quarter there, I did a bit of research and switched to much smaller chain rings.


----------



## timeless

StarTrekBiker said:


> Will I be able to do a century next year with this bike? Or does weight not make that much a difference?


Light weight is massively over rated. The only time weight really matters is accelerating and climbing. Other than that not so much. Even in both those places weight does not make a big difference. Compare your bike weight to your weight. I wish I could find the link but they kind of showed the difference.

Yeah you will be slower climbing but we are talking with in 30 secs of in a 10 minute climb. The biggest factor really is over coming the wind resistances and that grows big time with speed.

Yeah the bike is on the heavy end of the spectrum but still not an anchor.


----------



## Shegens

StarTrekBiker said:


> So, been riding now for a few months (btw, getting harder to do outside now with change in season), and I never thought to weigh my bike. I have an entry level aluminum bike so I know it's not going to be super light, but I was surprised to find that it weighs 27 lbs. Is this on the heavy side? or pretty average for entry levels. This is without any water bottles. I do have a fairly heavy duty light attached along with a Sigma bike computer and a rear blinky, but can't imagine those weighting more than a pound. Wheels are aluminum with steel spokes. Triple crankset has aluminum arms. Fork is CrMo.


I ride a 27# Trek 7.3 Hybrid and trust me, this is a light bike. Prior to getting the hybrid I was riding a 36# MTB. The hybrid is heavy compared to some of the true road bikes you find people in here riding but it's pure heaven compared to a really heavy bike.


----------



## areFish

I ride an entry leval aluminum roadie as well. Mine tips the scale at 20 lbs, however I have a compact double, CF fork and a size 52 frame.


----------



## headloss

areFish said:


> I ride an entry leval aluminum roadie as well. Mine tips the scale at 20 lbs, however I have a compact double, CF fork and a size 52 frame.


What do you consider "entry level?" That sounds almost too good to be true.


----------



## areFish

headloss said:


> What do you consider "entry level?" That sounds almost too good to be true.




2013 Trek 1.2. The wheels are an upgrade ('09 Mavic Aksium) but I don't think they afford any weight savings.


----------



## Oxtox

Mapei said:


> ...27 lbs. is quite heavy. Any decent quote-unquote racing bike, even a lower end one, shouldn't weigh more than about 20. If you went used, you could probably buy a reasonably priced bike that weighs under 18 pounds.
> 
> And not to start a weight-weenie argument, but genuinely lightweight bicycles are a heck of a lot of fun. Just lifting a light bicycle off the rack is a decided mood enhancer.


this ^^...

a 27-lb bike will get you from point A to point B, but so will a dump truck full of gravel.


----------



## spdntrxi

anything over 20.. I would consider heavy for a road bike.


----------



## sport7

areFish said:


> 2013 Trek 1.2. The wheels are an upgrade ('09 Mavic Aksium) but I don't think they afford any weight savings.


The Trek 1.2 is a Great entry level bike, probably all you really need to ride for the rest of your life. i test rode one recently and thought the best of them. Our local Trek dealer lets you demo these bikes on a bike path near his store. Take advantage of it if you can. 

i ride a Fuji Touring bike and it another 'all you really need' kind of bicycle. Comes equiped with a lifetime CroMoly Touring road bike frame and more speeds than i need.

For someone who can really speak with authority on the subject, check out this athlete who has TONS of miles under his belt and recommends inexpensive bikes. Bicycle Truth: Weight Scam - True cost of riding - YouTube

This video is a hoot, but has great truths for all bikers. :thumbsup:


----------



## SpeedNeeder

My random thoughts on bike weights:

I totally get the part about it only making a difference on accelerating or going up hill. I got good grades in physics, dynamics, and fluid dynamics. 
There are a few comments in here that make me wonder though - a bunch of books slowing me down, feels like heaven to go from a 36 to a 27 lb bike...
That and my own observations, I know when I go to the store and pick up some groceries I'm nowhere near as fast on the way home lol. Especially when I pick up 8 lbs of milk! I think if racing and speed are your interests, weight surely does matter. How much it matters? Seems noticeable at least to some. If you just want to get your heart pumping, weight makes absolutely no difference. UNLESS riding a lighter bike makes you want to ride it more  (which is definitely true for me on my MTB)

When I think about the uphill/accelerating argument, I wonder how much of my ride is actually flat? For me, most of my route may be close to flat, but really very little is actually FLAT. So, I would say I'm probably going uphill at least 1/3 of the time, albeit not much, but when I pay attention to my riding speed, it is clear what parts of the ride are slightly uphill and which are slightly downhill! Also, I love to accelerate - coming off a stop, over the top of a hill, even when going down a 'flat' road I sometimes get my butt out of the saddle, shift to a harder gear, and accelerate! If you are a racer, you accelerate often. Watch a race. Those guys are constantly speeding up and slowing down.

In the end, if speed or racing are your interests, I'm sure your fitness is THE single largest factor, followed by how hard you actually try when you ride, followed by the total weight of YOU and YOUR BIKE.

One last thought - I weigh 8.5 times more than my bike, so it would seem I have a lot more opportunity for weight reduction than my bike does, lol.


----------



## AndrwSwitch

Look at where the power losses are at road cycling speeds - it's mostly air drag.

Not that most of us couldn't benefit from dropping 10-15 lb. But it's still not very important compared to drag, and road bikes marketed for rec riding don't have that much weight to lose.


----------

