So, getting back to bike weight. To quote Hillary Clinton, does it really matter?

I suppose if you have a lot of fairly difficult hills perhaps, but otherwise I can't see it making any real difference for commuting. 90% of my riding is on a 40lb Dutch city bike (daily trips for food, hardware, groceries, etc), maybe 8% on a 14lb road bike (Scott Addict), and the rest on mtn, fixie, or share. On some routes with very few stops the road bike might be a bit faster but not significantly. For a training ride out outside of the metro the weight will make more difference (though even here it's not so much the weight but the more efficient gearing, compliance, and aero that likely make the biggest difference).

Tires make much more difference. Same mtb on slicks (contintental comfort contact) vs 2.0 knobblies = different bike. Yet laded down with tools and supplies for a 380km fleche I only noticed the extra 10kg on the hills.

No, not really. Just a way for a couple of friends to kill some time discussing something of great insignificance. :)

This is certainly more reasonable. I think that there was a very loose interpretation of maintain.

And... welcome to Bike Forums.

:)

Hitting 20 mph is a good feat, and difficult for many. Going over 20 for duration is a even more impressive.

I agree with this weight does not matter until you hit the hills and the force of gravity makes it seem even worse and slows you.

My commuter weighs 27.5 pounds and I average 75-80 mph.

That is meters per hour, right?

I wish, millimeters actually.

even though modern frame and component technology is incredibly light weight most commuter bikes rely on older heavy technology due to cost and/or aesthetics. there is also a tendency to forgo lightweight frame materials and choices due to the development of a subculture that disdains anything that can be linked to "racing/racers/lycra/lance/etc". in fact, many people in portlandia think my plastic bike is ugly as sin.

my "A" commuter weighs in at ~19lbs fully equipped with fenders and has no problems carrying me and a case of wine. since the frame is overbuilt and the fork has an alloy steerer i could easily knock off 1.5 lbs by buying a new frame and fork. i fully expect that in 5-10 years my "A" commuter will weigh in close to the uci minimum.

this is what it looked a year ago (it now has a 190 gm saddle, thomson masterpiece post, shimano A600 pedals, and 1500 gm cole wheels):

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=382817http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=382818

:roflmao2:

even beginner cat4/5 crits have 25+ mph rolling averages. of course, the easy part requires riding a bike equipped with a dinner plate. (many commuters don't even have a salad plate.)

i love the the commuter forum's mix of retro-grouch speedism and cat-6 delusion.

does anyone know what cadence you'd need to hit 30 on an n360? i bet the thing would start smoking after a few miles at 150.

:-)

i climb over 200K feet each year just for my commuting and utilitarian riding. why carry an extra 20 lbs of weight around if you don't want to? seriously, aside from city bike grouch propaganda there is absolutely no reason that a dutchie could not weigh 25 lbs. it would simply require using frame and component technology that does not date back to the victorian era.

all my routes have very few stops...

Cost is certainly part of it, but comfort is critical as well.

Cool beans on your Orbea; that is a lovely bike. Feel free to diss your fellow citizens of Portland but the following statement is far from the case: "most commuter bikes rely on older heavy technology due to cost and/or aesthetics. there is also a tendency to forgo lightweight frame materials and choices due to the development of a subculture that disdains anything that can be linked to "racing/racers/lycra/lance/etc"." If there were a market for uber expensive carbon commuter bikes, manufacturers would make them in droves. Also there might be some "technological" reasons to prefer an older steel bike (cost, less prone to being stolen (do you lock your bike up outside on a regular basis?), fairly impervious to being damaged if jostled around, etc.).

i agree that a cheap beater is a good thing to have. in fact, i specifically mentioned *cost* in my comment.

my bike was not "uber expensive". but there is a market for expensive and even "uber expensive" metal framed leisure/city bikes which kind of makes my point.

i do lock up my plastic commuters for shorter periods of time (often 2 locks). in fact, just the other day i locked it up at a bike corral that also had -- and i **** you not -- an ahearne and a vanilla. this kind of madness is not uncommon in portlandia...

there is some truth to this. neverthelesss, i honestly care less about surface damage to my crabon frames than the average pdxer riding a custom steel frame. and if i ever become anal about my frames i can have ruckus apply new clear coat for $200.

i think that has a lot more to do with engineering than material.

You obviously haven't done much racing.

Well if you have a lot of stops and starts it can wear you out also - with stops every few hundred feet a lot of you energy goes into acceleration. If you're trying to keep a decent overall pace up.

But even more importantly picture this. In the parking lot headed for the exit, the guy in his spiffy jersey and uberlight bike stands on his pedals and zip he's out of there, while you're still building up steam on the 48 pound cruiser. Over the hill and out of sight by the time you're to the drive. Granted he's saved maybe 10 seconds with all that, and we'd be lugging a commuting load and who knows what else, but still it's more fun to zip than to plod. Or gliding easily at a responsible speed knowing you can zip if you want to.

There are no places near me where any significant speed can be sustained for more than about 2000-3000 feet. There are too many intersections and big hills. I have no need or use for such routes anyways, as all my destinations are in town thus far on new bike. As for the hub, it's not a flimsy thing, i'm pretty certain one could be used in a railroad locomotive given the proper modifications to handle the increased torque.

- Andy

Not trying to be tendentious here but you still haven't answered my point. I'm highly skeptical of your argument that manufacturers are "foregoing" the use of "lightweight" technology because of the development of a "subculture" that "disdains" anything linked to racing/racers/lycra etc. Really? I doubt that manufacturers are foregoing profits because they care about what a subculture wants. Have they done market studies of portland tastes in bikes and used that to decide what bikes to manufacture? I really like the Pacific NW but I have trouble believing that tastes in Portland (or even Seattle) for that matter dictate what kinds of commuters are manufactured for the US market. If that is the case, I'd love to see some evidence to back up your statements.

Fair enough. But I can get on the acceleration pretty fast, I feel efficient on the start up and I have massive powerful thighs (my wife describes them as speed skater legs). I feel comfortable in saying I can hit 12-14 mph by the time I get through an intersection (I will check this more tomorrow). I beat most cars from the stop line through the intersection.

I did chase a roadie-commuter (smallish backpack, full kit, I think carbon Cdale) the other day and caught him, uphill. I was in the left turn lane and he circumvented the light through the crosswalk. He got a few blocks on me until I got the signal. I caught him, not without effort, but not exhaustive effort. Enough to maintain his pace and finish the commute.

On group rides I have never felt left back when accelerating on my 34 pounds steel beast. I think that if you can get the starting gear right, knowing what your legs can do and get those first few gear changes right acceleration with the road bikes is negligible on a heavy bike. But I still hate stop and go traffic; driving, biking or walking.
[MENTION=212987]spare_wheel[/MENTION] I have to say I choose steel not something else due to longevity. I have had steel bikes for years to decades. My only Aluminum bike was a Norco hybrid I bought from a friend. After about 2500 kms the down tube started to crack. Norco compd the frame, but it scared me and I decided for rough and tumble hauling stuff steel was for me. So I am scared off aluminum.

I also fear what is new (not really). Hence I am hesitant on a CF commuter. I can only store one bike, t needs to be versatile, more space maybe a carbon bike. I am also a bit hesitant over laser eye surgeries long term prognosis, to quantify fearing things which are new.

The right aluminium frame is strong All my bikes are aluminium and I ride them hard. No issuew.with frames unless you go uber cheap.

I believe that, but this was a mid-range local bike, so not cheap nor fly by night maker.

Also a turn off for me was the weight of the trek small geometry race bike my wife had. I cannot recall the model but it was rather heavy.

In my new road bike shopping I have been considering an aluminium frame, but they are not the top of list.

i made no claim that portland shapes bike design inordinately (except for steel with waiting lists). that's a strawman.

i still maintain that there is disdain for light-weight race-heritage materials and components among "commuters" and "transportation cyclists". peruse the "how much your bike weighs" thread here for a great illustration of this bias. the classic 40+ lb "city bike" could easily weigh less than 30 lbs if it were built with the same inexpensive technologies/components used for fitness/leisure bikes. for example, the alloys used for "commuter/city bikes" are typically heavy and cheap (hiten and chromoly) even though the bikes are in the same price range as the hydroformed and butted alloy hybrid. the fact that carbon forks are rare for "commuters/city bikes" even though they've become standard for mid range leisure bikes on up is another example of anti-technology bias.


don't blame the manufacturers for a consuming demographic that eschews technology.

As a carbon fiber riding roadie, and an old aluminum mtb commuter, I can say that it isn't that commuters' disdain weight improvements, it is just that it doesn't really help when you are carrying a laptop, clothes, shoes, lock, etc... Yea, maybe you can take 2-3 pounds off, but a Macbook Air is much lighter than a Lenovo T61 boat anchor, both of which I use for work, and I'm one of the lucky ones with a choice. I also leave my lock at work.

Practical comes into play much more than weight. If I were worried about weight I'd just ride my roadie, and though I am tempted some days I never do. My Look Keo pedals and having to carry a backpack or messenger bag just seem like too much to deal with.

i've always strongly believed the best bike is the one you want to ride...so no judgement intended at all!

I'm glad to see that you've given up on your argument that a subculture from Portland shapes how bicycle manufacture. If you prefer to say that you never said that, that's fine too since you've given up on it.

I'm equally skeptical of the rest of your argument as well. Markets are competitive. Manufacturers don't have an anti-technology bias; just the opposite, they embrace it if it gives them a competitive advantage. But if you have any evidence to back up your speculation, I'd love to hear about it.