unless you have one of those outlawed trek y-foil road bikes with the suspension fork...

edit:

but even if you did, it wouldnt have the same effects it does on a car. lots of unsprung mass would poorly effect the response of the suspension, but thats about it. i dont think handling would be effected as much as weight is not transfered to the outside wheel

I have one bike about 19 pounds, another is an old steelie that is close to 29 pounds. Not a huge difference to me even though the heavy bike has 27x1 1/4 tires versus the 700x23 on the lighter bike. The heavy one is a little slower to accelerate up to speed.

Like this?

http://www.uberreview.com/wp-content...ket%20bike.jpg

I have 3 road bikes and a cross bike. the cross bike weighs in around 21 pounds. steel bike = 19 pounds, ti bike = 18 pounds, scandium bike = 16 pounds. for short rides, don't notice much difference. for hilly rides, I notice a big difference. with my 16 pound bike I can ride away from others that I ride with...on a 500 foot climb, I can open up a 1/2 mile gap to my buddies. on my ti bike, the gap was maybe 1/4 mile. on the steel bike my buddy rides away from me...so yes there is a difference. I like to ride a heavier bike on short training rides, when I get on my 16 pound bike, it feels like I've got a motor on the bike.

there's BF for ya. assuming the grade is a reasonable 5%, then on a 500 foot climb, then you're traveling 10000 feet, about 2 miles. you're saying you can pull 1/2 a mile ahead in less than 10 minutes, yet on the 19 pound bike, you're getting crushed? this doesn't compute at all.

unless you were serious about the motor.

The difference between a 20lb bike and a 16lb bike is much more than weight. Everything on the lighter and more expensive bike is designed for better performance. Is it necessary? No. Is it nice? Yes. More reliable and responsive equipment certainly helps, perhaps more so with confidence than even in actual race day applications. That's just on the flats though. I lamented riding a rear 404 last week on a mountain climb due to a flat. That was only 5 ounces heavier than the wheel I wanted to ride.

He didn't say his steel bike was 19 lbs.

But yes, the numbers are funny. I'm going to guess 119 lbs.

the general theory I've heard is one kilogram = one minute. four kilo's heavier = four minutes slower.........

4 minues every....day?

I went from a Trek 1.2 to a Cervelo R3 a few years ago.

There was a big difference (stiffness, responsiveness, ride feel, etc.) but it had very little to do with the bike weight. Kind of like comparing a $20,000 sports car to a $50,000 sports car - the weight won't tell the whole story.

Yes he did.

"I have 3 road bikes and a cross bike. the cross bike weighs in around 21 pounds. steel bike = 19 pounds, ti bike = 18 pounds, scandium bike = 16 pounds"

Well, I've certainly learned a lot.

Not from this thread, though.

this thread has fulfilled many of my expectations.

The 41 will never let you down Grumpy.

I got a bike 5.5 pounds lighter and...

I got waayyy faster. Because I was training.

My felt f75 is about 3.5 pounds lighter than my other bikes. I can climb faster on it and it shifts like a mouse trap with superior handling as well.

It slams shut and gets stuck? I'd be bummed.

One of the guys I ride with switches between a lightweight CF bike that weighs around 19 lbs or so (with pedals, bottles, etc.) and an older aluminum cross bike with 28mm tires that probably weighs 24 lbs or so (rough guess but it's probably heavier). On the CF bike, he is usually so far ahead of me by the 20 mile mark that he looks like a speck on the horizon. With the heavy cross bike, he is a slightly larger speck on the horizon, not quite as far away.

The bikes are both heavier than my bike and my friend is older than me. A heavier bike doesn't seem to slow him down much, but I'm thinking about secretly letting some air out of his tires to see if that helps. Will report results.

I commute faster on my girlfriend's bike which is 38 pounds loaded down. This is compared to my other bike that's 25 pounds, with 6 pounds on my back.

I'm faster, because I don't have anything on my back and cool off a lot better. However the time difference is negligible.

The point is weight doesn't matter that much.

And the commute is quite hilly.

I went from a 24 lb bike to a 17 lb bike and didn't notice the difference.

I never thought I'd say it, but there is an instance I think aerobars would be appropriate for a mountain bike...

Small rodent in cage is better than squirrel in spokes.. (old hungarian proverb)

The week prior to a race I used to pull my Cannondale trailer back and forth to work. On racedays it didn't really matter that my bike was heavier than the competition.. Tune that motor!

There's kinetic (mass, velocity) and potential energy (mass, g-force, height displacement). When the bike is traveling on flat ground, there is no change in elevation, so height displacement is zero (no potential energy). It's all kinetic energy.

During a steep climp, a good portion of the output energy will show up as potential energy due to a rapid increase in height displacement. The amount of potential energy gained during the climb is directly proportional to the mass (bike and rider) and the height of the climb.

Reduced weight has a small effect on average speed. The cost of reducing weight starts to increase very quickly (it's a case of diminishing returns). This small effect is worth a lot to racers.

If you ride on the hoods, when not in a pace line, then riding on the drops will have a much, much larger effect on your speed. And riding in the drops is free!

You can get an idea of actual numbers by playing with something like the following.

http://www.noping.net/english/

(Note that the calculators don't take into account the effort that climbing long/steep hills requires.)

Sigh. I take it you are not much of a gear head or you are just being funny.... The term of shifting like a mouse trap refers to the quickness of each shift.