Originally Posted by
WalksOn2Wheels
And I'm not sure what MassiveD is on about. I work in a bike shop and know plenty of hefty customers rolling around on 16 pounds bikes. There's no reason a 300 pound rider can't tour on a 16 pound carbon bike if they so choose. And there will be a pretty big difference between a light bike and a heavy bike.
You reach the point in the end. There is a difference between the weight of bikes. Bike shops of course, are in the one size fits all business, as stock requires. But if you build from tubes there are differences by rider weight, and they do add up. Not all that heavily, but in a game of ounces there are differences.
Think about it this way: You and your buddy go to tour the mountains. You get identical 10 pound base weights for some insane reason, and, just for fun, you both weigh about 180. You roll out on your "fast" bike, let's say 20 pounds or so, and he decides to take his "touring" bike which is pushing 35 with racks and fenders. If you keep the same pace, one of you is doing a lot more work. One of you is traveling light and the other is traveling ultralight. In percentage alone, the weight you must move from point A to point B (the definition of work) is a larger percentage from bike to bike once you get into UL territory.
You are right. It depends what these terms are here to do. I think the backpacking case there is an assumption among the cognoscenti that lighter is better because a lot of skill, planing and gear innovation goes into getting to these numbers, and in the early days, it was/is mostly do it yourself work. Against that frame of reference adding in bikes that you just bought at the LBS will only cloud the issue. My sense is we are trying to provide a focus on what loads can be. If the only reason one is highlighted over another is that the guy took a racing bike rather than an MTB, then the lesson value is lost.
Yet another frame is athletic. It is admirable to manage your load, but in a handicapping sense, the lighter loaded guy is a wuss for having left behind the kitchen sink. If we want to highlight that aspect, then it should be the all in weight.
I don't care much either way, but I do think that before jumping on some number we should be clear on what part of the whole thing we are focusing on.
Again, I'm not here to vote on where the line is drawn, but I think it's only fair to factor the bike into the equation.
For sure, but whether that should be one number, two, or more, is another mater.
Also, bikes are expensive. If we overplay the all up weight thing, people will be discouraged that they don't have a ton of money to spend on a super bike, and possibly be deterred from the whole thing. There is more to be gained by taking the 60 or 80 pound load down to 20, than anything that will happen with the bikes. And if we make it an ultralite bike required to play thing, we will push a lot of people off to one side.