I am in the market for a new road bike. I am split between carbon and steel. Carbon is lighter, yet I am 190lb. Can saving a few pounds off a frame make a difference?

Yes, if you are a professional cyclist.

Why do non-professional cyclists buy carbon, and not steel?

Because it is now more common in high end bikes and everyone wants to have the same as the Pros.

Very few shops will have a decent range of (if any at all) top steel bikes.

If you're an elite athlete with half a percent body fat weight, climbing up the side of a mountain in a Grand Tour, then saving 4 pounds on a carbon frame could mean a lot.

Personally, I am carrying a lot more than 4 pounds of excess weight that has nothing to do with my bike.

Given that the steel frame on my bike weighs 4 pounds, how exactly do you save 4 pounds over that?

IOW, no.

I would recommend buying the bike, not the material.

Wise recommendation. Thanks.

i find a light bike, regardless of material (but carbon bikes are generally lighter than steel, IME), to be more enjoyable to ride. a light one, with light wheels will shoot out from under you when accelerating regardless of one's weight, unlike a heavier bike. i like that feeling, more so when climbing.

the reason is that on every pedal stroke the bike tries to accelerate forward, away from the cyclist, not much but some, then the cyclist pulls it back a bit, or r e t a r d s (censors ) it if you prefer, before the next pedal stroke. this happens twice per revolution.

the phenomenon is more readily apparent when accelerating a powerful motorcycle, except one doesn't have to pedal.

Why do people buy high end sports cars just to drive to work and get groceries?

There are lots of various analysis done on things like weight savings, usually works out to something along the lines of saving you 10-30 seconds for every hour you bike. If that is a big advantage to you, then spend the extra grand. Most of us aren't going to realize that small of a benefit. That isnt the only benefit however, they do tend to ride a bit smoother though many actually prefer the ride of a quality steel frame still.

Because they can and because they want to show that they can.

The difference between carbon and steel is not necessarily "a few pounds." For instance, my steel bike with empty bottle cages weighs no more (probably less) than my CF bike with full bottles on it. You won't save any money over carbon with lightweight steel frames though.

You can't compare sports cars to bicycles. You should compare them to bicycle riders. It's horsepower that matters when you have 'em lined up at a stop light. A heavier Trans Am will generally blow away a lighter Honda Civic with a big aluminum wing and neon lights.

That's exactly right. Your body weight has nothing to do with your bike. Body weight is body weight. Bike weight is bike weight. You shouldn't conflate the two. Both will affect acceleration and speed, but bike weight reduction provides benefits in the feel of the ride that losing body weight simply cannot. When we are talking about bike weight, then the subject has nothing to do with body weight.

Maybe, all things being otherwise equal, a pound or two.

I have two steel bikes and a ti. I ride carbon all the time, because I travel a lot and rent bikes. If you want a higher end bike (say from a shop that will set it up for you when you go rent it, based on an emailed fit chart) it will be carbon. My steel bike has a steel fork, and weighs about 20 lbs (it's a 60). Ti bike is about 16.5-17. High end carbon bikes, the lightest I have rented was a Pinarello, and it came in at about 16. Bear in mind that the weight you have to move down the road is the bike plus you. So let's say the two together in my case (I weigh 210) will run from 227 to 230 pounds. That's a total difference of about 1-1.5%

Weight is generally pretty close, and sometimes heavier, for carbon vs. steel vs. Ti. The same level steel (high end, with carbon fork) compared to the same level carbon, the carbon will be lighter. By something like a half-bottle of water in the cage. Yes, cheaper steel will be "heavy". So will cheaper carbon, by the way.

Then the question is does that matter? Well, things like wheels and tires will have a much larger impact on feel, and things like position (wind resistance) will have a bigger impact on speed than weight. And I can lose a pound overnight, personally. Now, long climbs at over 10% grade -- there, you will feel it.

Yes, a stiffer bike jumps faster when you get on it, and a lighter bike will also give you that sensation to a lesser degree. Stiff + light will really feel jumpy when you hammer it. But the focus on carbon is marketing-driven. Pros ride it, it is advertised a great deal, and comes in product cycles. It's the production profit engine, so you need the latest one to be fast. And you'll need the latest one next year, too.

BTW, there is a pro team in the UK riding steel.

This is a great way of saying it.

There were weight weenies long before there were CF, Ti or Al bikes. It is an avocation. There is body weight, and there is bike weight. They need to be combined to know the effects of forces on the motion of the bike and rider on the road. But not for any other reason. Light bikes are their own reward just like losing body weight is its own reward. You should quite trying to rationalize the desire to lighten bikes. It is just something people like to do.

And BTW the difference may be a full water bottle, but that will always be the difference. You don't ride without water to lighten the bike. Just like once you lose body weight, there is still that bike weight to deal with. One doesn't affect the other.

As for a Brit pro team riding steel, that is just meaningless. Exceptions to rules happen all the time without affecting the significance of the rule.

Sorry, just throwing out random numbers as an example.

I think the point stands - most of us have a lot more excess weight on our bodies than on our bike frames.

I like how catgita said it - buy the bike, not the material. If there's a carbon bike that meets your needs and you love to ride it and it fits you well, then by all means buy it. (I actually have a carbon tri/TT bike for these very reasons).
At the same time, I think it would be unwise to reject a bike that's otherwise perfectly suited to you, just because it's the "wrong" material. Or, buy a bike that's ill-suited to the rider, just because it's the "right" material.

So to the OP's question "can saving a few pounds make a difference" the answer is twofold: you can get that down to less than a few (as in 1-2) based on budget and choices; and it can make a difference, but mostly in your head, if you happen to think that way.

nttawwt

I hear you. If a lighter bike gives you a great ride/feel, then by all means get a lighter bike.

My point about body weight - and admittedly it's been 20 years since my last physics class - but for instance on a long challenging climb, your performance is largely going to be a function of the power you produce versus the total weight (bike+rider) you're lifting to the top of the hill. If I'm really serious about improving my performance, I'm going to get a lot more out of a 20 pound body weight loss than a 1.1 pound weight savings on the bike.

I guess what I'm getting at is that for most middle aged weekend warrior types like me, we'd be a lot better advised to buy based on fit, ride quality, etc., than making weight the primary consideration when buying a bike.

Why do people start multiple "steel" threads at the same time?

I ride a carbon, a vintage steel, and an aluminum road bike. In terms of speed, the difference is negligible, if there is even a difference at all, even though the difference if weight might be as much as two to three pounds, with the steel being the heaviest. I like the 'feel' of the steel bike. It just feels softer to me, even though all three bikes have the same tires at the same psi. The CF bike is a nice ride too, but I've got a compact double on it, and am not a fan of it.

You shouldn't base your purchase on weight alone. You also have more choices if you go with carbon.

You are exactly right, but I haven't thought about improving my performance since about the time you took your last physics class. It never has been about that for me.