# Do pedals count?



## Zachariah

What is the norm for weighing bikes? I know the magazines weigh bikes w/o pedals, and when it comes to wheelsets- I notice skewers are usually not included in weight.


----------



## lancezneighbor

Of course pedals count, how else would you ummmmm.... pedal?


----------



## moabbiker

Pedals are kind of weird. The cleat assembly should be part of the equation but it will be just the pedal weight on the "list". Some "lightweight" pedal designs have the cleat system weigh significantly more so the net effect is little different, if at all.


----------



## California L33

lancezneighbor said:


> Of course pedals count, how else would you ummmmm.... pedal?


Weight weenies only ride downhill.


----------



## SM-Rider

Weight weenie pissing contests are funny.


----------



## suprcivic

i just say my bike weights "xx lbs, with pedals"

no confusion. i'm not taking the pedals off to weigh it. i can calculate the weight w/o pedals if need be.


----------



## kmunny19

i'd count anything that moves in a circle most importantly, as far as components go. decreasing rotating mass will add more to acceleration and manuverabilty than decreasing steady state mass. obviously dura ace pedals on a cast iron frame, won't be quick, but it will theoretically be quicker than heavier pedals. cranks, wheels, same idea.


----------



## Getoutandride

Generally all manufacturer quoted weights tend to be without pedals, bidon bolts, and sometimes without tubes even - some companies are dead on others are terrible, some weights Ive seen when compared to the real thing are down a whole wheelset! Not to mention the grease. 

How many weight weenies have measured out the 'just enough' measure of grease while wrenching? haha


----------



## natethomas2000

Since most bikes are sold w/o pedals the weight of a bike is usually w/o them as well. 

However, once you put some pedals on it's kind of silly to quote the weight of your bike without them.


----------



## ewitz

Bike weight is the bike minus anything that can be removed/thrown away at the bottom of a hill. 

Remove computer and bottle, include pedals.

That is the UCI standard for a pre-race weigh in.


----------



## unit

Zachariah said:


> What is the norm for weighing bikes? I know the magazines weigh bikes w/o pedals, and when it comes to wheelsets- I notice skewers are usually not included in weight.


It is pretty complicated because the pedals are mounted out of phase. As one pedal is going up, the other is going down...therefore they cancel each other. This is why we never weigh pedals.

Wheels are far more complicated in that there are numerous spokes to consider (you have to simultaneously solve two n-order differential equations where n = the spoke count of each wheel). Because this gets VERY complex, we use a simplification factor equivalent to the weight of the skewers.


----------



## Pirx

unit said:


> It is pretty complicated because the pedals are mounted out of phase. As one pedal is going up, the other is going down...therefore they cancel each other. This is why we never weigh pedals.
> 
> Wheels are far more complicated in that there are numerous spokes to consider (you have to simultaneously solve two n-order differential equations where n = the spoke count of each wheel). Because this gets VERY complex, we use a simplification factor equivalent to the weight of the skewers.


:lol: Complete nonsense...


----------



## Dan Gerous

unit said:


> It is pretty complicated because the pedals are mounted out of phase. As one pedal is going up, the other is going down...therefore they cancel each other. This is why we never weigh pedals.


:skep:  So we should take crankarms out of the total weight too then?


----------



## California L33

Dan Gerous said:


> :skep:  So we should take crankarms out of the total weight too then?


Yeah, and I'm a little guy now, probably only weigh 160 pounds without counting leg weight since one cancels the other out. I'm going to get some Ti spindle pedals and CF wheels.


----------



## Hank Stamper

unit said:


> It is pretty complicated because the pedals are mounted out of phase. As one pedal is going up, the other is going down...therefore they cancel each other. This is why we never weigh pedals.
> 
> Wheels are far more complicated in that there are numerous spokes to consider (you have to simultaneously solve two n-order differential equations where n = the spoke count of each wheel). Because this gets VERY complex, we use a simplification factor equivalent to the weight of the skewers.



I know I'm willfully taking it out of context a little.....but sorry, use of the word complicated and complex here is frigging hilarious. Words like 'whatever' and 'who cares' might better describe the complexities of weighing bike pedals.


----------



## Dan Gerous

California L33 said:


> Yeah, and I'm a little guy now, probably only weigh 160 pounds without counting leg weight since one cancels the other out. I'm going to get some Ti spindle pedals and CF wheels.


You can also swing your arms in opposite directions to save even more weight... Another few grams for people who are cross-eyed.


----------



## Hank Stamper

Dan Gerous said:


> Another few grams for people who are cross-eyed.


Classic.

I'm not crosseyed but for a few grams I'll work on it.


----------



## mdutcher

unit said:


> It is pretty complicated because the pedals are mounted out of phase. As one pedal is going up, the other is going down...therefore they cancel each other. This is why we never weigh pedals.
> 
> Wheels are far more complicated in that there are numerous spokes to consider (you have to simultaneously solve two n-order differential equations where n = the spoke count of each wheel). Because this gets VERY complex, we use a simplification factor equivalent to the weight of the skewers.


I think that he is onto something here... this theory might help in my dissertation. Brilliant! Thank you!


----------



## dominicisi

I'm in the school that believes you should have two weights. 
One weight is you standing naked on a scale.
The other is your bike, pedals, shoes, socks, kit, helmet, everything. 

I think it would make weenieing so much easier. Having the option to take off your socks for a relatively inexpensive (free!) savings of an ounce or two would be an example.

Just $.02


----------



## SystemShock

IMO, there should be two weights listed for every bike:

The 'bullsh*t' weight or stripped weight: no pedals, comp, or cages

The 'real' weight: pedals, comps/gps/power, cages. In other words, stuff that's bolted or wired to the bike. 

(yeah yeah, I know... the comp head unit slides or clips off. But the wire harness or wireless pickup doesn't necessarily, and is useless without it).

Everything that goes on the bike but is not bolted-down is 'equipment'... bike bag, whatever goes in bike bag, water bottles.

Cleats, shoes, helmet, etc, whatever goes on your body is 'clothing' (I know, duh).


Some of this is arbitrary, but you gotta start somewhere. Otherwise, just assume all bike weights are bullsh*t, and add a pound every time.

My opinion and mine alone. YMMV.
.


----------



## MarvinK

Pedals count, computers dont. Obviously, bottles, cleats, seat bags, pumps, etc. don't.

If some bimbo rides on your handlebars, you should count her, though.


----------



## jamesbrowm

Checkout testrider.com. They weighed bikes with pedals and one bottle cage. There was some surprises.


----------



## jmlapoint

I suppose there are many ideas as to WHAT is included in accurate bike weight.
If you want 'bragging-rights' about your bike weight, then obviously you want to weigh it stripped of such things as Computer, Pedals, Cages & Bottles, Tool Bag, Dork Disc, and Reflectors, etc.....
If you are worried about climbing the next big Hill, you need to weigh it with all the things you have on it to Ride, Repair, Hydrate etc...


----------



## SystemShock

jamesbrowm said:


> Checkout testrider.com. They weighed bikes with pedals and one bottle cage. There was some surprises.


Yeah, those vids are pretty fascinating. When honestly weighed, some of the expensive wonder bikes aren't quite as light as ppl think they are:

*http://www.testrider.com/fly.aspx?layout=videoindex&taxid=82&cid=154

http://www.testrider.com/fly.aspx?layout=videoindex&taxid=82&cid=109*



That Neuvation FC100 was definitely the sleeper hit of the bunch... an honest 16 lbs 5 oz for under $2K?? Whoa.
.


----------



## MarvinK

They seemed particularly fond of the Neuvation and Kestrel--both internet brands. Odd that they are getting paid by both companies by way of banner ads. Hmmm.

They actually weighed it with 2 bottle cages and an empty bottle (which is lame). To make matters worse, while they complained about weighing 54cm frames--they had no consistency and compared 53cm to 62cm frames. Lame, again, if you ask me.


----------



## SystemShock

MarvinK said:


> They seemed particularly fond of the Neuvation and Kestrel--both internet brands. Odd that they are getting paid by both companies by way of banner ads. Hmmm.
> 
> They actually weighed it with 2 bottle cages and an empty bottle (which is lame). To make matters worse, while they complained about weighing 54cm frames--they had no consistency and compared 53cm to 62cm frames. Lame, again, if you ask me.


Many ppl will have two cages, and an empty bottle on their bike at some time during the ride... certainly more realistic than the alternate way of measuring, which is no cages, no bottles. Except for short TTs or the rare person who uses a Camelbak, who really rides that way? :idea: 

I'll agree on the inconsistency on measured frame sizes. While the bike manufacturers are lame for weighing using small frames, with no paint and no decals, it was wrong of TestRider.com to not be consistent in their methodology. Though I doubt that threw the results more than a 1/3 lb plus or minus.

They should've just said "We're gonna measure an LBS-floor model that's 56cm or the closest size to that, no matter how many LBSes we have to visit." They just didn't wanna do the considerable legwork involved, seems like.
.


----------



## MarvinK

Ya, it just seems like they didn't even try to line them up. I mean, I'm sure each of those shops had 3-5 bikes in the whole shop. 53cm to 62cm is a pretty huge range.

I weigh mine with pedals, a computer and 2 cages... because its still under 15lbs. If losing the computer would put it under 14lbs, I'd leave that off. I think the pedals should count, regardless.. unless you're advertising a new bike that doesn't come with pedals. Of course, if the new bike comes with decals... you should include the decals.


----------

