Nice Geometry/Heavy Frame
 

What is the heaviest a road bike should be if you wanted to ride competitively? I have a frame that handles really well and is comfortable, but it is kinda heavy.. I don't know how much it weighs exactly, but I know it isn't light...

not answering the first question, but the 20lb weight benchmark was surpassed a long time ago.... a solid entry level bike today is 8kg/17.5 and you can get a 7.5kg for just a tad more

Taking weight off the frame (assuming it's done in such a way as to not actually reduce pedaling efficiency) will add not even 1/2% to your speed. You need to keep in mind that the weight of a bike in motion includes rider weight. Taking off even 2 lbs. for most riders is around a 1% difference in weight, and far, far less impact overall. Making sure the frame is the right size and geometry is far more important, as well as confirming that modern parts will fit on it.

Race what you've got and lose weight from your body. When you start losing by fractions of a second and are less than 6% body fat, then I think it's time to start worrying about frame weight.

I think it makes more or less of a difference depending on what sort of competition one has in mind. Going in a straight line or around in circles it makes less of a difference than when you are on a "technical" course and have to actually handle the bike, not merely pedal it. That's where you notice the weight first, and if you're one to dance on your pedals, you'll likely notice a difference in a bike's weight well before one who never gets out of the saddle.

I can't dance so I ride steel.

+1

I have a 2015 Cannondale SuperSix EVO that weighs 16 lbs. I also have a 1988 Basso Gap steel framed bike that weighs 22 lbs. If I ride both on flat roads at max effort, I can achieve nearly the same average speed over 20 miles with them. Where I notice the difference is on hill climbs and sprinting. The Cannondale is superior on both. Part of it has to do with weight, and part of it has to do with gearing and ability to make quick shifts. The Basso is at a disadvantage because it uses downtube shifters, and it is geared with a 53/42 crank and 13/23 7 speed cluster. The Basso is great for easy/recovery rides, but the Cannondale does all of the serious work.

Assuming the Basso had the same gearing as the Cannondale (52/36, 11/28 11 speed cassette) and integrated brake levers, I would still go with the Cannondale for competitive riding - it will be faster up hill, and has a better advantage sprinting.

Say what? What is your 'entry level' pricepoint? Off the shelf at an LBS, you're well over $1000 to get under 20 lbs. and to me, that's no longer entry level. Then again, I've seen Shimano 105 call entry level on this forum so maybe my entry-level meter needs calibration.

Some even called Ultegra entry level in the past. :D

Good thing my 'old' LOOK carbon frame is a 'boat anchor' at 1400 grams otherwise it would be totally outclassed by its 'entry level' Ultegra components. This forum is the best.

There's an entry level to road cycling.

Then there's an entry level to the 41.

There's weight, power, speed and all other physics here on Earth.

Then there's 41 physics.

I think that's how the lines seem to get blurred.

What is dancing? Riding out of the saddle and swaying the bike with your arms torso and legs?

5-10 years ago, top end bikes were 5k, now theyre 10-15k so the market has moved up a bit, and maybe we all need a bit of calibration

anyway, sora-tiagra is entry level. trek 1.2 is entry level. entry level being those getting into cycling with "enthusiasm", coupling their purchase with lycra and pedals. anything below primarily sold to those who wants something to put on the MUP for a few weekends and then leave in the garange to a rotting death.

hell, claris is now 3 gears different from 105. not making claims on performance, just compatibility for future upgrades for those same enthusiasts.

anyway, a 850EUR canyon/tiagra comes in at 19#, and 1000EUR canyon/105 comes in at 17.8#, and 1400EUR at 17.0#

theres a sweet spot for everything and dropping 700$ for a 20# claris porker is like a geo metro that i wouldnt advise any friend who wants to get into the sport

I'm not sure I understand your thought process.

A 20 pound bike will require less than 1 watt more than a 17 pound bike to maintain 20mph on a flat grade.

The max speed difference for a 300 watt effort on a 5% grade is less than 1/10th of a MPH.

It the rider on the 20lb bike weighs 3lbs less, there is no difference.

How does that mean a 20# Claris bike is a Geo Metro, but a 17lb bike is far superior?

I bought my LOOK over 10 years ago and at that time, you could easily spend over $10k on a bike. My frame alone retailed for $3000 at the time.

But a Trek 1.2 doesn't weigh under 20 lbs., let alone 17.5 lbs., and costs nearly $900.

Claris is zero gears different from Dura Ace of not-so-long-ago but has better trim functionality than even Ultegra of the 9 speed era. Buying a Sora/Tiagra bike over Claris won't save you any money when you go to upgrade to 11 speed. All three groupsets will still use a rear wheel without enough freehub length to accommodate the wider cassette. Nothing from those groupsets, not even the rear derailleur as used to be the case, can be salvaged for an 11 speed upgrade as the cable pulls are all different now.

Can you even buy those in the US? What is the cost with shipping? And do you really recommend a newbie buy a bike online from an overseas vendor with zero local support?

To each their own. Minimizing the initial purchase while still getting a competent bike, to me, is what newbie's should be doing. And a Claris bike (which can be had for $500 shipped by mail order) is ideal for that. I put my first 5000 or so road miles on an 8 speed Sora bike which lacked quite a bit compared to today's Claris. It was perfect for me and made a great foul weather bike when I did decide I liked cycling enough to invest in a better bike.

I started on a hand-me-down with bar end shifters and as many gears and I have fingers on one end. What we ride and what we (or our friends) can afford is 1 thing, what the market dictate in terms of pricing stratification is another. The way Shimano has always positioned its products by way of feature differentiation (brifter nubs, cable routing, gears, etc) is tiered DA/Ult vs 105 vs Tiagra/Sora .... and likewise XTR/XT vs Deore vs Alivio/Acera on MTB. high, mid, entry

Anyway, my reference comes in whats local to me, in which case its not overseas. Your 500$ mail order (bikes direct?) is overseas, likewise unavailable here, and....doesnt list weight :)

Context is king. We're talking value curve here.

You could extrapolate your example to a 25# 400$ basement special and say it will allow you to ride just as fast. And I actually wouldnt argue against it, at all.

If such a bike serves you well, enjoy it.

The UCI already decided this.

The answer is 6.8kg

Numbers, numbers numbers, math, math math. When I started riding near the beginning of this year, I weighed 10.3 bicycles. Now I weigh 8.5 bicycles. I am significantly faster now-- over 2mph on average over all terrain-- and the bike still weighs exactly the same. If the bike fits you, you're comfortable, and you like it... don't change it just for the sake of weight. I've watched people go from 25lb touring bikes to 17lb CF fanciness, and they're the exact same speed. Putting a Ferrari body on a Ford Taurus chassis doesn't make it a Ferrari. It still goes like a Taurus.

TL;DR: just go by post #4 .

My Trek 1.2 weights 24 lbs. I am sure that is the only reason I am not a Cat 1 yet. I refuse to buy something better though, I am one to always look for a competitive disadvantage. How else will I excuse my slowness otherwise?

More or less, especially mid-tempo. Not necessarily high off the saddle or swaying the bike much, and the expression is most often used in the context of climbing.