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, 10:00 PM
  #51  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: Folsom,Ca
Posts: 181

Bikes: n+1

Liked 107 Times in 54 Posts
Weight is related to enjoyment. I specifically remember having a mid-low tier full suspension trail bike that weighed 32lbs in the early 2010's. Suspension was good, shifting was kinda mushy(shimano deore), and wheels were okay(deore hubs).
A year later or so I ended up getting a used top of the line variant. Full carbon(besides chainstays), internal routing, xt/xtr groupset with a carbon raceface crank, xt+mavic wheels etc 27lbs. It was better. Was it msrp 4-5k better? No, but on the used market it was cheaper then the prior bike I bought new. While being more enjoyable. I found tires mattered more and would have a bigger impact, but a nicer lighter bike was right below that. After that nicer wheels helped too.
Road... I can feel it there but all the bikes are light(to me) and fast so it doesn't bother me much.
I guess I don't really care about listed weight since someone on the internet probably posted it, or at a bike shop I can weigh the bike in person.
slow rollin is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 04:19 AM
  #52  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 133

Bikes: Scott Addict Rc 20/Giant SCR / Felt FR5 / Trek Emonda ALR 6 / Trek Domane AL2

Liked 22 Times in 15 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.
Hear hear
hsea17 is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 04:26 AM
  #53  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 133

Bikes: Scott Addict Rc 20/Giant SCR / Felt FR5 / Trek Emonda ALR 6 / Trek Domane AL2

Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Scott Addict RC 20 here (Rim Brakes). 7.46 Kg
hsea17
hsea17 is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 04:39 AM
  #54  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 133

Bikes: Scott Addict Rc 20/Giant SCR / Felt FR5 / Trek Emonda ALR 6 / Trek Domane AL2

Liked 22 Times in 15 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.
At least until an accident last year I have done some racing (age group Triathlon) and due to that a couple of the annual races have hills going up to 15 - 20% + gradient I can of experience tell you bicycle weight matter.
hsea17
hsea17 is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 05:24 AM
  #55  
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,908

Bikes: Several

Liked 771 Times in 570 Posts
Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets
I'm glad to see more manufacturers listing weights again.
That is only any good if they all use exactly the same methods (what is/isn't included, what sized frame do they weigh, and so on) and are honest. Otherwise it just rewards the most biggest liar/most misleading brand.

Last edited by staehpj1; 04-01-24 at 06:18 AM.
staehpj1 is online now  
Likes For staehpj1:
Old 04-01-24, 07:42 AM
  #56  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: socal
Posts: 4,328
Liked 865 Times in 654 Posts
I'm sure it delineated well above, but it's simple: 1) They don't want to be prevaricators and 2) they don't want you to know how ponderous their bikes are.
2old is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 08:49 AM
  #57  
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 staehpj1
That is only any good if they all use exactly the same methods (what is/isn't included, what sized frame do they weigh, and so on) and are honest. Otherwise it just rewards the most biggest liar/most misleading brand.
One would hope the prospect of getting caught with way-off weights by a couple of bike review sites would limit posting way-off weights.

Even if a company lists way-off weights at least you still get an idea of how that company's models compare against each other
LesterOfPuppets is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 09:45 AM
  #58  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,883
Liked 5,182 Times in 3,203 Posts
Originally Posted by indyfabz
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.
The point I was making, in response to the idea that manufacturers no longer list bike weights, is that most major manufacturers do in fact list their bike weights. A reasonable disclaimer pointing out the practical limitations doesnít change that fact.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 04-01-24, 10:01 AM
  #59  
tcs
Palmer
 
tcs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 8,699

Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl

Liked 1,900 Times in 1,099 Posts
Constructively argue that weight isn't all that important all you want: cyclists have been voting - with their pocketbooks - for lighter weight for 145 years.

Originally Posted by staehpj1
That is only any good if they all use exactly the same methods (what is/isn't included, what sized frame do they weigh, and so on) and are honest. Otherwise it just rewards the most biggest liar/most misleading brand.
This. I've seen it for 50 years. "Biggest liar wins."
tcs is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 10:02 AM
  #60  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,883
Liked 5,182 Times in 3,203 Posts
Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets
One would hope the prospect of getting caught with way-off weights by a couple of bike review sites would limit posting way-off weights.

Even if a company lists way-off weights at least you still get an idea of how that company's models compare against each other
I havenít seen any published bike weights that seem unbelievable. For example Trek are claiming 7.10 kg for a top of the line £14k Madone SLR9 size 54 cm. Without pedals and bottle cages, Iím sure it wonít be far off. Canyon claim 7.52 kg for their Aeroad MVDP. Again that seems reasonable. My own Canyon Endurace was listed at 7.76 kg. I should weigh it really to see how close it actually is 😂
PeteHski is online now  
Old 04-01-24, 10:31 AM
  #61  
climber has-been
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,319

Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1

Liked 3,800 Times in 1,892 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
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 ....
The statement above includes the implied assertion that a light bike somehow reduces "the quality of our riding experiences". I reject that implication. I ride a sub-UCI limit bike, and I find no "ride quality" compromises were made for the sake of weight savings. I doubt Mark Cavendish found my bike model lacking, either, as he rode it to ten TdF stage wins.


Cavendish bike 2009-2010
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse


terrymorse is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 10:39 AM
  #62  
Senior Member
 
icemilkcoffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,545
Liked 1,879 Times in 1,044 Posts
Originally Posted by ScottCommutes
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.
That explanation makes no sense. Don't you want to know how much the stock bike weighs before you start changing things? Also- basically all bike parts have known, published weights. It makes no sense for bike makers to be coy about the weights.
icemilkcoffee is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 10:51 AM
  #63  
Senior Member
 
big john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the foothills of Los Angeles County
Posts: 25,594
Liked 9,424 Times in 4,628 Posts
Originally Posted by tcs
Constructively argue that weight isn't all that important all you want: cyclists have been voting - with their pocketbooks - for lighter weight for 145 years.
Weight is important. The question is how much weight are we talking about?
big john is offline  
Likes For big john:
Old 04-01-24, 11:10 AM
  #64  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,883
Liked 5,182 Times in 3,203 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse
The statement above includes the implied assertion that a light bike somehow reduces "the quality of our riding experiences". I reject that implication. I ride a sub-UCI limit bike, and I find no "ride quality" compromises were made for the sake of weight savings. I doubt Mark Cavendish found my bike model lacking, either, as he rode it to ten TdF stage wins.


Cavendish bike 2009-2010
I expect he was talking about weight-weenie specials with flimsy wheels and noodle frames etc. The modern compromise for achieving super light weight is aero eg Specialized Aethos.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 04-01-24, 11:15 AM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,883
Liked 5,182 Times in 3,203 Posts
Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee
That explanation makes no sense. Don't you want to know how much the stock bike weighs before you start changing things? Also- basically all bike parts have known, published weights. It makes no sense for bike makers to be coy about the weights.
Agreed and many people do ride the stock bike. It is well understood that published bike weights don't include pedals and bottle cages, so those don't matter when comparing bikes.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 04-01-24, 11:37 AM
  #66  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 643
Liked 316 Times in 204 Posts
Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee
That explanation makes no sense. Don't you want to know how much the stock bike weighs before you start changing things? Also- basically all bike parts have known, published weights. It makes no sense for bike makers to be coy about the weights.
That encourages manufacturers to play games with the weights - just like car manufacturers and others do. Look for creative marketing to generate the weights. One manufacturer will weigh without pedals. The next will weigh without a saddle. The next will create an XXS. The next will offer unpainted. Another will offer "sample" tires made out of tissue paper. Forget the valve caps, the grease, the extra cable lengths. I could even imagine a large bike weighed with the seat post and cables from a small bike.

Look at the tool batteries I mentioned. They basically just lie. I think DeWalt started it a while back by calling their new 18 volt battery 20 volt nominal.
ScottCommutes is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 11:59 AM
  #67  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,883
Liked 5,182 Times in 3,203 Posts
Originally Posted by ScottCommutes
That encourages manufacturers to play games with the weights - just like car manufacturers and others do. Look for creative marketing to generate the weights. One manufacturer will weigh without pedals. The next will weigh without a saddle. The next will create an XXS. The next will offer unpainted. Another will offer "sample" tires made out of tissue paper. Forget the valve caps, the grease, the extra cable lengths. I could even imagine a large bike weighed with the seat post and cables from a small bike.
They all weigh without pedals (at least high end bikes) because they sell without pedals. Iíve never heard of any weighing without a saddle or quoting the weight for an XXS size, or any of your other imaginary scenarios. How about quoting an example of any of these things?
PeteHski is online now  
Old 04-01-24, 12:18 PM
  #68  
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,713

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 terrymorse
The statement above includes the implied assertion that a light bike somehow reduces "the quality of our riding experiences". I reject that implication. I ride a sub-UCI limit bike, and I find no "ride quality" compromises were made for the sake of weight savings. I doubt Mark Cavendish found my bike model lacking, either, as he rode it to ten TdF stage wins.
What I refer to is the OP and others choosing a bike Not on how it looks, how it rides, how it suits his/her riding needs, but based on weight. Weight is one factor and frankly, with most bikes of a type and size being about the same weight, and that weight being about as low as possible at a given price point with comparable components, the matter of bike weight is sort of moot.

I kilogram difference is significant ... a hundred grams, I would argue, almost becomes noise to the signal of stiffness/ compliance, aero,ease of service, and performance of components ... and genuinely important intangibles like ... "Do I like this bike?"

I recall a thread not long ago with a rider asking is s/he should buy a cheaper model (I believe 10-speed Tiagra vs. 11-105) because he liked the appearance of the Tiagra bike.

In essence this poster asked, "Is one less cog and a little more weight going to ruin my ride? Is one more cog and a little less weight going to outweigh the life-long fact that I am not going to be proud of my gorgeous screaming-red bike, and instead ride a muddy-red two-tone which I find visually unappealing?"

If it had been weight, not color ....
Maelochs is online now  
Old 04-01-24, 12:39 PM
  #69  
tcs
Palmer
 
tcs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 8,699

Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl

Liked 1,900 Times in 1,099 Posts
Originally Posted by big john
Weight is important. The question is how much weight are we talking about?
Aluminum:


Set of five saves 12g over steel, 4g over titanium.
tcs is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 12:55 PM
  #70  
Senior Member
 
big john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the foothills of Los Angeles County
Posts: 25,594
Liked 9,424 Times in 4,628 Posts
Originally Posted by tcs
Aluminum:


Set of five saves 12g over steel, 4g over titanium.
12 grams? Count me in!

Actually I never thought aluminum was a good material for fasteners.
big john is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 01:06 PM
  #71  
Senior Member
 
big john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the foothills of Los Angeles County
Posts: 25,594
Liked 9,424 Times in 4,628 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
They all weigh without pedals (at least high end bikes) because they sell without pedals. Iíve never heard of any weighing without a saddle or quoting the weight for an XXS size, or any of your other imaginary scenarios. How about quoting an example of any of these things?
The weights I see on manufacturer sites are usually 54cm or medium frames. Looked at a Trek Madone something listed @ 15.6 pounds in size 54.

I remember when moderately priced road bikes broke 20 pounds back around 1990. Don't recall which bike it was, but it had an aluminum frame.
In 1991 my new bike was about 24 pounds.
big john is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 04:38 PM
  #72  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 643
Liked 316 Times in 204 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
They all weigh without pedals (at least high end bikes) because they sell without pedals. Iíve never heard of any weighing without a saddle or quoting the weight for an XXS size, or any of your other imaginary scenarios. How about quoting an example of any of these things?
A 20v tool isn't 20 volts. A 34" waist isn't 34 inches. A size 10 dress is vanity sized from what it used to be. A 2x4 doesn't even measure 2, or 4. Ten million in the lottery isn't ten million. I could go on and on if you wanted to talk about bike light lumen output or other examples.

I don't even bother to think about published bike weights.
ScottCommutes is offline  
Old 04-01-24, 05:00 PM
  #73  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,883
Liked 5,182 Times in 3,203 Posts
Originally Posted by ScottCommutes
A 20v tool isn't 20 volts. A 34" waist isn't 34 inches. A size 10 dress is vanity sized from what it used to be. A 2x4 doesn't even measure 2, or 4. Ten million in the lottery isn't ten million. I could go on and on if you wanted to talk about bike light lumen output or other examples.

I don't even bother to think about published bike weights.
So how far under weight do you think they typically are? They rarely use weight as a major marketing tool these days and donít list weight very prominently except for something like a Specialized Aethos. Give us an example of a bike from a major brand listed significantly under itís actual weight.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 04-01-24, 06:12 PM
  #74  
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 133

Bikes: Scott Addict Rc 20/Giant SCR / Felt FR5 / Trek Emonda ALR 6 / Trek Domane AL2

Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Something special here and as another poster gave information about, Giant Japan listing the weight of the bikes while the rest of Giant's worldwide manufacturers/dealers use a lame excuse and do not.
2024 GIANT Bicycles | TCR ADVANCED 2 KOM
hsea17 is offline  
Likes For hsea17:
Old 04-01-24, 06:14 PM
  #75  
With a mighty wind
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,679
Liked 931 Times in 528 Posts
Originally Posted by base2
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.
Hmm, I wonder what my 140lbs and 30Ē inseam would be able to create with an unlimited budget.

However, that poster said sub 15 wasnít achievable for any amount of money with discs. Seems like your components on damn near every carbon road frame in the world would be 14.5. Seems worth mentioning.
rosefarts 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.