Originally Posted by qdfjnfbgsjd

OK, so I'm having this discussion, erm ... argument with my wife. Both of us are pretty overweight, but I cycle a lot and as such, have the strength in my legs to offset (a bit!) my paunch.

My wife doesn't have that, and so we're right now getting ready for a cycle tour in Central America next year.

Yesterday, we cycled ten miles. She was on her tourer, a steel, Surly LHT with mudguards and pannier racks front and rear. I don't know how heavy that bike is exactly, but I estimate between 33-37 lb. I was riding my Giant Defy Advanced 3, which comes in at 17 lb.

Now, my wife wasn't exactly on the point of collapsing, but she was aware that she was exerting herself.

I was strolling along on the Giant, hardly even breaking a sweat except for the bit where my small backpack was against my body.

So we're cycling along, and Mrs Me was struggling a bit on the hills.

'Tell you what,' I began. 'If you had a lightweight carbon bike, you'd love it!'

'It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference,' she retorted. 'It's much more important to lose weight from me, than from the bike'.

There then started a bit of a heated discussion. Heated, but of course, respectful.

I agree that losing weight is important, but to state that the weight of the bike isn't that important, is - in my opinion - nonsense.

'Well then,' I said. 'Let's get in touch with the Tour de France guys and tell them to bin their carbon fibre bikes, and just start doing the Tour on steel tourers!'

What do you guys think? Would it be worth her while getting a light road bike? Not necessarily a top-of-the-range carbon fibre racer, but maybe a lightweight alu commuter?