Old 03-31-24 | 12:20 PM
  #32  
Trakhak's Avatar
Trakhak
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
Community Builder
Community Influencer
Active Streak: 30 Days
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,917
Likes: 5,831
From: Baltimore, MD
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Bike weights no longer listed? They used to be for the described component configuration and frame size (usually a 52 or 53cm). It was a major selling point. Weights should be listed, as apart from fit, as it is the single most important determinant of bike performance. Heavy is cheap and slow, light is expensive and fast.


The reason why weights are no longer listed is obvious: disc brakes, and all of the associated extra ballast. Also, to a lesser extent, aero stuff including wheels. What used to be an elite-level bike circa 2015 with rim brakes (<15 lbs) is now unobtainable with discs at any price. A run of the mill $2,000 road bike in 2015 would come in at 17-18 pounds. Now, you'd have to pay 3 x that to get down to those weights with discs.


For similar reasons, the big vendors no longer offer organized "test ride days", where you could drop your credit card off at the tent and ride a few new bikes. For those of us with enough experience, and with a fleet of pre-pandemic bikes, the results of such a test on 2024 bikes would be both ride disappointment and major sticker shock.


The language on the vendor websites citing their 'inability' to list weights is due to legal butt covering and simple embarrassment as to how porky their current bikes are.
I threw out most of the bike catalogs I had a while ago, but I looked around just now and found three: 1997 Trek, 1998 Schwinn, and 2003 Fuji. No bike weights listed in any of those catalogs.

Which bike catalogs do you have in mind that listed bike weights? In particular, which catalogs listed weights until recently but stopped doing so when they changed from rim brakes to disc brakes?
Trakhak is offline  
Reply