Originally Posted by
TLit
Thanks, I see how it would be a step up; I can just imagine the increased torque or ease of climbing with lesser weight.
Also have a hankering for mid-80s Univegas, I was always happy with my early 1980 or so bike that I got so much mileage out of. One objective is to lose some weight, I do a lot of physical work together with plenty of exercise.
How much do you weigh? I am over 200 pounds generally, and have weighed as much as 240, and I am over 6'2". I quit chasing lightweight bikes when I realized that for a big person they are a much smaller percentage of the total bike/rider weight than they are with a small person. It is easy to find a bike that weighs five or ten pounds less than a low or mid-range priced bike, but five or ten pounds of a total weight of 220 or more pounds is 2.5% to 5% weight reduction. For small horse-jockey sized athletes, women and men included that might have total bike/rider weights of 120 to 170 pounds, they are getting much more for their money dumping it on weight savings, which is about all that really separates high and low-end bicycles, the time and materials to make it light. So if the weight saving translates directly into performance in hill climbing, which is the only part of a ride that weight savings would increase performance, then people are spending thousands of dollars for a small performance gain, and those who weigh more are getting less for their money than average or small people are getting for it. I think my 1987 Schwinn supersport with Columbus butted frame tubes weighs about ten pounds less than my Huffy, but it climbs worse because it has a close ratio "racing" style freewheel instead of the normal wide-ratio freewheel that most low and mid-range road-bikes came with back in the day. I paid dearly for the weight savings of the supersport, over three times as much as the Huffy, ten dollars instead of three.