Old 12-11-11, 09:37 AM
  #24  
Juan Foote
LBKA (formerly punkncat)
 
Juan Foote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jawja
Posts: 4,299

Bikes: Spec Roubaix SL4, GT Traffic 1.0

Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2208 Post(s)
Liked 960 Times in 686 Posts
Comment was made a few posts up about a bike 3.5# lighter than the other would be faster. In light of the OP and questions, I don't think that plays out. Like the poster about here said, he puts two water bottles on his bike that weight that. He also mentioned another point that I would as well....for many clydes the difference in between what would be considered lightweight and average, between the weight of bikes, is easily water retention or a full belly.
When you take into consideration the average frontal area, etc. mentioned in OP I just don't see how a difference of a few pounds makes any significant (speed) difference to riders like myself.

edit- just in the interest of "hearing myself talk" and by way of explaination on my above comments, I will proceed with some antecdotal evidence....When I moved to the new bike, which by all means should have been faster than the old. It started off 11 lbs lighter than the Al framed Trek. I noted a small and short increase in my average times which should likely be considered placebo effect. What I did notice was a significant increase in the mileage ridden. I figure that was a combination of the weight, correct sizing (comfort), and the "buffering" effect of the carbon frame (comfort).

Last edited by Juan Foote; 12-11-11 at 09:48 AM.
Juan Foote is offline