# What is lightweight?



## trairden (May 19, 2005)

What weight is considered to be "light"? I'm in the market for a new bike and have tested 6 different bikes (carbon and aluminum), and they all are in the 19-21 pound range. Yet I have seen some posts here where people are talking about their bikes being 16-18 pounds. Should I be looking elsewhere? 

Bikes looked at: Trek Pilot (2.1, 5.0), Specialized Roubaix(and Roubaix Elite), Giant OCR 1 and Giant OCR Composite 3. All of these bikes were within two pounds of each other evn though 3 of them are full carbon frames? Does this sound right?


----------



## Anti-gravity (Jul 16, 2004)

*How deep is your pocketbook?*



trairden said:


> What weight is considered to be "light"? I'm in the market for a new bike and have tested 6 different bikes (carbon and aluminum), and they all are in the 19-21 pound range. Yet I have seen some posts here where people are talking about their bikes being 16-18 pounds. Should I be looking elsewhere?
> 
> Bikes looked at: Trek Pilot (2.1, 5.0), Specialized Roubaix(and Roubaix Elite), Giant OCR 1 and Giant OCR Composite 3. All of these bikes were within two pounds of each other evn though 3 of them are full carbon frames? Does this sound right?


The bikes you mentioned are mostly within the $2000-2500 price range. Less than 17 lbs. stock is rare from the major manufacturors at this price point. Most of the sub-17 lb. bikes will run you over 3k. Saving weight becomes exponentially expensive (and gains less performance benifits) as you start getting closer to the coveted UCI limit (14.9lbs). So it all comes down to how light you really want your bike. Usually getting down the sub-16s will require customization with more exotic parts that rarely come stock on most bikes. If get down to the science of it, most of the weight savings have pretty neglible performs gains. For most people on this board, building a light bike is more of a hobby than for making them appreciably faster. So its your call as to what is light enough for you given the amount of money you want to spend.

In addition, a lot of the major bike companies will choose durability over lightweight when it comes to some of the more rediculous places to shave grams. 

Also look at the more subtle things on stock bikes:
-A lot have triple cranksets, doubles are lighter.
-Relectors are still installed.
-Many people remove the spoke protector on the rear wheel. Some (especially Mavic's huge "vinyl record" spoke guard) are kinda chunky.

-R


----------



## BugMan (Feb 16, 2004)

Anti-gravity said:


> Also look at the more subtle things on stock bikes:
> -A lot have triple cranksets, doubles are lighter.
> -Relectors are still installed.
> -Many people remove the spoke protector on the rear wheel. Some (especially Mavic's huge "vinyl record" spoke guard) are kinda chunky.


Stock wheels on bikes at that pricepoint may also be rather heavy - you can probably take a good pound off by swapping them out for a good race-quality wheelset...

...but only if that's important to you.

As for the the bikes listed by the OP, these I guess you would call "plush road bikes" - generally built with a more upright posture and an eye for durability rather than being lightweight speed machines. If you want the latter, something like the C'dale R1000 should be in the same price range, yet come in at or under 18 lbs.

My advice to you is 1) decide what "style" of bike you want (performance vs. comfort), 2) determine your pricepoint, and 3) try out the offerings in the local bikes shops. Go to several - each will have certain brands they offer. Make your decision based on fit and whether you think "wow!" when you look at it. How much the bike ends up weighing will be appropriate for the style/pricepoint of the bike you've chosen.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

trairden said:


> What weight is considered to be "light"? I'm in the market for a new bike and have tested 6 different bikes (carbon and aluminum), and they all are in the 19-21 pound range. Yet I have seen some posts here where people are talking about their bikes being 16-18 pounds. Should I be looking elsewhere?
> 
> Bikes looked at: Trek Pilot (2.1, 5.0), Specialized Roubaix(and Roubaix Elite), Giant OCR 1 and Giant OCR Composite 3. All of these bikes were within two pounds of each other evn though 3 of them are full carbon frames? Does this sound right?


Rich is always more money than you have (however much that may be), and light is always lighter than what you have.

I would say light is in the 15-16 pound range for the average joe, 14-15 for the amateur weight weenie, 13-14 for the serious weight weenie, and sub13 for the wacked out fruit loops. But it seems to drop about .25 to .5 pounds a year the last few years so you have to keep up with the times, though there has to be a lower limit at some point.

My current bike is 13.8 lbs but it's a fat piece of crap until I get my summer project completed and get down to 12.5. But by next summer that will be a fat piece of crap as well. I could go lower but I only allow myself 1 road bike at a time and it has to be reliable enough that I don't get stranded 60 miles from nowhere (only saw 1 car in 100km last weekend, it got kind of spooky).


----------



## thinkcooper (Jan 5, 2005)

Another point to consider is the size of frame and rider for given light weight ride. I consider 16.5 pounds light enough for a 62cm frame and wheelset that'll support my 208 pounds and be sturdy enough to hold-up to training and racing.


----------



## harvey (Feb 27, 2005)

*>$1/gram*

A figure of merit that used to be valid was $1 per gram for weight reduction when replacing heavy components with lighter ones (that's $454 per pound). Now that $1 figure is pretty optimistic .... you'd better count on spending more!


----------



## 633 (Feb 10, 2004)

trairden said:


> What weight is considered to be "light"?


Whatever the scale says when your wife gets on, if you know what's good for you.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

harvey said:


> A figure of merit that used to be valid was $1 per gram for weight reduction when replacing heavy components with lighter ones (that's $454 per pound). Now that $1 figure is pretty optimistic .... you'd better count on spending more!


You can easily push up to and even past the UCI 6.8kg, or 14.96lb weight minimum for $1.00 U.S. per gram.

A sub-900g Scott CR-1 frame with Campy Chorus or Dura Ace group, carbon wheels form Zipp and a well choosen finishing kit can be done for $1.00 U.S. per gram.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

If your bike is 14.96lbs it's under the UCI weight limit.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

*echo echo hello hello hello hello*

"If your bike is 14.96lbs it's under the UCI weight limit."

"You can easily push up to and even past the UCI 6.8kg, or 14.96lb weight minimum for $1.00 U.S. per gram."


There's an echo in here. Oh.... it's just me and Divve again.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

I was just wondering which one it was, 6.8kg or 14.96lb?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

divve said:


> I was just wondering which one it was, 6.8kg or 14.96lb?


They're the same.

1 Pound = 0.453 Kilograms or 1 Kilogram = 2.2 Pounds


----------



## Gvl_M3 (Feb 22, 2005)

So if I got you right, at $1.00 per gram up to 6.8kg equals $6800???????

I'll stick with my heavy bike and get some wheels


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Gvl_M3 said:


> So if I got you right, at $1.00 per gram up to 6.8kg equals $6800???????
> 
> I'll stick with my heavy bike and get some wheels


$6800 will buy a lot of things.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

rocco said:


> They're the same.
> 
> 1 Pound = 0.453 Kilograms or 1 Kilogram = 2.2 Pounds


1 pound = 0.4535924 kg

6.8kg = 14.99143 pound


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

divve said:


> 1 pound = 0.4535924 kg
> 
> 6.8kg = 14.99143 pound


http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=2004/features/uci_weight

http://www.uci.ch/english/news/news_pre2000/comm_19990611.htm

It depends on whether you go by .453, .454 or .4535924. The UCI communique doesn't state any policy on how to convert 6.8Kg to pounds.

Can we all agree that if your bike weighs 6.8 Kg or more it's UCI legal?

Next!


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

We could've agreed if you meant 6.8kg of mass instead of weight.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

divve said:


> We could've agreed if you meant 6.8kg of mass instead of weight.


Oh good God!

COMMUNIQUE DE PRESSE / PRESS RELEASE - Lausanne, SUI - 11 June 1999 Minimum bicycle weight 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 - see attached document.

Don't go away mad... just go away.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

That's nice, but a kilogram still is the SI unit for mass and not weight. This has been established in 1889 and continues to be the case. Still funny though


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

divve said:


> That's nice, but a kilogram still is the SI unit for mass and not weight. This has been established in 1889 and continues to be the case. Still funny though



Please send all suggestions or complaints to: 

Union Cycliste Internationale
CH 1860 Aigle
Switzerland
Tel:+41 24 468 58 11
Fax:+41 24 468 58 12
E-mail: [email protected]


----------



## gakster (Aug 2, 2002)

*The SI unit for weight is Newtons (N).*



divve said:


> That's nice, but a kilogram still is the SI unit for mass and not weight. This has been established in 1889 and continues to be the case. Still funny though


I admit I am a nerd 

The SI unit for weight is Newtons (N).

Weight at sea level (in Newtons) = mass (in kg) x 9.8 (N/kg)

Cheers,Gak


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

*less than zero*



gakster said:


> I admit I am a nerd
> 
> The SI unit for weight is Newtons (N).
> 
> ...


I'm glad we've clairified what lightweight is.


----------

