Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - I weighed every bike in the shop!

I chose this category (long distance) because the farther the ride, the more weight becomes an issue.
I have a very long ride coming up in June (either 800 or 1600 miles depending if I ride back home or have my family pick me up in the SUV) and the other day some friends of mine and myself were weighing bikes on a pro bike scale. My old (1969) Raleigh Competition GS (all Campy/friction) weighed in at 24.5 lbs. One of Greg LeMonds championship 1970's Raleighs(12 spd) weighed in at 19.3 lbs. (amazingly light for a 38 year old bike!).
My friend's all carbon $6500 Pinirello (fully equiped, bottle cages, pedals, 20 speed, etc.) weighed 17.3 lbs. and here's the reason for this post.....my "touring" bike, a Motobecan Le Champion (aluminim w/carbon fork, 30 speed Ultegra, heavy touring seat, cages, computer, pedals, Vittoria Rubino Pro 25c tires) WEIGHED IN AT 20.3 POUNDS!
I realize I'm not including frame sizes but I have less than $2500 in my bike and it's only 3 pounds heavier than the carbon guys!
Oh, one more bike I forgot to mention....a Raleigh Sojourn I think? Full on touring bike with steel chainrings and 32c tires weighed 29 pounds.
I'm not selling a point of view here, just sharing what I think is interesting data, I went crazy with the scale!
I do have one opinion. however, a 20 pound bicycle is a light bike, a 30 pound one is not. After a few back to back centuries, it starts making a heck of a difference. If you are a 40-50 mile a day rider, I suppose that difference isn't as big a deal.
All this assumes addl cargo weight is equal across the above bicycles. Raydog

I find most long distance riders are less likely to be interested in the weight of their bikes.

I'm just curious if you've ever looked in the touring forum here.

however, a 20 pound bicycle is a light bike, a 30 pound one is not. After a few back to back centuries, it starts making a heck of a difference. Raydog

Really? Have you rode back to back centuries on a 20 lb. bike and a 30 lb bike? I'm just asking.

I weighed every bike in the shop!The LBS staff surely loves you and your friends. :D

I chose this category (long distance) because the farther the ride, the more weight becomes an issue.


And the further you ride, the more stuff you end up carrying.

I think red bikes are the lightest. That`s probably why they`re so fast. I imagine dark colored bikes are denser (think black holes), and therefore most likely the heaviest. There are obviously a few exceptions- for example, my road bike weighs in at about 25 pounds even though it`s the same color as my daily rider commuter/tourer- no idea why the roadie is so feather light. Maybe the celeste bar tape?

Don't forget that objects which have more mass exert a stronger gravitational field.
That may explain why there are so many of us on bewilderingly heavy bikes.

Sorry Metzinger, there is no such thing as gravity. The earth sucks!
;)

Really? Have you rode back to back centuries on a 20 lb. bike and a 30 lb bike? I'm just asking.

Actually, I rode around Lake Tahoe on a 24 lb road bike then two days later on an older 32 lb mountain bike, about 76 miles for the route and there was a big difference. I just thought they were fun numbers, gosh, next time I post in this section I'll sure have my data together at a higher and less disputable level.

I find most long distance riders are less likely to be interested in the weight of their bikes.

I'm just curious if you've ever looked in the touring forum here.

As I read earlier posts in this thread and compare to the touring section, it seems that I find the opposite tendancy, that is, touring riders seem to ride heavier bikes and carry more cargo than long distance riders. Of course that is a generalization but that's what I get from the reading. Obviously, that is an oversimplification since it doesn't take in if a competitive event or specific mileages.
Even the "touring" bikes as produced by manufacturers are heavier than other higher end equally priced road bikes.

Hmm. I'd say competitive roadies are the ultimate weight-weenies, for good reason. LD riders might care more than the touring people, but it's shades of meaning, here. Between strength and lightness, I'd propose that a tourer would value lightness less than an LD rider, but that the competitive roadie is willing to sacrifice strength (of some form) and even comfort in pursuit of even small advantages in speed. This is an oversimplification, of course, and I could be completely wrong.

BTW, I find your data interesting.

...143335

Here is my perspective on weight. I gained as much weight since last season as doubling the weight of my bike. I'm a little annoyed with myself about that. But on a 400-600k ride, I'm sure my weight fluctuates a lot from eating/drinking.

I used to do things like put my ID and some money in a baggy so i didn't have to carry the weight of my wallet. Now I just throw the wallet in a baggy so it doesn't get too wet. Between my lights and the stuff I have in my bag, my bike weighs quite a bit. Sure, it might weigh 3 pounds less if I had a lighter bike, but that doesn't even register. I carry extra food, extra gloves, extra clothes. All that extra weight might slow me down 15-20 minutes over a 10 hour ride, but not having what I need with me might cost me hours.

Now if I was on RAAM or trying to qualify, I might try to get a lighter bike. I know some people that ride 200k-600k on their rain bike, and ride longer rides on a go-fast bike. I can understand doing that.

If I can get my eating dialed in a little better I might worry about the bike more, but as it is I can't see how it's going to help me much.

It makes me laugh when I see a big overweight guy (it's usually a guy) in a bike shop, picking up a bike to see how light it is. (Not suggesting that's you OP.)

It makes me laugh when I see a big overweight guy (it's usually a guy) in a bike shop, picking up a bike to see how light it is. (Not suggesting that's you OP.)

I guess it's kinda like kicking the tires on a car, when car shopping. I have been thinking of getting some new lighter wheels, but after pricing them I decided to loose a few pounds and save the money for maybe a new pair of bike shoes.

Actually, I rode around Lake Tahoe on a 24 lb road bike then two days later on an older 32 lb mountain bike, about 76 miles for the route and there was a big difference. I just thought they were fun numbers, gosh, next time I post in this section I'll sure have my data together at a higher and less disputable level.

There are differences a lot more significant than weight between those two bikes. This is not to say weight isn't a factor, but tire rolling resistance makes a much bigger difference. On a flat course, with a steady pace, the effect of weight is close to negligible.

There are differences a lot more significant than weight between those two bikes. This is not to say weight isn't a factor, but tire rolling resistance makes a much bigger difference. On a flat course, with a steady pace, the effect of weight is close to negligible.

Actually, in my example situation, there was very little difference besides weight and ergonomics (and therefore slight wind resistance factor) since I had an equal big ft chainring on both bikes and fatboy 90psi slicks on the mtb. BTW, answering the earlier question felt like I was a schoolboy taking a credibility quiz, gee, I hope I marginally passed.

Here is my perspective on weight. I gained as much weight since last season as doubling the weight of my bike. I'm a little annoyed with myself about that. But on a 400-600k ride, I'm sure my weight fluctuates a lot from eating/drinking.

I used to do things like put my ID and some money in a baggy so i didn't have to carry the weight of my wallet. Now I just throw the wallet in a baggy so it doesn't get too wet. Between my lights and the stuff I have in my bag, my bike weighs quite a bit. Sure, it might weigh 3 pounds less if I had a lighter bike, but that doesn't even register. I carry extra food, extra gloves, extra clothes. All that extra weight might slow me down 15-20 minutes over a 10 hour ride, but not having what I need with me might cost me hours.

Now if I was on RAAM or trying to qualify, I might try to get a lighter bike. I know some people that ride 200k-600k on their rain bike, and ride longer rides on a go-fast bike. I can understand doing that.

If I can get my eating dialed in a little better I might worry about the bike more, but as it is I can't see how it's going to help me much.

Your perspective makes a lot of sense. I would like to add that....a year ago I weighed 260, 8 mos. ago 245, at that juncture I began riding 2-4 times a week on the Computrainer (about 100 miles weekly) and working out at the gym on opposite days. Today, without dieting (but without many hot fudge sundaes) I weigh 216 lbs.
Since my big trip is coming up in June (800 miles/camping with Bob trailer/8 days) weight has taken on more signifigance for me than it ever has....weight of bike, weight of trailer, and my personal weight. I'll never get to 185 but I believe living at 200 in top condition will be wonderful....and I'm almost there! When I'm at the gym and I pick up a 20 pound dumbell, it reminds me how important it is to loose that last 20 pounds.
As far as my bike weighing frenzy in the bike shop, the owner is a friend of mine and we did it as a curiosity....and it was a blast.
I learned one thing, what a roadie tells you his bike weighs at a Starbuck's, is probably off 3-5 pounds!

It makes me laugh when I see a big overweight guy (it's usually a guy) in a bike shop, picking up a bike to see how light it is. (Not suggesting that's you OP.)

Since I've spent so much time in my friend's shop, I know exactly what you mean. To me, it's similar to a big fat Harley guy that has no hygiene but his motorcycle is surgically clean and maintained....but that's for another type of forum.

I chose this category (long distance) because the farther the ride, the more weight becomes an issue.
I have a very long ride coming up in June (either 800 or 1600 miles depending if I ride back home or have my family pick me up in the SUV) and the other day some friends of mine and myself were weighing bikes on a pro bike scale. My old (1969) Raleigh Competition GS (all Campy/friction) weighed in at 24.5 lbs. One of Greg LeMonds championship 1970's Raleighs(12 spd) weighed in at 19.3 lbs. (amazingly light for a 38 year old bike!).
My friend's all carbon $6500 Pinirello (fully equiped, bottle cages, pedals, 20 speed, etc.) weighed 17.3 lbs. and here's the reason for this post.....my "touring" bike, a Motobecan Le Champion (aluminim w/carbon fork, 30 speed Ultegra, heavy touring seat, cages, computer, pedals, Vittoria Rubino Pro 25c tires) WEIGHED IN AT 20.3 POUNDS!
I realize I'm not including frame sizes but I have less than $2500 in my bike and it's only 3 pounds heavier than the carbon guys!
Oh, one more bike I forgot to mention....a Raleigh Sojourn I think? Full on touring bike with steel chainrings and 32c tires weighed 29 pounds.
I'm not selling a point of view here, just sharing what I think is interesting data, I went crazy with the scale!
I do have one opinion. however, a 20 pound bicycle is a light bike, a 30 pound one is not. After a few back to back centuries, it starts making a heck of a difference. If you are a 40-50 mile a day rider, I suppose that difference isn't as big a deal.
All this assumes addl cargo weight is equal across the above bicycles. Raydog

A Motobecane Le Champion with 30 speed Ultegra not a touring bike. You added some stuff to a road racing bike. You added about 4-5 lbs to the bike.

A heavy bike rides smoother than a light bike. I'm less beat up after a century on my 28 lb Steel Jamis touring bike with 16 lbs in the panniers, than I am when using the 16lb racing bike. Of course it takes more time to go the distance. I don't mean less tired, just more comfortable.

A Motobecane Le Champion with 30 speed Ultegra not a touring bike. You added some stuff to a road racing bike. You added about 4-5 lbs to the bike.

A heavy bike rides smoother than a light bike. I'm less beat up after a century on my 28 lb Steel Jamis touring bike with 16 lbs in the panniers, than I am when using the 16lb racing bike. Of course it takes more time to go the distance. I don't mean less tired, just more comfortable.

This is similar to when I'm told that my 190 HP Hayabusa motorcycle is not a touring motorcycle. I've been "touring" on it through 11 western states for 3 years now. I've gone to great lengths to soften the "hard edged" aspects of the motorcycle (with great success I think).
Similarily, the Motobecane has undergone changes that, I believe, will suit me well for my style of touring (seat, wheels, tires, gearing, double wrapped bars, etc.). I tend to be less of a "flower smeller" and more of a, "let's push it another 16 miles today over our plan" person. No one is superior, just different, and after 62 years, I know myself. Your point about a heavier bike riding better than a light one is, of course, dead on accurate. I still contend that my equipment is more appropriate for me....for long distances....that being said by a person that has only riden single centuries on it, so after my forthcoming 800 miler, I may be quite humbled! (and I promise to be humble and truthful when I post the experience).

Actually, I rode around Lake Tahoe on a 24 lb road bike then two days later on an older 32 lb mountain bike, about 76 miles for the route and there was a big difference.

Really? Wow, this proves that weight is the only real difference between a road bike and a mountain bike.






:lol:

You know, it's easy to say lose the 10-15lbs+ that's bouncing off your knees when your in the drops but realistically if you were going to loose that weight it wouldn't be on there year after year. It's a whole lot easier (and takes a whole lot less will power) to drop some coin on the counter of the lbs to buy something that is a little lighter. To ridicule someone for doing that because they have the money and or means is a little "holier than thou."

Raydog is correct that the the farther the ride, the more weight becomes an issue. He's absolutely correct. It's going to do one of two things, it's going to slow you down or make you more fatigued. Over 50 or 100 miles it might not make a huge difference but when you start stretching out the miles to 400, 500 or 800+ miles and it becomes much more significant if you are doing an event like a brevet or utlra race where rest/recovery time is limited. If you are doing a tour where you're riding 40-70miles/day and getting lots of rest the weight isn't nearly as much of an issue.

This is all about trade-offs. Going long distances requires reliability and going too lite starts cutting into reliability. Going too heavy causes added fatigue or slower times. The goal for every long distance rider should be to find the best combination of all the variables involved that will make the riding experience the best it can be for them. If you can ride a 45lb (fully loaded) bike and finish a 1200k brevet comfortably within the time limits who am I to say your formula is wrong? If you are struggling to meet the time cut-offs then I'm going to say you're carrying too much stuff. Just dropping 10lbs off your bike can move you from the edge to giving you a little buffer. If you are on a 16lb bike and finish every brevet I'm certainly not going to say you're doing it wrong but if you are braking parts and dnfing because of it I'm going to say you need a little more reliability and some stouter parts. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense and there is no one formula that works for everyone.

A heavy bike rides smoother than a light bike. I'm less beat up after a century on my 28 lb Steel Jamis touring bike with 16 lbs in the panniers, than I am when using the 16lb racing bike. Of course it takes more time to go the distance. I don't mean less tired, just more comfortable.

Sorry, it has nothing to do with the weight of the bike and everything to do with your fit on the bike and what the frame designer wanted to do when he designed the frame. My three year old "racing" bike is the most comfortable bike I've ever ridden (and I've ridden a lot). It's comfortable and I can get there fast if I want to. ;)

You know Chipcom, I really enjoy sharing what I know and learning what I don't know from the incredible cumulative knowledge on this forum.
What's painful for me is to read a cynical, sarcastic and superficial comment like yours. One that contributes nothing to the collective wisdom except ill feelings. You intimate that I don't know the difference between a road bike and a mountain bike? I suggest that you give being clever a lower priority and work on human interaction.

Raydog

You know, it's easy to say lose the 10-15lbs+ that's bouncing off your knees when your in the drops but realistically if you were going to loose that weight it wouldn't be on there year after year. It's a whole lot easier (and takes a whole lot less will power) to drop some coin on the counter of the lbs to buy something that is a little lighter. To ridicule someone for doing that because they have the money and or means is a little "holier than thou."

Raydog is correct that the the farther the ride, the more weight becomes an issue. He's absolutely correct. It's going to do one of two things, it's going to slow you down or make you more fatigued. Over 50 or 100 miles it might not make a huge difference but when you start stretching out the miles to 400, 500 or 800+ miles and it becomes much more significant if you are doing an event like a brevet or utlra race where rest/recovery time is limited. If you are doing a tour where you're riding 40-70miles/day and getting lots of rest the weight isn't nearly as much of an issue.

This is all about trade-offs. Going long distances requires reliability and going too lite starts cutting into reliability. Going too heavy causes added fatigue or slower times. The goal for every long distance rider should be to find the best combination of all the variables involved that will make the riding experience the best it can be for them. If you can ride a 45lb (fully loaded) bike and finish a 1200k brevet comfortably within the time limits who am I to say your formula is wrong? If you are struggling to meet the time cut-offs then I'm going to say you're carrying too much stuff. Just dropping 10lbs off your bike can move you from the edge to giving you a little buffer. If you are on a 16lb bike and finish every brevet I'm certainly not going to say you're doing it wrong but if you are braking parts and dnfing because of it I'm going to say you need a little more reliability and some stouter parts. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense and there is no one formula that works for everyone.

Thank you for explaining it way better than I did!

WEIGHED IN AT 20.3 POUNDS!
I realize I'm not including frame sizes but I have less than $2500 in my bike and it's only 3 pounds heavier than the carbon guys!

I have $65 in my 1987 Schwinn Prelude and it weighs in a 23.66.

I win.

This is similar to when I'm told that my 190 HP Hayabusa motorcycle is not a touring motorcycle. I've been "touring" on it through 11 western states for 3 years now. I've gone to great lengths to soften the "hard edged" aspects of the motorcycle (with great success I think).
Similarily, the Motobecane has undergone changes that, I believe, will suit me well for my style of touring (seat, wheels, tires, gearing, double wrapped bars, etc.). I tend to be less of a "flower smeller" and more of a, "let's push it another 16 miles today over our plan" person. No one is superior, just different, and after 62 years, I know myself. Your point about a heavier bike riding better than a light one is, of course, dead on accurate. I still contend that my equipment is more appropriate for me....for long distances....that being said by a person that has only riden single centuries on it, so after my forthcoming 800 miler, I may be quite humbled! (and I promise to be humble and truthful when I post the experience).

Not similar at all.
I did not say, or imply that you could not tour on your bike. Do whatever works for you. I do the same thing sometimes. However a touing bike is much different.
The weight of a real touring bike, the gearing,and on some the length of the chainstays is longer for pannier heel clearance. Also many touring bikes have cantilever brakes not caliper brakes like your road bike. The brakes are stronger and they will also take larger tires. The components, frame, wheels, etc, are different. If you put four panniers on your race bike, you may have some big surprises if you try to tour on it. You probably can't even get racks for four panniers on the Le Champion. It's not made for that. Many,many,things are differenent.

Don't think it compares to touring bikes in weight, it is not a touring bike. I have done countless centuries on my race bike, but it's not a touring bike. It's a comfortable road bike.
There are many differences, don't be surprised if a race bike is lighter that a touring bike. It should be.

It makes me laugh when I see a big overweight guy (it's usually a guy) in a bike shop, picking up a bike to see how light it is. (Not suggesting that's you OP.)

Maybe he is just fascinated by the light weight bikes available at reasonable prices.

Maybe he thinks that the lighter bike will be lighter overall when loaded to ride.

Maybe his wallet is heavy enough to afford one.

Maybe he knows he can shed weight but it is tough to lose weight off a heavy frame.

Even a fat guy can appreciate a lighter frame.

Sorry, it has nothing to do with the weight of the bike and everything to do with your fit on the bike and what the frame designer wanted to do when he designed the frame. My three year old "racing" bike is the most comfortable bike I've ever ridden (and I've ridden a lot). It's comfortable and I can get there fast if I want to. ;)

Wrong. A heavier anything makes the tires flex more and transmits less of the bump up to you.
Of course the fit is important, duh. But the weight still makes a huge difference in smoothness. I built my racing bikes, touring bikes, and other road bikes to have almost an identical fit. You can build them anyway you want to.
I may have done more centuries on my race bike than my touring bike. After hundreds of centuries I stopped counting. I built my 16 lb race bike just to be comfortable on fast centuries.
One could have an uncomfortable touring bike and a very comfortable race bike, that's true.
That does not change the fact that a heavy bike makes more of the bump be absorbed by the tires.

Even a fat guy can appreciate a lighter frame.

:thumb: Correctomundo! Anyone can benefit from a bike that is easier to pedal, faster, or lighter.

You know Chipcom, I really enjoy sharing what I know and learning what I don't know from the incredible cumulative knowledge on this forum.
What's painful for me is to read a cynical, sarcastic and superficial comment like yours. One that contributes nothing to the collective wisdom except ill feelings. You intimate that I don't know the difference between a road bike and a mountain bike? I suggest that you give being clever a lower priority and work on human interaction.

Raydog

Take a deep breath. Relax..

That is Chipcom's style. The point he makes is a totally valid one.

These are the very issues I'm so curious about, as I read each of your posts, I see sensible and accurate information. 2many, roger on what you said about my Motobecane but please just acknowledge my point about....you can take a more specifically designed bike (ie my MotoB) and alter/soften up the design aspects to accomodate a persons whims (me using a "race" frame for touring). Clearly you have vast bicycle experience and I respect that, but I still think my loose comparative metaphor of my Hayabusa as it reaches into the touring world is cogent and accurate for me! Cheers, Doyle

You know Chipcom, I really enjoy sharing what I know and learning what I don't know from the incredible cumulative knowledge on this forum.
What's painful for me is to read a cynical, sarcastic and superficial comment like yours. One that contributes nothing to the collective wisdom except ill feelings. You intimate that I don't know the difference between a road bike and a mountain bike? I suggest that you give being clever a lower priority and work on human interaction.

Raydog

If you don't want people to laugh at what you write, I suggest you give getting your panties in a bunch a lower priority and work on communication skills. Take two aspirin for your self-inflicted pain and call me in the morning.

Take a deep breath. Relax..

That is Chipcom's style. The point he makes is a totally valid one.

OK, I'll bite, what exactly is that point? That there are profound differences between road bikes and mountain bikes? I don't take issue with the obvious, I take issue with the delivery sarcasm. I'm not a confrontational guy but I'm not a computer screen victim either. Nobody knows me but in this type of communication I think it's healthy to come from a basic level of respect for one another. Particularily when I'm the OP.
Respectfully, Doyle

These are the very issues I'm so curious about, as I read each of your posts, I see sensible and accurate information. 2many, roger on what you said about my Motobecane but please just acknowledge my point about....you can take a more specifically designed bike (ie my MotoB) and alter/soften up the design aspects to accomodate a persons whims (me using a "race" frame for touring). Clearly you have vast bicycle experience and I respect that, but I still think my loose comparative metaphor of my Hayabusa as it reaches into the touring world is cogent and accurate for me! Cheers, Doyle

I do acknowledge and agree that you can soften any bike and do lots of long distance rides on it and be very happy. If it sounded like I didn't, that is my mistake, I did not mean to. I was just trying to give some of the details about the weight difference in a bike built from the factory to tour as opposed to a race designed bike. On a loaded long distance tour (many days) your Motobecane will not work well, it depends mostly on how much of a load you intend to carry. The front fork may not take pannier racks at all . The rear triangle may have rear panniers too close to your heels.
One of my personal pet peeves is ones who do not think you can change a bike a lot the way you did. I have done it succesfully many times. Just exactly like you did. It's great for easy pedaling, or speed, on centuries. You get a few extra miles for free with no extra effort on a century compared to a heavier bike.
I would not try to load my race bike for a multi day ride, lots of things will go wrong. A real touring bike has a much stiffer rear triangle too, to handle well with heavy panniers. Your Motobecane brakes might be a problem with at heavy load. So might the wheels.

OK, I'll bite, what exactly is that point? That there are profound differences between road bikes and mountain bikes? I don't take issue with the obvious, I take issue with the delivery sarcasm. I'm not a confrontational guy but I'm not a computer screen victim either. Nobody knows me but in this type of communication I think it's healthy to come from a basic level of respect for one another. Particularily when I'm the OP.
Respectfully, Doyle

It is sad that you take offense to lame humor and sarcasm so easily.
I apologize for hurting your feelings. :hug:

OK, I'll bite, what exactly is that point? That there are profound differences between road bikes and mountain bikes?
You supported your argument that "weight matters" by describing a "big difference" (whatever that means) between riding a road bike and a mountain bike and only talked about the weight difference. You are implying that the only important difference is the weight. You did not indicate that you have any idea that other things (like aerodynamics) might possibly be more important than weight.

It's poor support for your argument. It would be better if you strapped 10lbs on the road bike and provided real measurements of something.


You intimate that I don't know the difference between a road bike and a mountain bike?
Actually, you intimated that (other than weight).

"I realize I'm not including frame sizes but I have less than $2500 in my bike and it's only 3 pounds heavier than the carbon guys!
Oh, one more bike I forgot to mention....a Raleigh Sojourn I think? Full on touring bike with steel chainrings and 32c tires weighed 29 pounds."

For what it's worth, my Raleigh Sojourn was $900, so you're really not comparing bikes in the same price range. If you were weighing a new one, it probably had the standard rear rack, fenders, Brooks saddle, and platform pedals with toe clips, all of which add some weight. Mine came with 35cx700 tires, I assume the 2010 models do as well.

Anyway, I moved up from a 50 lb Worksman cruiser to the Sojourn, so it seems amazingly light to me. I've lost weight in the last year or two as well.

One thing I 'll mention, too, is that on longer rides, I have not had problems with hills so much as wind. I'm sure that'd be different if I lived in the Rocky Mountains or California, but around here, riding into a headwind for 65 miles has been more of a problem than going up and down a few hills. The hardest 200k I've done so far was actually one of LSR's flattest routes, but had a tailwind going out, headwind coming back the whole blasted way. I averaged 18.3 mph on the southbound part, then knocked that back down to 14.3 by the time I'd finished the whole ride, 130 miles. The fastest 200k that I've done was also the hilliest.

You supported your argument that "weight matters" by describing a "big difference" (whatever that means) between riding a road bike and a mountain bike and only talked about the weight difference. You are implying that the only important difference is the weight. You did not indicate that you have any idea that other things (like aerodynamics) might possibly be more important than weight.

It's poor support for your argument. It would be better if you strapped 10lbs on the road bike and provided real measurements of something.


Actually, you intimated that (other than weight).


OMG, this is getting so stupidly complex....if you read post #22 you'll note that Chipcom made a sarcastic comment about weight. The comment, using sarcasm, INTIMATES I don't know the difference between the two types of bikes. Also, in other dialog, I did refer to aero, gear ratios, etc., you must not have noticed.
This part of this post is way too complex for any benefit one could derive. How about if I say, my intentions in this post were for fun only, I respect everyone's wisdom here and can we just discuss bicycles without focusing on invalidating one another?

I do acknowledge and agree that you can soften any bike and do lots of long distance rides on it and be very happy. If it sounded like I didn't, that is my mistake, I did not mean to. I was just trying to give some of the details about the weight difference in a bike built from the factory to tour as opposed to a race designed bike. On a loaded long distance tour (many days) your Motobecane will not work well, it depends mostly on how much of a load you intend to carry. The front fork may not take pannier racks at all . The rear triangle may have rear panniers too close to your heels.
One of my personal pet peeves is ones who do not think you can change a bike a lot the way you did. I have done it succesfully many times. Just exactly like you did. It's great for easy pedaling, or speed, on centuries. You get a few extra miles for free with no extra effort on a century compared to a heavier bike.
I would not try to load my race bike for a multi day ride, lots of things will go wrong. A real touring bike has a much stiffer rear triangle too, to handle well with heavy panniers. Your Motobecane brakes might be a problem with at heavy load. So might the wheels.


The good news for me is....I did switch out the wheels (to Mavic Elites w/flat steel spokes) and I'll be pulling a Bob with 37 pounds gross weight. I tried it out this morning and it seems to pull really well, 90% of the time I don't even notice the addl rolling resistance (partly because I went to a 90psi trlr tire from the OEM 45psi one). Slow speed steering and steep hills....then the Bob makes itself known but I can live with that. Re: brakes...Ultegra with aftermarket pads (Kool-Stop)they seem quite powerful without fade (I haven't tested em under full load on a 90 degree day yet, however). The bike will stay naked except water and mp-3.

"I realize I'm not including frame sizes but I have less than $2500 in my bike and it's only 3 pounds heavier than the carbon guys!
Oh, one more bike I forgot to mention....a Raleigh Sojourn I think? Full on touring bike with steel chainrings and 32c tires weighed 29 pounds."

For what it's worth, my Raleigh Sojourn was $900, so you're really not comparing bikes in the same price range. If you were weighing a new one, it probably had the standard rear rack, fenders, Brooks saddle, and platform pedals with toe clips, all of which add some weight. Mine came with 35cx700 tires, I assume the 2010 models do as well.

Anyway, I moved up from a 50 lb Worksman cruiser to the Sojourn, so it seems amazingly light to me. I've lost weight in the last year or two as well.

One thing I 'll mention, too, is that on longer rides, I have not had problems with hills so much as wind. I'm sure that'd be different if I lived in the Rocky Mountains or California, but around here, riding into a headwind for 65 miles has been more of a problem than going up and down a few hills. The hardest 200k I've done so far was actually one of LSR's flattest routes, but had a tailwind going out, headwind coming back the whole blasted way. I averaged 18.3 mph on the southbound part, then knocked that back down to 14.3 by the time I'd finished the whole ride, 130 miles. The fastest 200k that I've done was also the hilliest.

Wow, the black Sojourn I weighed is a 2009 model and the list is $1499....sounds like you got a lot of bicycle for $900 bucks. Your performance figures are similar to mine....I did 108 miles last Saturday (half way out then turnaround like you) and ran into a godawful headwind. I was kickin butt out (20.8 avg) but return was in a 15 kt headwind and at times was hammering along @ 8mph! Overall was 13.8 mph.

The good news for me is....I did switch out the wheels (to Mavic Elites w/flat steel spokes) and I'll be pulling a Bob with 37 pounds gross weight. I tried it out this morning and it seems to pull really well, 90% of the time I don't even notice the addl rolling resistance (partly because I went to a 90psi trlr tire from the OEM 45psi one). Slow speed steering and steep hills....then the Bob makes itself known but I can live with that. Re: brakes...Ultegra with aftermarket pads (Kool-Stop)they seem quite powerful without fade (I haven't tested em under full load on a 90 degree day yet, however). The bike will stay naked except water and mp-3.

The Bob is a great idea.

The stock ultegra gearing does not have a real low gear for a heavy load and a steep hill. Easy to fix, not a lot of money, or maybe OK for you. I would try the brakes with a full load on a hill. If you don't know the steepness of the hills you will be riding, try and find out before you go if possible. The 37 lb gross weight of the bob takes away most of the potential problems. That's not a lot of weight. I see that as a good thing. The only potential problem that comes to my mind is a trailer jacknife in a panic stop. Caution and care of course can prevent that.
Don't forget to bring a camera!!!!!

It is sad that you take offense to lame humor and sarcasm so easily.
I apologize for hurting your feelings. :hug:

Truely I have quite thick skin and don't really mind if I'm on the receiving end of a comment. Sometimes something just hits you the wrong way, it did me and I reacted. You're probably a great guy, I should not have drawn attention to your comment and just moved on. I was a big city cop for many years so I probably have a "nobody's gonna make me a victim" mentality. Take care, Doyle

Truely I have quite thick skin and don't really mind if I'm on the receiving end of a comment. Sometimes something just hits you the wrong way, it did me and I reacted. You're probably a great guy, I should not have drawn attention to your comment and just moved on. I was a big city cop for many years so I probably have a "nobody's gonna make me a victim" mentality. Take care, Doyle

I was a big city cop for a few years, commissioner for a small department for a few more, my dad was a cop, my uncle was a cop, my great grand daddy was a cop too...I'd expect another copper to be used to getting f'd with by the guys...giving back as good as he gets (or better yet, getting ahead) and taking it with humor when he gets nailed. How long you been off the job...maybe you still got a little of that "us-them" thing still going on? If so, no worries, it goes away somewhat, at least it did for me. I still don't like people much, but the nice thing about the intrawebz is that you can let loose a little bit more than you can in person. ;)

Welcome to BF...think of us as just a bunch of other cops giving you crap...some of us cool, some of us pricks, some of us f'ing morons. Don't take this joint too seriously, think of it more like the corner bar, parts store, gym, etc. than as a library or university. ;) :beer:

I was a big city cop for a few years, commissioner for a small department for a few more, my dad was a cop, my uncle was a cop, my great grand daddy was a cop too...I'd expect another copper to be used to getting f'd with by the guys...giving back as good as he gets (or better yet, getting ahead) and taking it with humor when he gets nailed. How long you been off the job...maybe you still got a little of that "us-them" thing still going on? If so, no worries, it goes away somewhat, at least it did for me. I still don't like people much, but the nice thing about the intrawebz is that you can let loose a little bit more than you can in person. ;)

Welcome to BF...think of us as just a bunch of other cops giving you crap...some of us cool, some of us pricks, some of us f'ing morons. Don't take this joint too seriously, think of it more like the corner bar, parts store, gym, etc. than as a library or university. ;) :beer:


OK, that explanation flys well with me, I'm still laughing. Thanks, Raydog

OMG, this is getting so stupidly complex....if you read post #22 you'll note that Chipcom made a sarcastic comment about weight. The comment, using sarcasm, INTIMATES I don't know the difference between the two types of bikes. Also, in other dialog, I did refer to aero, gear ratios, etc., you must not have noticed.
Given your claim ("a big difference", due to a difference in weight), the comment wasn't really sarcastic.

No, the comment chipcom was replying to "INTIMATES" that you don't know the difference. Later on, you say that the other factors are not significant. And we still don't know what a "big difference" is. It's a poor experiment to compare the two. If you added 10lbs to the road bike (a better experiment), you would have likely found a small difference.


This part of this post is way too complex for any benefit one could derive. How about if I say, my intentions in this post were for fun only, I respect everyone's wisdom here and can we just discuss bicycles without focusing on invalidating one another?
It's pretty common for people to expect that magic stuff will happen by shaving a few pounds of of the bike.

Your weighing of everything was amusing. Beyond that, it's hard to tell what you are getting at.

Wrong. A heavier anything makes the tires flex more and transmits less of the bump up to you.
Of course the fit is important, duh. But the weight still makes a huge difference in smoothness. I built my racing bikes, touring bikes, and other road bikes to have almost an identical fit. You can build them anyway you want to.
I may have done more centuries on my race bike than my touring bike. After hundreds of centuries I stopped counting. I built my 16 lb race bike just to be comfortable on fast centuries.
One could have an uncomfortable touring bike and a very comfortable race bike, that's true.
That does not change the fact that a heavy bike makes more of the bump be absorbed by the tires.

No, extra weight doesn't allow a tire to absorb more of the bumps, it gives you pinch flats! I think you're juxtaposing the better dampening abilities of larger tires used on touring bikes with the lessened capacity of smaller tires used on race bikes to do the same thing. Tires are basically springs. Adding or reducing weight does not change it's dampening or compression abilities. If anything, heavier weight reduces the available travel. The compression and dampening rates stay the same throughout it's range and motion.

I've done hundreds of centuries too, as well as a few other long distance rides/races including 3 RAAMs. We may have to agree to disagree on this one...;)

I was not aware that they made a black Sojourn- all I've seen have been the khaki color. But that could have been part of the price difference for it, too.

Given your claim ("a big difference", due to a difference in weight), the comment wasn't really sarcastic.

No, the comment chipcom was replying to "INTIMATES" that you don't know the difference. Later on, you say that the other factors are not significant. And we still don't know what a "big difference" is. It's a poor experiment to compare the two. If you added 10lbs to the road bike (a better experiment), you would have likely found a small difference.


It's pretty common for people to expect that magic stuff will happen by shaving a few pounds of of the bike.

Your weighing of everything was amusing. Beyond that, it's hard to tell what you are getting at.\

Why would it be hard to tell what I'm getting at? At least twice I stated that it was for fun. I emphasized the non-scientific points of this strand. When someone disects what I say(post #47) for purposes of establishing "loopholes", I think they are taking it too seriously. I am aware of the "scientific method" and certainly didn't try to pretend I was using it. As far as me using the term "big difference", I just thought I could safely use such an imprecise phrase in informal discussion. BTW, I still think 10 lbs. between two bikes constitutes a "big difference". Raydog