Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Why do many bicycle manufacturers not list the weights on their bikes?

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Why do many bicycle manufacturers not list the weights on their bikes?

Old 03-31-24, 11:02 AM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
Dave Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,515
Liked 491 Times in 287 Posts
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.
Dave Mayer is offline  
Likes For Dave Mayer:
Old 03-31-24, 11:03 AM
  #27  
With a mighty wind
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,679
Liked 931 Times in 528 Posts
Listed bike weights would be with no pedals and no cages.

I think most bikes have tubes in the shop and get set up tubeless later.

I remember one shop that had reflectors on all floor models, regardless of how high end.

I think that most accurate if you are concerned about grams, would be to look at the published weight of a given frame. Realize that most bikes are going to be really similar at a similar price point. Just be careful with published weight, read the fine print of which frame size they are weighing.
rosefarts is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 11:11 AM
  #28  
Senior Member
 
Sierra_rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: NorCal
Posts: 654

Bikes: Santa Cruz Blur 4 TR, Canyon Endurace cf sl, Canyon Ultimate cf slx, Canyon Strive enduro, Canyon Grizl sl8

Liked 1,176 Times in 446 Posts
Unless they list the weight spec for each model frame and particular component spec, the manufacturer claimed weight is highly suspect. I was recently looking at bikes in the "climbing" or "light and stiff" categories, and one particular manufacturer stood out in that they claimed a 6.7kg bike weight in medium. Digging further, the 6.7 weight wasn't for the bike I was looking at, but rather a top-shelf bike that was over $10k. They didn't actually provide a weight for the mid-tier builds with a lower-spec carbon lay up. The weight wasn't the final factor in not choosing this bike, but it did certainly play a part in how I compared it to other bikes at that price point.

Originally Posted by terrymorse
Unless you are a professional model, what is the issue over how you look?
Yep, weight does matter to a certain extent. Not to start a popular debate, but there are certain features of modern bikes that I won't forgo in the name of weight. However, weight certainly does matter when I'm cross-shopping similar models of bikes. Additionally, there is a general upper weight limit for a bike, that will make considering it, a non-starter for me. Maybe if I lived in a flatter area, weight might become a non issue for me and I'd suddenly care about whatever aero benefits are touted.
Sierra_rider is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 11:17 AM
  #29  
I am potato.
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,202

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Liked 1,728 Times in 985 Posts
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.
Weight doesn't have nearly the impact that you seem to think.

Aero on the other hand. I have first world experience with an ultra aero dude on a TT bike fully optimized with the silly hat sitting in my draft and unable to pass me on my IGH touring bike with rack & fenders. On that 5 mile flat, straight, and windless path with good quality pavement I averaged 305 watts at ~23mph. He averaged 173 watts. He had every advantage and couldn't escape my rather large slipstream. I even pulled away a few times and let him catch up. I looked up his ride report on Strava. Turns out he was recovering from being sick & giving it his 100% At my power he would've cleaned my clock if he had it in him.

To be absolutely clear: He used ⅓ less power for the same speed.

Aero matters more.

Last edited by base2; 03-31-24 at 11:44 AM.
base2 is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 11:26 AM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Hacienda Hgts
Posts: 2,135

Bikes: 1999 Schwinn Peloton Ultegra 10, Kestrel RT-1000 Ultegra, Trek Marlin 6 Deore 29'er

Liked 1,981 Times in 955 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse
Unless you are a professional model, what is the issue over how you look?
There are different types of models that serve different functions, just like bikes.
A skinny waif will most likely not be on the cover of Shape, but a cross-fit more muscular women would.
Different looks for different audiences.

A sub 15 lbs carbon superbike would not best serve my 220 lbs muscular frame but a 20 lbs 853 Reynolds steel bike would.

My point is simply, lighter might not be better for certain body types.
In regards to the original post, lighter weight would not be high on my list of must haves.
Perhaps I'm an outlier?

Nor is lighter necessarily a better manufactured product.
CAT7RDR is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 11:37 AM
  #31  
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 15,374

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Liked 4,997 Times in 3,440 Posts
Probably because some people get upset when their bike is 17.8 lbs instead of the 17.4 lbs that was listed in the specs.
Iride01 is offline  
Likes For Iride01:
Old 03-31-24, 12:20 PM
  #32  
Senior Member
 
Trakhak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,698
Liked 3,234 Times in 1,847 Posts
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  
Old 03-31-24, 01:12 PM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,883
Liked 5,182 Times in 3,203 Posts
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.
They certainly sold you on weight 😂

Actually many of the major brands do list bike weights in specific build specs. Giant is just one that doesnít bother.

Specialized, Trek and Canyon all list weights for each model and build spec.

As usual you are talking nonsense.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 03-31-24, 01:23 PM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,039

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Liked 4,069 Times in 2,638 Posts
Originally Posted by Clyde1820
Myself, for example, I've got old injuries where having to heft around a heavier bike can get problematic. The difference of a half dozen pounds on a daily-used bike can make quite a bit of difference. A lighter bike can strain the injury areas less ... a really big deal, for some injuries.

"Weight-weenie" stuff is a whole other kettle of fish.
+1 For me, weight dictates what bikes can go on what rack. (No, the racks don't care. I do.)
79pmooney is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 01:37 PM
  #35  
With a mighty wind
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,679
Liked 931 Times in 528 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer


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.
I canít tell if youíre spinning a wild conspiracy theory or just grouchy about the bike industry moving away from your preferences.

Your statement contradicts your statement.

A $2000 (105 trim level) road bike was never sub 15lbs, in any era.

A disc brake bike under 15lbs is achievable. I think that Rodriguez and some others might even have steel bikes that fit this description. Not cheaply.

The UCI weight limit is 6.8kg. Wouldnít it make sense to build the bike more aero and stronger at that weight than to go under just to make a very small group happy?
rosefarts is offline  
Likes For rosefarts:
Old 03-31-24, 02:08 PM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
Sierra_rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: NorCal
Posts: 654

Bikes: Santa Cruz Blur 4 TR, Canyon Endurace cf sl, Canyon Ultimate cf slx, Canyon Strive enduro, Canyon Grizl sl8

Liked 1,176 Times in 446 Posts
Originally Posted by rosefarts
I canít tell if youíre spinning a wild conspiracy theory or just grouchy about the bike industry moving away from your preferences.

Your statement contradicts your statement.

A $2000 (105 trim level) road bike was never sub 15lbs, in any era.

A disc brake bike under 15lbs is achievable. I think that Rodriguez and some others might even have steel bikes that fit this description. Not cheaply.

The UCI weight limit is 6.8kg. Wouldnít it make sense to build the bike more aero and stronger at that weight than to go under just to make a very small group happy?
He's a broken record that gripes, with a singular focus, on bike weight. I almost admire his ability to completely ignore the arguments that usually discredit the substance of his rants.

Maybe my scale is crap, but even my uber-light climbing frame with rim-brakes, shallow carbon wheels, and Ultegra, was a bit of a struggle to get down to sub 15lbs. It's even from Dave's golden era of lightweight frames from about a decade ago, about 750 grams for the frame.

It's light and snappy up hills, but I'm still more likely to grab my 18lb disc brake bike. The discs and ability to fit larger tires, are a couple of the features that I'm willing to sacrifice some weight for. Even that's not a like comparison, the equivalent modern climbing bike with disc brakes is only going to give up about a 1lb...which is totally worth it IMO.
Sierra_rider is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 02:42 PM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 6,053

Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa

Liked 3,105 Times in 1,873 Posts
Back in the day I got most of my bike weight info from the road test reviews in the magazines.
smd4 is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 03:50 PM
  #38  
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,688
Liked 16,120 Times in 7,568 Posts
Originally Posted by CAT7RDR
Unless you are racing, what is the issue over weight?
I'm a bigger guy, I would want a heavier duty frame and wheelset that would weigh more.
Because Iíd rather my road bike weigh 20 lbs. than 25 lbs.

You telling us that weight is a factor you never consider when purchasing a bike?

Last edited by indyfabz; 03-31-24 at 03:54 PM.
indyfabz is offline  
Likes For indyfabz:
Old 03-31-24, 04:13 PM
  #39  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Hacienda Hgts
Posts: 2,135

Bikes: 1999 Schwinn Peloton Ultegra 10, Kestrel RT-1000 Ultegra, Trek Marlin 6 Deore 29'er

Liked 1,981 Times in 955 Posts
Originally Posted by indyfabz
Because Iíd rather my road bike weigh 20 lbs. than 25 lbs.

You telling us that weight is a factor you never consider when purchasing a bike?
It is not a black or white issue for me.
I came to the realization at 60 y/o and 220 lbs, the best bike for me may not be the lightest.
I regularly ride a 35+ lbs rigid MTB on the road even though I own a 17 lbs carbon road bike in good condition and a 20 lbs crit bike.
It is about fitness at this point and not speed or distance.

If I want to ride further, I'll get out the lighter bike.
Otherwise, the MTB does great for 30-40 mile rides in the hills.
CAT7RDR is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 05:19 PM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,688
Liked 16,120 Times in 7,568 Posts
Originally Posted by CAT7RDR
It is not a black or white issue for me.
I came to the realization at 60 y/o and 220 lbs, the best bike for me may not be the lightest.
I regularly ride a 35+ lbs rigid MTB on the road even though I own a 17 lbs carbon road bike in good condition and a 20 lbs crit bike.
It is about fitness at this point and not speed or distance.

If I want to ride further, I'll get out the lighter bike.
Otherwise, the MTB does great for 30-40 mile rides in the hills.
But you see, weight does matter to some people, even if they are not racing, even if it doesnít matter to you.

And are you telling us that, all else being equal, youíd opt for a 40# MTB over a 35# MTB? If so, why?

I do loaded touring. If I wanted a new bike and there were choices that were otherwise equal, Iíd certainly want to know how the weights compare because I wouldnít want to have to pedal appreciably more weight.
indyfabz is offline  
Likes For indyfabz:
Old 03-31-24, 05:21 PM
  #41  
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,688
Liked 16,120 Times in 7,568 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski

Specialized, Trek and Canyon all list weights for each model and build spec.
See post #9.
indyfabz is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 05:52 PM
  #42  
cowboy, steel horse, etc
 
LesterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The hot spot.
Posts: 45,316

Bikes: everywhere

Liked 7,991 Times in 4,253 Posts
I'm glad to see more manufacturers listing weights again. Seems like most didn't post them from the late-90s to 2020 or so.

From this 2010 C'dale Catalog snippet, I think their angle was to get people in the store to check out the weights, then the salespeople would work their magic and NBD!!!

But once a couple of manus start posting weights, I think the rest are going to be forced to in a way.

LesterOfPuppets is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 05:56 PM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Hacienda Hgts
Posts: 2,135

Bikes: 1999 Schwinn Peloton Ultegra 10, Kestrel RT-1000 Ultegra, Trek Marlin 6 Deore 29'er

Liked 1,981 Times in 955 Posts
Originally Posted by indyfabz
But you see, weight does matter to some people, even if they are not racing, even if it doesn’t matter to you.

And are you telling us that, all else being equal, you’d opt for a 40# MTB over a 35# MTB? If so, why?

I do loaded touring. If I wanted a new bike and there were choices that were otherwise equal, I’d certainly want to know how the weights compare because I wouldn’t want to have to pedal appreciably more weight.
I tested my 17 lbs Kestrel RT-1000 against my 35 lbs+ Trek Marlin 6 once to see the difference in time riding the same 100 KM route with 3K of climb. I do not have power meters so this is highly anecdotal. To my surprise I was only 15 minutes faster on this course with the Kestrel. Being on a drop bar vs a flat bar likely had as much to do with my time difference as weight. I have rotator cuff injuries so being upright is less taxing on me. I even prefer the 45mm Marathons that are 1KG each for the reliability.

I am considering converting the Kestrel to a flat bar bike as Kestrel even sold the RT-1000 as a Hybrid BITD.
This would make a great comfy all day bike for me at 17 lbs where speed, distance and endurance would matter.

All I am stating is it is not that big a deal for me to push a heavy bike.
I am considering using the MTB for a week long tour in the SoCal mountains when I get the chance.
I have taken the MTB up HC and Cat 1 climbs and it is tough but not impossible.

Last edited by CAT7RDR; 03-31-24 at 06:04 PM.
CAT7RDR is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 05:57 PM
  #44  
cowboy, steel horse, etc
 
LesterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The hot spot.
Posts: 45,316

Bikes: everywhere

Liked 7,991 Times in 4,253 Posts
Originally Posted by CAT7RDR
It is not a black or white issue for me.
I came to the realization at 60 y/o and 220 lbs, the best bike for me may not be the lightest.
I regularly ride a 35+ lbs rigid MTB on the road even though I own a 17 lbs carbon road bike in good condition and a 20 lbs crit bike.
It is about fitness at this point and not speed or distance.

If I want to ride further, I'll get out the lighter bike.
Otherwise, the MTB does great for 30-40 mile rides in the hills.
Your rides would be way funner on a sub-30lb MTB, especially if there are hills. For a rigid MTB you can get to 25 fairly cheaply these days if you're good on the CL/FBMP
LesterOfPuppets is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 07:21 PM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,883
Liked 5,182 Times in 3,203 Posts
Originally Posted by indyfabz
See post #9.
So what do you expect them to do? They list the weight of a production bike as specified at the time. They canít really offer any more than that.

For example they list an S-Works Tarmac DuraAce at 6.62 kg (size 56 cm) and the equivalent SRAM Red build at 6.85 kg. Thatís good enough detail for me and their disclaimer is not unreasonable.
PeteHski is online now  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 03-31-24, 08:22 PM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,714

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Liked 3,695 Times in 1,946 Posts
Originally Posted by hsea17
No, it does not hold water. It's like saying that when a car manufacturer states a weight for a certain model, spesific engine and size that they can't do it because maybe the buyer puts on different tires (heavier/lighter), extra lights and installs a big music system in the car. Well, I'm talking about the specified weight of each specific model before the buyer makes their modifications. Withholding information about the product is the kindest thing I call it.
hsea17
yeah, it actually is a fairly correct explanation.

Just because car makers can list the weight of a car ... is the weight accurate? When is the last time you weighed your car, or any car? Obviously options will change the weight ... and equally obviously ... People Don't Care.

No one is going to buy one bike over another because fo a one-pound difference. People will definitely choose one bike over another over a one-pound difference .... and will make that choice based on published weights, provided by the manufacturer, or by some magazine writer who wrote a review.

Most cyclists are smart enough to realize that the listed weight for a bike is not necessarily accurate, but still some parts of the brain will be influenced by the number ...... even knowing it is not an accurate comparison. And how many manufacturers want to list every frame size?

You need to remember, a difference of fifty pounds in a three Thousand pound car is what ... 1/600th? The difference of one pound on a a 20-lb bike is thirty times that ..... and in a car, the motor pull;s the weight.On a bike you are the motor. Note the subtle differences?

Yes, in part, manufacturers know that if they list a bike in a given size at a given weight, and a competitor lists a comparable model at half-a-pound more, that looks bad ... even though the bikes are not identical in any other fashion (slap on some light tires for that model, use lighter but more expensive cockpit components .... hoping to make up the higher cost with higher sales spurred by the lighter listed weight. And no one wants to be honest, publish an honest weight, and lose a lot of sales because of the asterisks and fine print (a simple disclaimer like "bike weight may vary due to component choices" (and already a lot of manufacturers have fine print explaining that the model they ship might be different than the model on the website ... if they run out of Shimano parts but got a deal form SRAM ... oops .... so long as the manufacturer can claim "comparable quality" ..... " so a manufacturer Could,if sleazy, build a up a few "diet" models and weight them and keep them in the factory store room in case of law suits ... )

But really, the whole issue of listing weights is just a rabbit hole full of rabid weasels. Seriously, weight is Important to cyclists .... not ultimate (to most of us) , but important .... and no manufacturer wants to list weights for seven models with seven frame sizes and seven build options ..... and then have to defend on the internet (social media would go nuts) if all the weights were found to be a little low ..... even if only a few grams ("We used a different tire and bar tape on our production models ... ")

Seriously, if a difference of a few hundred grams is the deal breaker ... either you are obsessed or worse. Pros don't care that much about weight .... they know they have enough motor to propel anything at a very high rate of speed ... when you see riders cracking on hard climbs, it isn't that they would have won the stage if they had only used just a single cage and bottle instead of two .... and for the rest of us .... an extra hour of intervals three times a week will outweigh any minor difference in bike weight.

We need to remember, one Big reason bike manufacturers started trumpeting low bike weights was because it was an easily understood, easily calculated metric. NOT because it was the most important metric, but because most consumers can relate to a claim like "For every gram we shaved off our latest (and lightest model, you can feel the power in your legs turning into more speed on the road." or "Don't spend your power moving mass---spend your power going fast." it was all hype, all ad copy ... a way to make a specific brand stand out from the rest ... and since (due to technology) bikes were getting lighter, lighter must be better, right? (And super hard super skinny tires must be faster, right?) Of course now we know that aero trumps weight, and wider, softer tires are faster for most uses (except track riding) ...

But ... we were sold "Lighter is Better" and a lot of us bought it ... and now we compromise an the quality of our riding experiences to have bikes which look good on paper ..... Well, a Little less so now, but there was definitely a stretch of several years when people went crazy to shave grams without ever asking how much it mattered in the physical world ... they were happy to have the mental edge of having drilled holes in every component ....

When I plan to buy a bike online, I Always find a source for the weight .... even if I don't fully trust the source ... not because i will only buy the lightest bike, but to look for anomalies ("Why does that bike weight that amount? It seems that is should be heavier/lighter with those components ... ") and when I get he bike I don't expect it to weigh what ever the manufacturer claimed, anyway .... pretty sure whenever they Do post weights, they weigh one of the six 48-cm frames they produced .......
Maelochs is online now  
Old 03-31-24, 08:38 PM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,688
Liked 16,120 Times in 7,568 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
So what do you expect them to do? They list the weight of a production bike as specified at the time. They canít really offer any more than that.

For example they list an S-Works Tarmac DuraAce at 6.62 kg (size 56 cm) and the equivalent SRAM Red build at 6.85 kg. Thatís good enough detail for me and their disclaimer is not unreasonable.
I think you misunderstood my point. I was pointing out the disclaimer in response to another post. They do what I expect, since the specs could change, for example, mid-year if things like tires change. Updating the website might cause inaccuracy because different speced models with different weights could be on retail floors.
indyfabz is offline  
Old 03-31-24, 08:39 PM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,977
Liked 698 Times in 478 Posts
Originally Posted by hsea17
Hi!

I'm interested in buying the 2025 "New Giant TCR but neither that model or previous TCR models are listed with weight on the web in their specification. For me its like show me what you have in detail, and you have a potential buyer, if not its turn around.
Rant over.
hsea17
The Giant Japan site does list weights. You can check there.
Yan is offline  
Likes For Yan:
Old 03-31-24, 08:54 PM
  #49  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 643
Liked 316 Times in 204 Posts
Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee
That’s the truth- all of these high end UCI compliant road bikes probably all weigh just south of 6.8kg.

Nonetheless the OP is right. If carmakers can publish curb weights for all their cars there is no reason why bike makers avoid doing so.
Curb weight for cars gets sketchy. Is it fair to penalize a manufacturer because they offer a bigger gas tank, a full-size spare, a bigger wiper fluid reservoir, standard accessories, tire options, etc?

One of the reasons they don't post bike weights is that nobody rides a bone stock bike - you can't unless it at least comes with pedals.

You ever notice that the power tool companies post amp hour capacity for each tool battery next to the price, but never, ever mention the cost per amp hour? It's all hush hush (even though you can do it in your head in 2 seconds). The manufacturers don't want to compete on price, so they keep marketing "features".

Last edited by ScottCommutes; 04-01-24 at 06:33 AM.
ScottCommutes is offline  
Likes For ScottCommutes:
Old 03-31-24, 09:38 PM
  #50  
I am potato.
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,202

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Liked 1,728 Times in 985 Posts
Originally Posted by rosefarts
A disc brake bike under 15lbs is achievable. I think that Rodriguez and some others might even have steel bikes that fit this description. Not cheaply.
I'm not going to say it is impossible but I sure as heck tried with my Rodriguez. I used everything from Extralite, Ax-Lightness, Dario, THM, etc...I even built up a sub kilo wheel set. I came in at 16 pounds and like an ounce or so with Time carbon "Racer" pedals, bottle cages, and Garmin mount.

I ride a 7L and did not specify the "ultralight" option. Which in reality is different, lighter rear dropouts to accommodate flat-mount brakes and extra large holes inside the frame at the tubing joins. The total saving at $600 extra expense is about 2 ounces. (I have also learned that Dura-Ace shifters are heavy.)

I'm also 85 kilos and generally stronger than average. I have no doubt that there is an extra bit of material in the chain stays that a smaller, less powerful rider on a size 5S wouldn't need.

It does ride like a rocketship. But even at the bleeding edge, someone as big as me would need something in rim brakes to cross that 15lb threshold in steel. I have ridden their 13 pound display bike. It is possible, but I have my doubts about doing so in disc in "as ridden" form.

Last edited by base2; 04-01-24 at 05:36 AM.
base2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.