# Middle Level Treks and Giants. Bike Weights?



## Christoph (Jul 10, 2009)

I've been looking at various Treks and can't seem to find the weight of any of them other than their real high end bikes. I know, Trek doesn't like to post the weight because other bike makers aren't always so truthful about their bike weights (I read this on Trek's website). But anyone who owns a mid level Trek (a 2.1 or 2.3 for instance), can you tell me how much your bike weighs. (NOTE: and Google isn't my friend. I couldn't find a weight anywhere). 

Also looking for weights on some Giants too. Anyone who has anything in the Defy line, how much does your bike weight--stock, and after any changes. 

Thanks. 

NOTE: I posted a similiar, though slightly different, request in the Trek Manufacturers section, but I think this more general question is better posted here.


----------



## Terrapin (Aug 1, 2002)

I thought Trek & others don't post the weight, because varies so much by size, and sizes are not uniform across makers.


----------



## M.J. (Jan 28, 2004)

Christoph said:


> I've been looking at various Treks and can't seem to find the weight of any of them other than their real high end bikes. I know, Trek doesn't like to post the weight because other bike makers aren't always so truthful about their bike weights (I read this on Trek's website). But anyone who owns a mid level Trek (a 2.1 or 2.3 for instance), can you tell me how much your bike weighs. (NOTE: and Google isn't my friend. I couldn't find a weight anywhere).
> 
> Also looking for weights on some Giants too. Anyone who has anything in the Defy line, how much does your bike weight--stock, and after any changes.
> 
> ...



why are you so concerned about weight? there's a long list of reasons why weight (within obvious parameters met by both mid-level Trek and Giant) simply should not be an issue - particualrly for mid-level bikes

also - weight of frame? weight of bike? which wheels? which component groups? with pedals?

I can't see how this would be useful info.

BTW - there's a whole forum (ghetto) here for people who believe that weight IS important: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/forumdisplay.php?f=82 - I can only assume that everyone who posts in that forum has a BMI of less than 10% cause you know it's really not about the bike  

someone may also post up the sensible gram per dollar formula


----------



## The Green Hour (Jul 15, 2008)

A little off topic but interesting.

While watching the race this morning, they had a segment about the new C'Dales Liquidgas is riding. The bike is so light they have to add a weight in the seat tube to make it UCI legal. If I was going to add weight it would be in the layup of the carbon frame not some dead useless tube inserted inserted in it. 

Why make a bike that is too light to race? I know the answer, but found that kind of funny anyways...


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

Based on the weight of my Madone I will venture a guess that the mid-level bikes will be anywhere from 18 to 22 pounds depending on what you consider to be in the range of mid-level. The lowest end Madone is what I would consider a mid-level bike and is carbon so it would probably be on the low end of 18 if not lower. The aluminum bikes like the 2.3 will probably be around 19-20 and the others falling in a bit heavier.

However, I could be wildly wrong. It is also dependent on sizing as well as wheel choice. My Bontrager classic is noticeably heavier than my Race Lite.


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

The Green Hour said:


> A little off topic but interesting.
> 
> While watching the race this morning, they had a segment about the new C'Dales Liquidgas is riding. The bike is so light they have to add a weight in the seat tube to make it UCI legal. If I was going to add weight it would be in the layup of the carbon frame not some dead useless tube inserted inserted in it.
> 
> Why make a bike that is too light to race? I know the answer, but found that kind of funny anyways...


For those that don't know one of the answers to this- one reason is so they can move the weight around for each rider and bike to change how it handles. Specifically if they drop a weight to the bottom bracket area, it effectively lowers the center of gravity. F1 cars are purposely designed to be well below weight for this reason.


----------



## peterk (Jun 28, 2008)

I ride an OCR2 and it weighs 21 pounds. I have a couple of buddies who I ride with once in a while that are on bikes in 16lb range. Trust me when I tell, unless you are racing and looking precious seconds, it does not matter. I can do 30miles with them at averaging 21 (granted they pull more, but hey I'm twelve years older). After that, they kick my butt. Not because their bikes are lighter. They are younger and in much better shape. I'm older, work 60hours a week, have two kids and a wife. Plus, I figure I am getting a better workout because my bike is heavier. 

Buy a bike that you feel comfortable on and ride. Aluminum too harsh? Lower your tire pressure. I weigh 168/170 lbs and I run my 23s at 95lbs. Almost 2,000 miles now and still going strong. My parts are tiagra and sora as well. They work just fine. And if you know how to tune your own gear, they work great.


----------



## wildwood (Mar 7, 2008)

My 2009 Madone 5.2, with Race X Lite wheels, in 60cm with a Bontrager Race X Lite Blade
handlebar weights in right at 17lbs


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Terrapin said:


> I thought Trek & others don't post the weight, because varies so much by size, and sizes are not uniform across makers.


Seems like kind of a cop-out, if that's the reason they're using.

Most places just post the '56cm' or 'M' size weight (or whatever size is closest), and leave it at that.

Nor does the weight really vary tremendously by size, maybe a few tenths of a pound difference plus or minus from the medium size, that's it.
.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

FWIW, middle- and lower-end carbon Treks are made by Giant in Taiwan.

Weights are still different, but the quality is almost exact.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

No. It is pure marketing. "Too light to race" and a little product placement when they do a spot on it. They could easily make the bike perform better if the weight had function.



jsedlak said:


> For those that don't know one of the answers to this- one reason is so they can move the weight around for each rider and bike to change how it handles. Specifically if they drop a weight to the bottom bracket area, it effectively lowers the center of gravity. F1 cars are purposely designed to be well below weight for this reason.


----------



## clipz (Aug 28, 2008)

I dont understand why weight is such a concern in a mid-level bike.Weight should not be a concern unless you are a higher end cyclist. I ride a mid level Trek and can honestly say its not always the weight that matters. I have flown by people on Madones, Tarmacs and others. ITS HOW YOU RIDE YOUR BIKE.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

jsedlak said:


> For those that don't know one of the answers to this- one reason is so they can move the weight around for each rider and bike to change how it handles. Specifically if they drop a weight to the bottom bracket area, it effectively lowers the center of gravity. F1 cars are purposely designed to be well below weight for this reason.


I thought exactly the same thing, but the way it was demonstrated, the pretty boy held the weight as if it were up in the seat tube under the saddle. I'd hope anyone smart enough to build a 12 lbs. bike would be smart enough to put the extra weight as low as possible.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

As others have said, the one time weight is important is when you're doing hills/mountains. If you're in the Rockies maybe it will be an important consideration (as will gearing). Otherwise choose based on fit. 

That said, I'm guessing 21-22 lbs. is about normal. Unfortunately, I don't have specifics. One of the reasons companies don't specify weight is that if they do their competitor undercuts them. If I remember correctly, Schwinn was fined in the '70s for coming up with 'creative' ways to make their bikes lighter, like specifying weight for bikes that had kickstands, but taking the kickstands off to weigh them. 

All things being equal, as to which to choose- who has the most stages at the TdF this year?


----------



## B2 (Mar 12, 2002)

My wife's stock Madone 5.1 (52 cm) with computer cages and pedals weighs 17.8 lbs.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Call it 20lbs +/- 10%


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Common misconception.*



California L33 said:


> I thought exactly the same thing, but the way it was demonstrated, the pretty boy held the weight as if it were up in the seat tube under the saddle. I'd hope anyone smart enough to build a 12 lbs. bike would be smart enough to put the extra weight as low as possible.


Moving weight around on a bicycle has little effect on handling. The center of mass of the bicycle-rider combination is located in the chest of the rider and pretty much stays there regardless of where you add or subtract a bit of weight on the bike. In addition, a two-weeled vehicle doesn't need a low center of mass to corner well because it leans into the turn. Only vehicles that can't lean into a turn benefit from a low center of mass.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

wim said:


> Moving weight around on a bicycle has little effect on handling. The center of mass of the bicycle-rider combination is located in the chest of the rider and pretty much stays there regardless of where you add or subtract a bit of weight on the bike. In addition, a two-weeled vehicle doesn't need a low center of mass to corner well because it leans into the turn. Only vehicles that can't lean into a turn benefit from a low center of mass.


I wonder where you'd want that weight if you had to touch the brakes while cornering?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*??*



California L33 said:


> I wonder where you'd want that weight if you had to touch the brakes while cornering?


Not sure I understand the question. Front braking only while cornering shifts a lot of weight onto the front wheel—that's why it's not a good idea. For what it's worth, braking in turns (from entry to apex) should be done with both brakes and, as you said, a light touch.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

wim said:


> Not sure I understand the question. Front braking only while cornering shifts a lot of weight onto the front wheel—that's why it's not a good idea. For what it's worth, braking in turns (from entry to apex) should be done with both brakes and, as you said, a light touch.


Doesn't hitting the brakes while leaning into a curve cause the centrifugal (?) force to try to pull the bike upright? If that's the case, having your center of gravity as low as possible would be best.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

California L33 said:


> Doesn't hitting the brakes while leaning into a curve cause the centrifugal (?) force to try to pull the bike upright? If that's the case, having your center of gravity as low as possible would be best.


Only non-leaning vehicles ( like cars or tricycles) battle centrifugal forces in a turn that way. Slowing the bike while it's leaning into the turn _allows you_ to reduce lean angle, but centrifugal force does not try to upright a bicycle. If it did, you'd see inexperienced riders "get leaned" past the vertical and fall over towards the _outside_ of a turn, which doesn't happen. Crashes in turns happen because a rider either slides out because of an excessive lean angle or runs off the road because he's at the end of his "leaning courage." Frame builder Dave Moulton (and "Mr. Descender" Jobst Brandt) laid this out somehere, but I can't find it right now.

/w


----------

