# At what weight is a road bike considered light?



## config

I know there's no defined threshold but at what weight is a road bike considered light weight and at what price range or is this completely subjective?


----------



## scarab$

<14 Lbs.


----------



## filtersweep

8 kg street weight. Why is this important?


----------



## ghost6

Depends on who answers the question. LBS's will tell you that a 19 pounder is light. Then they'll show you their "lighter" bikes.


----------



## skyliner1004

I'd say anything under 17lbs with pedals, cages, and computer is light!


----------



## Mdeth1313

anything under 13lbs complete! (ok, I'm a little extreme in this stuff)


----------



## 9.8m/s/s

With the UCI minimum being 15lbs, I'd say anything under that can be called light.


----------



## zach.scofield

9.8m/s/s said:


> With the UCI minimum being 15lbs, I'd say anything under that can be called light.



I tend to agree with this for racing bikes or weenie bikes. 

However, in the shop my bike gets seen by alot of people. Its 18 flat right now w/ peddles, cages, training wheels and 2 led lights and is constantly being regarded as lightweight by customers. I think any non race bike that is 16.5-17 riding weight is lightweight.


----------



## froze

actually the UCI limit is 14.99 pounds not 15...whew aren't you all glad we settled that big difference? But any bike under that weight cannot race in a UCI sanctioned race...if that's important to you. But I'm sure I could put Lance Armstrong on a Schwinn Varsity and he would still beat 99.99% of the riders here on the lightest bikes they could find.


----------



## blr33439

froze said:


> actually the UCI limit is 14.99 pounds not 15...whew aren't you all glad we settled that big difference? But any bike under that weight cannot race in a UCI sanctioned race...if that's important to you. But I'm sure I could put Lance Armstrong on a Schwinn Varsity and he would still beat 99.99% of the riders here on the lightest bikes they could find.


So 14.99lbs is minimum weight. Based on that fact, any bike under that weight requires weight added to race. Wouldn't the ultimate goal be to add that weight back in the form of additional strength, durability and aerodynamics. So we have already established that bikes can be built around the 10lb mark, so now optimization of strength and features at 15lbs seems like the logical goal. And I'm glad somebody already brought up Lance beating everyone on a Schwinn, because it really is all about the engine, the rest is just good marketing.


----------



## froze

Water bottles, tool bags, pumps and such items that can simply be removed from the bike are not counted in the minimum required weight.


----------



## c_kyle

<14lbs is doable without using weight weenie parts, and alloy clincher wheels. I'm doing it right now. With carbon tubulars, <13lbs is very possible without any weight weenie parts.

I would say <14lbs is normal light weight and <13lbs is approaching weight weenie light weight.

<12.5lbs and you're most likely into component tuning and bolt tuning and very expensive parts, which is totally weight weenie.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior

*FActs*



blr33439 said:


> So 14.99lbs is minimum weight. Based on that fact, any bike under that weight requires weight added to race...


You need to remember that very few road bikes are ever raced. UCI limits make a nice starting point for the discussion but are the not the reigning requirement in this forum.


----------



## dadoflam

IMO 13.2lbs (6kgs) is where a bike starts to feel 'light' and agile. I don't race and do enjoy being a bit of a weight weenie - for me the pure enjoyment of riding a sub-6kg bike will make going back to anything heavier difficult.


----------



## froze

When I use to race I too enjoyed being a race weenie. But back in my day CF wasn't around yet and neither were stiff AL frames; so if the frame was too light it would flex like crazy, so I had to test ride bikes till I found one that wasn't noticeable, or at least I did some didn't care if the frame flexed as long as it was light. Wheels were the same way, lighter less spoke count wheels flexed, more spokes usually would not if the wheel was from a good manufacture, French made wheels were horrorable for flexing back then.

Just before I got out of racing CF forks came out and I almost bought one but didn't because I wasn't convinced of the technology being that was new. Now instead of being a weight weenie I look for reliability first weight second.


----------



## PlatyPius

Anything under 28 pounds with front and rear racks, dynamo hub, light, and Brooks saddle....


----------



## woodys737

To the OP: I think it's 100% dependent on the individuals checkbook and therefore 100% subjective. Next.


----------



## 88 rex

c_kyle said:


> <14lbs is doable without using weight weenie parts, and alloy clincher wheels. I'm doing it right now. With carbon tubulars, <13lbs is very possible without any weight weenie parts.
> 
> I would say <14lbs is normal light weight and <13lbs is approaching weight weenie light weight.
> 
> <12.5lbs and you're most likely into component tuning and bolt tuning and very expensive parts, which is totally weight weenie.



Carbon tubulars ARE weight weenie


----------



## woz

I have a different approach. I say when the total bike weight is 8% of the riders weight or lighter.


----------



## froze

woodys737 said:


> To the OP: I think it's 100% dependent on the individuals checkbook and therefore 100% subjective. Next.


 Is that why people who buy Rivendells or Richard Sachs bikes do so because they don't have enough money to buy lightweight bikes? I think you're wrong. Next


----------



## Juanmoretime

woz said:


> I have a different approach. I say when the total bike weight is 8% of the riders weight or lighter.


Excellent. Then I qualify with 157 lbs and 12.67 lb bike.:thumbsup:


----------



## froze

Juanmoretime said:


> Excellent. Then I qualify with 157 lbs and 12.67 lb bike.:thumbsup:


 Yoou think thats interesting I've been searching for a 8 pound road bike for my 100 pound daughter


----------



## PlatyPius

froze said:


> Yoou think thats interesting I've been searching for a 8 pound road bike for my 100 pound daughter


It is much easier (and cheaper) to build a bike with this formula when you weigh 300.....


----------



## froze

PlatyPius said:


> It is much easier (and cheaper) to build a bike with this formula when you weigh 300.....


Your right, so I told my daughter she needed to put on about 200 pounds, at 5 foot tall that would make her about at tall standing as lying down; anyway, she looked at me kind of funny and asked me what I've been smoking.


----------



## woodys737

froze said:


> Is that why people who buy Rivendells or Richard Sachs bikes do so because they don't have enough money to buy lightweight bikes? I think you're wrong. Next


Missed the point. If you wanted to lighten up a bike by 3 or 4 lbs it will take a certain amount of money. In general, lighter bikes/components are more expensive than heavier versions. That's all.


----------



## froze

woodys737 said:


> Missed the point. If you wanted to lighten up a bike by 3 or 4 lbs it will take a certain amount of money. In general, lighter bikes/components are more expensive than heavier versions. That's all.


I didn't miss the meaning, I knew what you meant, but the way you worded it with the 100% comments came across snouty, as if those who don't buy lightweight components and bikes is due to 100% not having enough money, therefore the "poorer" people can't afford lighter stuff. I knew guys when I use to race didn't have enough money to own own a car worth more then $800 because they dumped every last penny they had into their bikes, and some of those guys had the lightest most expensive bikes on the road! I know people that are rich and ride 5,000 to 8,000 mile a year do so on $1,000 bikes and drive around in MBZ SLK's; I have a multi millionaire friend who rides a $550 bike, drives an 89 Taurus!! but lives in a 1.2 million dollar house; while I know others who are millionaires riding very expensive $5,000 plus bicycles with the best gear and only ride 2,000 miles a year; but ran into a guy who rides a $7,800 bike but can't afford even afford a car. So money is subjective to whatever the person wants and how much value he places in things like bicycles, and how he wants to be seen by others...but it's also true,as you said, to some degree how much money they have, but we can't forget the other factors.


----------



## woodys737

froze said:


> I didn't miss the meaning, I knew what you meant, but the way you worded it with the 100% comments came across snouty, as if those who don't buy lightweight components and bikes is due to 100% not having enough money, therefore the "poorer" people can't afford lighter stuff. I knew guys when I use to race didn't have enough money to own own a car worth more then $800 because they dumped every last penny they had into their bikes, and some of those guys had the lightest most expensive bikes on the road! I know people that are rich and ride 5,000 to 8,000 mile a year do so on $1,000 bikes and drive around in MBZ SLK's; I have a multi millionaire friend who rides a $550 bike, drives an 89 Taurus!! but lives in a 1.2 million dollar house; while I know others who are millionaires riding very expensive $5,000 plus bicycles with the best gear and only ride 2,000 miles a year; but ran into a guy who rides a $7,800 bike but can't afford even afford a car. _*So money is subjective to whatever the person wants and how much value he places in things like bicycles*_, and how he wants to be seen by others...but it's also true,as you said, to some degree how much money they have, but we can't forget the other factors.


I certainly didn't intend to imply that the cost of a bike equals a certain level or status or the cost of one's bike is directly related to their wealth. Sorry if I came across that way. I agree with your post above and have seen the same thing. If I could rewrite my first post it would read a little closer to the _*BOLD*_ above.


----------



## jwestpro

woodys737 said:


> To the OP: I think it's 100% dependent on the individuals checkbook and therefore 100% subjective. Next.



Actually, you missed this entirely. One's ability to afford said light bike is not a reflection on how light or not the bike is. In fact, light bikes are sometimes loaned, given, stolen, bought cheap under pro-deals, and won in raffles so the checkbook of the individual is irrelevant. 

"Light" is either a simple scientific comparison to the available market or it can be based purely on social perception, i.e. what was considered light when some of us here started racing 25 years ago vs 10 years ago vs now.

My first bike for racing was most definitely "light" in it's day but is now not so much. So one could say " 'x' bike is very light, for it's era".

The only really subjective aspect of this is in determining a grading for various weights where actual weight numbers are given names like heavy, average (or maybe median), light (many complete bikes available these days), very light (more likely a main stream frame with spec build but still parts actually used by race teams and such), and super-light (fancy/nonsensical stuff more about weight than reliability or long term abuse).

It's funny how people get sidetracked into the social aspects when the OP asked what is considered a light bike. 

Another interesting past vs present comparison would be the weight you get in any given price range segment. i.e. what does $3000 buy you today vs what it bought in 1999. 

I recall ordering a Bianchi Pantani replica (the mango fade) with carbon fork (had an AL steerer). I built it myself with the current Campy Record, built my own wheels on the record hubs (28 hole Mavic Reflex rear and a GL 330 front, DT revolution, alloy nips of course) 

The only carbon on that bike was the fork legs! The whole bike was pretty light, and really, it still is "fairly light". 

Those wheels are still true, and they still spin up very, very fast because they are still quite light, especially where it matters, at the rim/tire.


----------



## froze

woodys737 said:


> I certainly didn't intend to imply that the cost of a bike equals a certain level or status or the cost of one's bike is directly related to their wealth. Sorry if I came across that way. I agree with your post above and have seen the same thing. If I could rewrite my first post it would read a little closer to the _*BOLD*_ above.



It's cool. When I first starting racing in the early 70's I was one of those poor guys, racing a $1,200 bike against those who had rich parents and were riding $3,000 bikes, and I had the $200 car while these guys came to the race with their Porches and Vettes etc, and I came tooling up in a 62 T-Bird! And those rich people would either not speak to me or if they did it was to make me feel like dirt because they didn't want some guy trashing their scene with a cheap bike and a junker of a car! So even to this day, even though I can afford better bikes now, I treat everyone the same even if I see them on a Walmart bike because I remember that feeling. And what's sad, is that even today there is a lot of snouty people riding bikes with the same attitude back when I was teenager.

There are prejudice people, but you know, even if we were all the same skin color their would still be prejudisim, we would find something to be prejudice about and one example is the kind of bicycle we ride.


----------



## froze

jwestpro said:


> Actually, you missed this entirely. One's ability to afford said light bike is not a reflection on how light or not the bike is. In fact, light bikes are sometimes loaned, given, stolen, bought cheap under pro-deals, and won in raffles so the checkbook of the individual is irrelevant.
> 
> .


I, speaking just for me and only for me thus I'm not speaking for others (I had to make that clear because when I only used the word "I" other forum folk have taken that as meaning I was speaking for others, even though "I" is first person meaning me). Anywho, I have never in 40 years of riding knew someone who got a bike (something higher then a Walmart quality bike) by a raffle. I've also never known anyone who bought a stolen bike, although I'm sure that's happened since bikes are stolen. Never known anyone who got a loaner. I have known semi-pro riders who got their bikes for free because they were sponsored by bicycle companies that gave them new bikes every year and the rider could either keep the bike or sell it at the end of the year. Did know some guys years ago that got their bikes given to them by their parents. But that's the extent of the freebies or reduce cost. All the people that I know currently have purchased their bikes for full retail.


----------



## woodys737

> Originally posted by jwestpro: Actually, you missed this entirely. One's ability to afford said light bike is not a reflection on how light or not the bike is. In fact, light bikes are sometimes loaned, given, stolen, bought cheap under pro-deals, and won in raffles so the checkbook of the individual is irrelevant.


The OP specifically asked "at what price range" does a bike become light. So I think we can get rid of all the situations you bring up where a person gets a bike for free or discounted for what ever reason. Therefore a checkbook is necessary and completely relevant.



> Originally posted by jwestpro:"Light" is either a simple scientific comparison to the available market or it can be based purely on social perception, i.e. what was considered light when some of us here started racing 25 years ago vs 10 years ago vs now.
> 
> My first bike for racing was most definitely "light" in it's day but is now not so much. So one could say " 'x' bike is very light, for it's era".
> 
> The only really subjective aspect of this is in determining a grading for various weights where actual weight numbers are given names like heavy, average (or maybe median), light (many complete bikes available these days), very light (more likely a main stream frame with spec build but still parts actually used by race teams and such), and super-light (fancy/nonsensical stuff more about weight than reliability or long term abuse).


I would assume we are talking about a simple scientific comparison of what is considered light. Otherwise we would be debating whether my '86 steal Bianchi at 20 some lbs is lighter than my '08 Addict at 14.5 lbs. That is confusing and makes comparing bike weight impossible. Back in the day I thought my '86 Bianchi was light. Now I think my Addict is light. The Addict is absolutely lighter. Trying to construct a formula that takes into account social perception as you wrote is a noble task, but problematic at best. Maybe I'm in the minority but I just have no interest in that.

Bikes of the same era is more what I was assuming the OP was after. For example a Scott Addict R1 will cost $6000 more than a Scott Speedster S40 yet is approximately 6lbs lighter. Clearly lighter means more money which is why I wrote the comment about the checkbook. But the OP asked at what weight and price does a bike become light. To me this can't be anything but subjective as the S40 owner may feel his bike is light but really expensive for any number of reasons. Conversely, the R1 owner may not think his bike is light at 14.5lbs but really cheap for any number of reasons.

Now think about the upgrades that the S40 owner would have to do to reduce the weight equal to the R1! How far/light the S40 owner is willing to go pretty much depends on how much money he is willing to spend. Hense the dreaded checkbook comment.


----------



## jwestpro

It still doesn't matter about the checkbook though, only the price tag because he made no reference to his or her personal financial situation. Whether or not a person can afford it or thinks any dollar amount is expensive or not, is still irrelevant here.

Personally, I think 16 is plenty "light" and is well within the realm of a "competitive" bike (one that is not so much heavier or slower than the others in your group or race)

As for the s40, we all know that a sick set of wheels would make it almost as quick as the r1 in most situations. A set of zip 303 can be had used or on closeout for a thousand or little more. 

Again, bikes go on discount, they get sold 2nd hand, etc. We could narrow it down to new only and a weight but there are very light Giants that cost a fraction of essentially the same weight Italian or other "top" models.

Actually, the OP question is too broad to be honest. It has to first be split into one of two sets, either a weight range you must have (let's say 16+/- .5) or price range you are willing to spend ($5000-$7000), then within that set you determine what is the sexiest, or cheapest, or lightest, or best overall value.

If the OP would specify the goal, this thread would not have degenerated into us speculating too much.


----------



## BunnV

froze said:


> Yoou think thats interesting I've been searching for a 8 pound road bike for my 100 pound daughter


Here ya go....
http://light-bikes.com/bikegallery/BikeListing.asp?id=1060


----------



## froze

BunnV said:


> Here ya go....
> http://light-bikes.com/bikegallery/BikeListing.asp?id=1060


DING DING DING, we have a winner!!!


----------



## C6Rider

*Under 15 pounds*

While both of my bikes are in the 17 - 18 pound range (with race wheels), anything under 15 pounds sounds fair.


----------



## Mdeth1313

Juanmoretime said:


> Excellent. Then I qualify with 157 lbs and 12.67 lb bike.:thumbsup:



I'm in- 153lbs and 11.6 lb bike.


----------



## skyliner1004

Does the UCi weight limit of 14.99 lbs include pedals, cages, and computer?


----------



## BunnV

*Here's the rule...*

Further to the decision taken and published in February 1999, the International Cycling Union (UCI) wishes to specify that, in its concern to protect equal chances and the primacy of man over machine in cycling races, its Management Committee has decided to limit the minimum weight of bicycles in competitions (road, track and cyclo-cross) to 6.800 kg from 1st January 2000. 

By limiting the minimum weight of bicycles, following the example of other sports like rowing, the Management Committee wants to avoid any trend towards excess which would not be in line with the policy stipulated in the Lugano Charter, adopted in 1996 -


----------



## froze

Pedals are included in the weight, bottles and cages and computers do not; thus you can't add on full water bottles and computer to get your weight to the limit, but pedals must be on and are part of the total weight.


----------



## nightfend

In my mind, anything under 16lbs. is light.


----------



## dhtucker4

The UCI weight limit is 6.8 kilograms - that was established over TEN YEARS AGO! Cars back then didn't have ABS, a multitude of air bags, or crash-worthy bumpers, etc. The UCI made a big mistake in not considering the rider's weight or gender. Women nowadays have to contend with that old-time UCI limit. 

Of course, back in 1996, most racing bikes were some kind of metal - steel, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, or a metal matrix.

It's just like banning derailleurs or quick-release wheel skewers - which is SO stupid. Case in point: the UCI just now has allowed disc brakes on cyclocross bikes THIS year! 

The UCI board of governors must be a bunch of old fogies for not marching with the times.

I thought that bottle cages were part of the UCI weight limit, just as a saddle and seatpost are.


----------



## spade2you

I agree the UCI weight limits are kinda dumb. It's hardly a challenge for bikes to be under the weight limit, even with a power meter. I understand they originally wanted to prevent teams from using components that aren't strong enough or unsafe, but thowing a weight in the seat post doesn't make a bike any stronger or safer.


----------



## kbwh

Was kinda impressed today when I found out that my bike was 6.5 kg with pedals, two bottle cages, computer with cadence sensor, proper tubulars and a not particularly flimsy seat. I consider it light. 


One admission though: Those new FFWD F2R 240s wheels are claimed to be some 1050 g _sans_ skewers. I bought them for this supported ride: http://www.bergodal.no/sveits_rundt.shtml. Clickable stage profiles in the link.
Google translate:


> Demanding ride in the Swiss Alps
> 
> We start in Italy and get with us Lake Como before heading into Switzerland. We will visit famous places like St Moritz, Davos and Bormio. On this trip we will discount the very highest of the passes in Switzerland. This trip is probably the most demanding of our trips, with 14 passes over 2000 meters.
> 
> We stay in hotels of good standard in smaller towns / villages. Normally it will be well diversified in age and form, and it is only positive. The roads we ride on is generally little traffic, and along most sections are few and far between cars.
> 
> 8 stages from 77 km to 119 km.
> 780 km and 17,868 meters.
> Day 1: Bergamo - Como, 87 km - 1682 meters
> The walk starts in the Italian Lombardy in the pleasant town of Bergamo. We drive on roads over the mountains north of Bergamo. The highest point is Culmine San Pietro (1254 m). We drive down to the Largo Bellano Como (known from a number of films like Star Wars, James Bond and Ocean Eleven).
> 
> Day 2: Lake Como - St. Moritz, 92 km - 1816 meters
> The start goes along Lake Como. After about 50 km we cross the border into Switzerland and the climb up to the Maloja Pass (1850 m). The passport is the start of the long Engadin Valley. Now we keep ourselves at the same height along the Largo di Sils and Silvaplanersee, up to St Moritz. The city is considered the oldest and most famous ski resort in the world.
> 
> Day 3: St Moritz - Bormio, 77 km - 1316 meters
> From St Moritz, we take the southwest towards Lago Bianco (2234 m) and the Passo del Bernina (2,328 m). Bernina-path or Rhaetian Railway goes over the pass. This is the highest railway Alps and climb up to 7% is also one of the world's steepest railway. The line runs from St. Moritz over the Bernina Pass to Tirano in Italy. It is also on the UNESCO World Heritage Site. A bit on the descent, we take that north to Forcola di Livigno (2315 m) and Italy. On the way down we stopped running Livigno, known as a tax haven. From Livigno bikes we left the southwest. We shall first of the Passo d'Eira (2209 m) Passo di so Foscagno (2291 m). Now carry it through Valdidentro to Bormio (1225 m).
> 
> Day 4: Bormio - Davos, 101 km - 3069 meters
> From Bormio we begin the run up to the Passo de Stelvio (running on our trip "Dolomites around). We will take off before the top north towards Switzerland, over Umbrail Pass. This is the tour's highest pass at 2501 meters above sea level. On the descent there are a few miles of dirt road before we come to Val Müstair. valley in the past has been fairly insulated from high pass. Here, they speak a dialect of Romansh. We are at our most easterly point of our trip and we take westward across Ofenpass (2149 m). Now the route goes through the Swiss National Park (Switzerland's only national park, established in 1914). After the park we bike up to susch and up to Fluelapass (2383 m). So, carry it straight down to Davos.
> 
> Day 5: Davos - Muster, 116 km - 1824 meters
> From Davos bikes we Land Wasser valley to the south-east. After 30 km take us north over Lenzerheidepass (1549 m) against Lenz and Chur. From Chur bikes we Surselva up-valley to the Muster. This is an area where the Romansh language and culture is strong.
> 
> Day 6: Muster - Grimsel, 110 km - 3438 meters
> From Muster we continue up the valley of Surselva Oberalp Pass (2044 m). Here, the Rhine rises from Tomasee. So carry it down to Andermatt. On the way down to the watery, we pass the Devil's Bridge, before we take off over the rushing Pass (2224 m). The passport listed as No. 30 on Proscyclings Top 50 list. Further down Innertkirchen, before we start the ascent to the Grimsel.
> 
> Day 7: Grimsel - Ulrichen, 119 km - 3228 meters
> We continue the climb to the Grimsel (2165 m). On the way up we pass the magnificent Grimselsee. We continue down the valley to Ulrichen. Here we begin a tour that takes us over 3 passes. First is Nufenen pass (2478 m). Almost 14 km of 8% average gradient. Then comes St. Gotthardpasset (2108 m). The challenge here is that the classic route is mainly on the cobblestones. The passport stands as No. 24 on Procycling Top 50 list. Finally Furkapass (2431 m). Cool!
> 
> Day 8: Ulrichen - Domodossola, 99 km - 1962 meters
> From Ulrichen bikes down there we called the upper Rhone valley, which flows into Lake Geneva. We follow the valley to Brig-Glis. Here we start climbing to the Simplon Pass (2005 m). We follow the old road at the start is steep and gives us a magnificent view. On the descent we cross the border to Italy before we get to Domodossola. We are being taken by bus and driven back to Bergamo.


----------



## BunnV

spade2you said:


> I agree the UCI weight limits are kinda dumb. It's hardly a challenge for bikes to be under the weight limit, even with a power meter. I understand they originally wanted to prevent teams from using components that aren't strong enough or unsafe, but thowing a weight in the seat post doesn't make a bike any stronger or safer.


Safety wasn't the reason for the weight limit. If you read the Lugano Charter the word safety appears only once. 

The main reason for the weight limit was to prevent_ "a technocratic form of cycling where power is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful players, to the detriment of the universality of the sport on which its future and continued development depend."_

It seems like the powers that be at the UCI are intimidated by new technology. _"The bicycle is losing its “user-friendliness” and distancing itself from a reality which can be grasped and understood."_

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=MzQxMDc&LangId=1


----------



## serious

Many of the pro bikes in the Paris-Roubaix race are 16-17 lbs, which is some indication of what is required to safely carry a strong rider over some of the worst roads. Such a bike would give me piece of mind, especially knowing that I can never generate the power and abuse a pro does.

So for me 16 lbs is definitely light and 15 lbs would probably be near my comfort level. And I am relatively light at 155lbs.


----------



## TimV

88 rex said:


> Carbon tubulars ARE weight weenie


People rarely ever admit that they are a weight weenie. It's always the other guy. The same rule applies to yuppies and hipsters.


----------



## montigue23

I'm sorry but I can no longer be just a viewer here.. I need to put in my feedback

Do you know when people are googling facts about there hobby..(whether its a novice or an enthusiast} in this case being road bikes..threads like this comes up..One can only read and be totally confused by u guys who post these threads. 

How in the world can you only consider a bike to be light weight at 15 lbs. Do you realize how expensive it is to get a full road bike with front and rear durallures and get it down to 15 lbs..my god...you guys be reazonable about these facts...My Felt F75 is an awesome light weight fast bike..It weighs in at 19lbs...thats $1500 usd spent...taking in all bikes in consideration..I think in all common sense, you start getting light weight when u go under 20lbs...anything less than that is race. competition triathlon style bikes.

Come on you guys be reasonable for the average consumer looking for info


----------



## Nickk

you could have bought an F1r for an additional $6K and you'd be sub 15


----------



## montigue23

yah Nick..but i dont race.. my bike is equipped with shimano 105 compnents and a good reliable wheelset..its perfect for me..I have a good balance of carbon fiber and aluminum on this frame..not too stiff not too dull..im really happy with wat i got now ( have had SEVERAL bikes) spending 6k on 4 lbs is over the top IMHO


----------



## froze

montigue23 said:


> I'm sorry but I can no longer be just a viewer here.. I need to put in my feedback
> 
> Do you know when people are googling facts about there hobby..(whether its a novice or an enthusiast} in this case being road bikes..threads like this comes up..One can only read and be totally confused by u guys who post these threads.
> 
> How in the world can you only consider a bike to be light weight at 15 lbs. Do you realize how expensive it is to get a full road bike with front and rear durallures and get it down to 15 lbs..my god...you guys be reazonable about these facts...My Felt F75 is an awesome light weight fast bike..It weighs in at 19lbs...thats $1500 usd spent...taking in all bikes in consideration..I think in all common sense, you start getting light weight when u go under 20lbs...anything less than that is race. competition triathlon style bikes.
> 
> Come on you guys be reasonable for the average consumer looking for info


You made a valid point except you left out something, at what price point are you talking about? Granted you can't find a 15 pound bike for $1500, but for $2,500 range you can get within a 1 to 1 1/2 pounds of that, and their not racing or triatholon only type of bikes. 

What I find amazing is how people will spend $1500 plus for a bike and end up with a 19 pound bike, yet I have a 88 Fuji all lugged steel bike that weighs 20 pounds, replace the steel fork with CF and I would easily be hovering around 19 pounds. When it comes right down to it, 25 years of bike evolution hasn't changed much in terms of total bike weight.


----------



## montigue23

froze...point well taken, and I somewhat agree with ya

Although I have to point something out. in regards to comparisons with your fuji and my felt. If we were to strip down to the frame and fork I'm sure I would have much gain on you. Probably a few pounds I am assuming. But that is not the most important issue when comparing old vs new, (frames) There is another weight factor that comes into play here and its called Spinning weight. Wheels and cranks are some of the most important upgrades made in bikes.. You can always shave a few pounds here and there on yourself and your bike. But reducing your spinning weight by having a high end set of wheels or carbon cranks makes a huge difference when comparing to older bikes, which often made 27 inch steel wheels and super heavy cranksets.. In terms of spinning weight 1 pound is very substantial and overall out come of perfomance would be night and day difference.

Every consumer has there price point your right. Although when asking what is considered light weight I still give a firm answer ...under 20 lbs,,,You can find a descent road bike that weighs in at 20-21 lbs but once it drops down to 19 lbs the manufactures retail value changes considerably,,,


----------



## Guod

I think the WW factor gets ridiculus at a point. Especially considering the previously mentioned UCI minimum weight. Recently during the ToC coverage they went over the Liquigas SS EVO and mentioned that to meet the minimum weight, they had to add a heavy (1lb I think is what they said) steel spindle to the bottom bracket. It's a good place in terms of balance and center of gravity, but it just shows how little it really means. The only things I see pros getting excited over is wheel and tire combos and throwing the occasional water bottle off for a climb. Personally, I have a bike that's in the 17lb range and one in the 15lb range. The only difference between the two going uphill is the feel of the power transfer (stiffer on the one with BB30). I've set PRs on climbs with both bikes and I've set some of those while wearing a backpack coming home from work! You can whittle a bike down to 13lbs if you want, but at some point durability will be an issue and the money spent will see diminishing returns. Just my opinion though....


----------



## PlatyPius

montigue23 said:


> I'm sorry but I can no longer be just a viewer here.. I need to put in my feedback
> 
> Do you know when people are googling facts about there hobby..(whether its a novice or an enthusiast} in this case being road bikes..threads like this comes up..One can only read and be totally confused by u guys who post these threads.
> 
> How in the world can you only consider a bike to be light weight at 15 lbs. Do you realize how expensive it is to get a full road bike with front and rear durallures and get it down to 15 lbs..my god...you guys be reazonable about these facts...My Felt F75 is an awesome light weight fast bike..It weighs in at 19lbs...thats $1500 usd spent...taking in all bikes in consideration..I think in all common sense, you start getting light weight when u go under 20lbs...anything less than that is race. competition triathlon style bikes.
> 
> Come on you guys be reasonable for the average consumer looking for info


At no time did I think I would ever be defending the people who post here. In fact, I think most of them are mental. However, this *IS* the weight-weenies forum. As such, the definition of Light is going to be different in here than in the real world. I bought a used Cyfac frame on eBay and built it with Sora components and other random bits from the shop. With SunTour Superbe pedals, it's 18.5 pounds. I think that's light.

However, for the purposes of this forum, I'd say anything under the UCI minimum weight is light.


----------



## froze

montigue23 said:


> There is another weight factor that comes into play here and its called Spinning weight. Wheels and cranks are some of the most important upgrades made in bikes.. You can always shave a few pounds here and there on yourself and your bike. But reducing your spinning weight by having a high end set of wheels or carbon cranks makes a huge difference when comparing to older bikes, which often made 27 inch steel wheels and super heavy cranksets.. In terms of spinning weight 1 pound is very substantial and overall out come of perfomance would be night and day difference.
> 
> Every consumer has there price point your right. Although when asking what is considered light weight I still give a firm answer ...under 20 lbs,,,You can find a descent road bike that weighs in at 20-21 lbs but once it drops down to 19 lbs the manufactures retail value changes considerably,,,


Only low end steel bikes back in the days of 27" tires came with steel wheels and steel cranks, and those bikes typically weighed at least 35 pounds. There were racing bikes in the 60's and 70's that aluminum wheels and cranks, in fact I knew a guy who had a late 60's pro racing bike and it weighed 21 pounds, but the frame was noodly compared with the much better steel that came out in the 80's. And my wheels on the Fuji are as light as almost any modern aluminum rim on the market today except maybe the most expensive wheels.

Motobecane TI bikes get down to 16.5 pound range for under $2800.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM

My original road bike was over 23 pounds.. Felt light compared to my 30+ pound mountain bikes. When I built my Super Six she clocks in at 16lbs with a powertap, pedals, and cages. Felt like the bike disappeared beneath me.


----------



## Camilo

The standard lightness scale is:

> 22 lbs: "boat anchor"
20-22 lbs: "heavy"
18-20 lbs: "normal"
16-18 lbs: "light"
15-16 lbs: "nice and light"
14-15 lbs: "really light"
< 14 lbs: "really nice and light"


----------



## Mdeth1313

Camilo said:


> The standard lightness scale is:
> 
> > 22 lbs: "boat anchor"
> 20-22 lbs: "heavy"
> 18-20 lbs: "normal"
> 16-18 lbs: "light"
> 15-16 lbs: "nice and light"
> 14-15 lbs: "really light"
> < 14 lbs: "really nice and light"


and at 11.5 lbs man did my bike feel good going over mt. everett/mt. washington from NY to MA yesterday!


----------



## fazzman

My caad9 is 15.1 ready to ride and i think its heavy. Need some sram red bits to get it into the 14s. But anything sub 14 nice.


----------



## CoLiKe20

I'm an old fart.
In my day anything under 20lbs is light.


----------



## David Loving

I'm an old fart too and I agree that under 20 lbs is light. I have a carbon bike the comes in at about 16 with pedals, etc and it's like riding an airplane!


----------



## pepelkod

*Aerodynamics*

I'm a big guy and weigh in at around 195. I figure an 18-19 lb bike is light enough for me. Interestingly, I went from an Al Fuji Team Pro at around 18 lbs to the new Carbon Fuji Team Pro and the weight went up to 19 lbs. 

Lastly I would like to remind everyone that aerodynamics is more important than weight.

“The [light bike] would win the 'let's hold our bikes over our head' contest, the [pretty light but aero bike] would win the bike race.” Gerard Vroomen


----------



## davelikestoplay

light is 1/2 lb lighter than whatever weight my bike is....


----------



## stachattack

thanks this was super helpful


----------



## straightsixZ

when it begins to float

when you hold it up with one finger


----------



## froze

straightsixZ said:


> when it begins to float
> 
> when you hold it up with one finger


That's why I fill my bikes frames with helium.


----------



## tlg

froze said:


> That's why I fill my bikes frames with helium.


I prefer to use hydrogen since it's much lighter than helium. Plus it's far more abundant on earth than helium which is pretty scarce on earth. So it's more environmentally friendly.

A 700cx23 tire will be ~0.86g lighter with helium. And ~0.92g lighter with hydrogen.


----------



## froze

tlg said:


> I prefer to use hydrogen since it's much lighter than helium. Plus it's far more abundant on earth than helium which is pretty scarce on earth. So it's more environmentally friendly.
> 
> A 700cx23 tire will be ~0.86g lighter with helium. And ~0.92g lighter with hydrogen.


I put helium in the bike frame because I have steel bikes and hydrogen will damage steel; but I use hydrogen in my tires because the tires will last longer. Combined they make for a very floating type of ride, especially great for hopping over logs or whatever is in my way.


----------



## froze

tlg said:


> Depending on your steel frame size you'll decrease your weight ~1 or 2g by filling it with helium.
> Go with large cross section carbon fiber frame, filled with hydrogen and you could be upwards of 4-5g!!
> 
> Don't even get me started on forks, oversize handlebars, and hollowtech cranks!


That's great, so it stands to reason the larger the diameter of the frame, fork, bars, tires etc the lighter the bike can get. Maybe that's why there are tires called balloon tires.

What's weird for me is when I pull up to a store that has helium ask them to connect their nozzle to my valve on my frame...I get the strangest looks!


----------



## tlg

froze said:


> I put helium in the bike frame because I have steel bikes and hydrogen will damage steel; but I use hydrogen in my tires because the tires will last longer.


Ahhh gotcha. I misread your post. Thought you were talking about your tubes.

Depending on your steel frame size you'll decrease your weight ~1 or 2g by filling it with helium. 
Go with large cross section carbon fiber frame, filled with hydrogen and you could be upwards of 4-5g!!

Don't even get me started on forks, oversize handlebars, and hollowtech cranks!


----------



## 768Q

After riding my Walmart special at 35 #'s and now my Diamondback Insight at around 23#'s it feels way light, will move up to something lighter a bit later but that 13# drop was amazing!


----------



## austke

*Anything Lighter than what you have already!!!*



davelikestoplay said:


> light is 1/2 lb lighter than whatever weight my bike is....


Mine is 13kg
my son has 10.4kg and feels superlight to me.
I love riding his when he is not at home. 
MTB with baby seat is 17.3kg and with him in it, I most certainly feel it by the end of the ride.

Thx Austke


----------



## Nob

Under 15 is so easy today if you have the coin. Under 14 a bit harder. I'd say under 14.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt

config said:


> I know there's no defined threshold but at what weight is a road bike considered light weight and at what price range or is this completely subjective?


One pound lighter than your current bike.


----------



## castofone

The bike I ride is 6.8 kg and it's a really nice ride. 
However I did a fantasy cheapo weenie build in Excel using normal and cheap parts. 
It was based on:
Chinese clean skin high mod frame, 
new Sram Red, 
cheapo carbon seat and ally seatpost, 
cheapo carbon bars and ally stem 
home built alloy clinchers with cheap hubs and Kinlin rims.
It worked out at a little under 5.8 kg (say 12.7 lb). With just a little more diligent weenieness it could be 5.6 (12.3). It may be a little too fragile for bigger riders but it would suit me at 150 lb.

I didn't calculate the cost but I guess it would be about $3 k
edit: ooh no! Rough calc puts it at $3.9 k so with some diligent and patient sale hunting should get down to ~$3.4 k

So my more or less arbitrary measure of "light" is 5.8 kg


----------



## Unicorn-Racer

I just did a fancy chart like you did for a cheapo Chinese carbon frame build with full 105 for a grand total of 1450$ and a weight of 16.31lb. For 2,500$ you only save 3.61lb and that was a really rough build picking any old parts for a quick guesstimate. Im posting the build in the component section as soon as I have 5 posts .


----------



## castofone

Are you saying 16.3 lb is light or cheap or both? I disagree with the former but $1450 is certainly cheap.


----------



## comfortflyer

It is relative to your perspective. But If you are racing then I guess maybe you can say if your road bike is in the top 25% to 50% of all of the bikes racing. Ask the closest 10 people to you in the race  (Sorry needed my 5th post).


----------



## MXL

In my little world 16-19 lbs is light. If I want to go lighter I take an ex-lax and save several thousand $$$.


----------



## giosblue

Camilo said:


> The standard lightness scale is:
> 
> > 22 lbs: "boat anchor"
> 20-22 lbs: "heavy"
> 18-20 lbs: "normal"
> 16-18 lbs: "light"
> 15-16 lbs: "nice and light"
> 14-15 lbs: "really light"
> < 14 lbs: "really nice and light"


These sound about right me :thumbsup:


----------



## froze

giosblue said:


> These sound about right me :thumbsup:


Really? I was thinking more on the lines of:

>22 pounds Cheapest
20-22 cheaper
18-20 cheap
16-18 average
15-16 expensive
14-15 real expensive
<14 outrageously expensive


----------



## giosblue

froze said:


> Really? I was thinking more on the lines of:
> 
> >22 pounds Cheapest
> 20-22 cheaper
> 18-20 cheap
> 16-18 average
> 15-16 expensive
> 14-15 real expensive
> <14 outrageously expensive


These also sound about right, depending on how much money you have, or not as the case may be.


----------



## atacamar

great comments, 

i have an anchor; '93 specialized allez i picked up new back in the day after someone dropped it and put a scratch on the crank and no one wanted it. I'm getting into triathlons now and I've opted to dust it off and use it since i have it. This vs. getting something nice and new (lighter). I could go out and spend 1500-2000 but being a noob to triathlons i'd rather be quick on old slow bike than look like a tool on a fancy 15lb'r. my first sport is running, but hooked on biking and have been itching to try triathlons.

current weight of my steamliner anchor... 25lbs 9oz,, probably a tad more now that i added clipless pedals. (bike is steel frame, al fork stock)

Now, i won't race at that weight and I've opted for new components to drop some weight to be somewhat competitive. I'm not looking for miracles but hoping to get it to around 22lbs or just a tad under which isn't light but acceptable. Not sure what will happen with a new wheelset and all shimano 105 components (used 9spd) but'll it'll have to do.

Being somewhat new to biking I consider light anything 20lbs or under for avg. biker. if you are big into riding/racing drop the weight accordingly... under 17 for serious biker. /my 2 cents


----------

