I should also mention that I timed myself on a little 5 mile sprint loop through my neighborhood many many times over 2 years. My Felt (3.5 pounds lighter than my Jamis) is good for about 3 seconds per mile in time savings over my Jamis on this loop on average.

The answer is 3.5 lbs.

It's not just hills that less weight makes faster, it's acceleration to your max 'cruising' speed from a stop. It takes forever for me and my 27 pound bike to reach 20-21 which is how fast I can go in a straight line with a moderate effort, but every time I slow down it takes that much longer to get back to that speed. A lighter bike would probably reach that speed a few seconds shorter.

This is especially relevant in criteriums, especially ones with hills. That, and riding in traffic, or around cities.

Neither a gear head nor being funny. I'm saying a mouse trap slams shut and then doesn't move. It's expression fail time in 41.

"mouse trap fast" would be a more appropriate expression than "like a mouse trap."

True. It does not move until it is reset or in the case of biking, another shift is made.... Are you always this petty?

Redundant. Kind of like saying fast CAAD9 on here.

Not petty. I just actually place value on the English language

Like others have said, the weight will not be the main difference but the level of components. Typically a 16# CF/Ti bike is going to cost you upwards of $1,800 but will come with better, lighter components. The hubs, BB, crankset, deraillers will operate more smoothly and result in less drag and greater efficiency. In addition a stiffer BB and frame in general is going to help more of your energy output get to the rear wheel. If you were to get on a 16# CF bike and ride 5 miles, then do it again with a 5# weight it would make almost no difference because the components are the same. But often with a more expensive bike you're not only talking about weight, but quality of parts, frame stiffness and overall design.

So if you are committed to the sport, get a better bike and you won't regret it. If you're not sure, just keep riding and then figure it out.

A CAAD9 is only fast if the rider is... the same goes for any bike.

Thanks for clarifying.

Oh, I completely agree. Just do some searching around here and you will see what I mean.

Honestly, when you take a rig from your stable and it shifts like a mousetrap someone is bound to lose an eye.

if youre in good shape it is a very noticeable difference.

don't you mean a "Steed"?

I thought we all decided not to mention this "average speed" concept.

+1

It is the relative technological gains as overall bike weight plummets that yields both real and perceived differences. With respect to comparing a 22 pound bike with a 15 pound bike, the meaningful differences are not so much related to weight savings as to the efficiencies resulting from the technological advantages and efficiencies inherent with successively lighter bikes. These efficiencies make a real difference in energy expenditure and endurance particularly with respect to climbs, which is why although speed gains are minimal, performance gains are often meaningful. The accompanying perceived gains of such technology, while perhaps not strictly quantifiable on a case-by-case basis, likely result in varying degrees of improvement in attitude and confidence.

well I suppose it could be, but you miss the beauty of mixing metaphors.

:popcorn

Just wondering, if looking to upgrade should I upgrade the wheels or the frame? I've always gotten recommendations to get the frame I want first.

Weight does matter more when accelerating.
27 lbs is unusually heavy. A typical weight is 20lbs. Compared to 16 lbs, it won't take "forever" to accelerate the 20 lb bike. I manage to keep up with my 26lb bike with people riding lighter (18lb) bikes.

I like your "certainty". The magnitude of the performance enhancement is still small.

You're talking about racing. Small differences in performance are much more valuable to racers.

And the value here is much, much less!

(Talk to Joeybike about riding around NOLA with his LHT!)

=================

My point isn't that reduced weight yields more performance (that's obvious). If reducing weight was free, we clearly all choose to ride the lightest appropriate bicycle.

Many people expect large enhancements in performance due to reduced weights and that doesn't happen!

What $1800 bike weighs 16lbs?

Anyway, as long as we are not talking about junk, the increase in "efficiency" of those more-expensive parts will give you is still going to be small.

Take 25 bucks and buy a 45 lb. bike on craigslist. Put in 5 miles on it then get on the other bike. Just like a batter with a weight.

Nope. Any performance improvements while climbing are pretty much solely due to the weight loss. Better components may shift nicer and feel better but they won't make you faster up the hill.

That's because it's a $125 Schwinn! (used price. MSRP: $285)

Most definitely. A 20 pound bike versus a 16 pound bike is pretty minor unless you're a smaller rider (higher percentage of body weight) or trying to climb competitively. OTOH, a 25 or 30 pound bike will be a burden...even if you don't care about speed (you will notice a difference when climbing). Of course, if you're like me and have never even ridden a bicycle that weighs less than 25 pounds, you'd probably never know what you're missing... but the first time you ride one, it WILL feel like a huge difference. Then eventually you'll get used to it, and suddenly you would never even think of riding a bike over 20 pounds again.

Scientists don't speak in absolutes. Only preachers and liars do.

Seeing as how we're all (well, most of us) riding racing bicycles, I'd say racing performance, even just in theory, must be important to most road riders...hehehe

I disagree. When you're starting and stopping constantly (especially with cars behind you), faster acceleration, even in fractional terms, is a pretty big deal. Especially when you're trying to cross traffic at a stop sign (even more so when you're bad at clipping in like me).

What is NOLA and what is an LHT?

I'm pretty sure most of us are riding the lightest bikes we can afford. The only people who would buy a heavy bike are those people who want to train for hill climbs, and in that case, they probably also have a light bike. That, or people who are either very frugal or very old fashioned...

In cycling, a difference of a few percents, a few seconds, and a few miles per hour are large enhancements. We're not talking about explosives... subtle differences make a big difference.