Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Difference between 20 and 16.5 pounds

Search
Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

Difference between 20 and 16.5 pounds

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-25-10 | 07:06 PM
  #76  
Grumpy McTrumpy's Avatar
gmt
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,509
Likes: 3
From: Binghamton, NY
great. a pissing contest in high-school physics
Grumpy McTrumpy is offline  
Reply
Old 06-25-10 | 07:45 PM
  #77  
Member
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: Hopkinton, Ma

Bikes: 2005 Trek 1000

Originally Posted by gsteinb
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.
Agree 100% Higher end components = lighter, stiffer, smoother. Like most other say..ride it for a while then upgrade saddle for comfort, wheels for performance. Going from Bontrager Races to Neuvation M28s was like night and day (the neuvations are only slightly lighter, but are super stiff). Cheap stuff for the meantime that makes a noticable difference = good tires, fit, correct tire pressure for your weight, proper hydration/nutrition on long rides.
nkapinos is offline  
Reply
Old 06-25-10 | 09:09 PM
  #78  
wens's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,215
Likes: 0
From: Northeast Ohio
Originally Posted by Grumpy McTrumpy
great. a pissing contest in high-school physics
Especially since high school physics neglects air resistance. This should be interesting :
wens is offline  
Reply
Old 06-25-10 | 09:16 PM
  #79  
JohnDThompson's Avatar
Old fart
Titanium Club Membership
20 Anniversary
Community Builder
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 26,378
Likes: 5,297
From: Appleton WI

Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.

What difference does it make? Depends on how much you're being paid to ride it.
JohnDThompson is offline  
Reply
Old 06-25-10 | 09:21 PM
  #80  
umd's Avatar
umd
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 28,387
Likes: 3
From: Santa Barbara, CA

Bikes: Specialized Tarmac SL2, Specialized Tarmac SL, Giant TCR Composite, Specialized StumpJumper Expert HT

Originally Posted by JohnDThompson
What difference does it make? Depends on how much you're being paid to ride it.
Another ridiculously trite bikeforumism.
umd is offline  
Reply
Old 06-25-10 | 09:24 PM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by travkat
This doesn't address the fact that you may indeed not lose the 1/2mph but you might be working harder (wattage) in order to maintain that speed.
FWIW, a 0.5 MPH change in average speed is a pretty significant difference to me, on any ride with hills. Going from say, 16.5 to 17.0 on average means I was either flying up the hills or was 'hammering' (by my lowly standards) the flats the whole time.
baribari is offline  
Reply
Old 06-25-10 | 11:06 PM
  #82  
donrhummy's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,481
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by OhioBuckeye
I recently purchased a Trek 1.2 bike and it's spec'd at 20lbs I believe. I see bikes that are double in price and they can be down to 16.5 lbs.

How much difference does that make on a ride? If you've make a similar jump of dropping 3-4lbs of bike weight did it make a huge difference increasing you average speeds?

Thanks

OB
I've found the weight of a bike to be a very small difference, but the stiffness of a bike to be a HUGE difference, especially on climbs out of the saddle. An aluminum bike has a lot of flex (for example) but ride one of the top carbon fiber bikes and it'll literally leap forward on every pedal stroke - zero wasted watts.
donrhummy is offline  
Reply
Old 06-25-10 | 11:13 PM
  #83  
crash 5
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
From: mpls

Bikes: 90s? serotta t-max, 09' planet x ti frame w/sram force, '10 Bianchi Volpe

Originally Posted by donrhummy
An aluminum bike has a lot of flex (for example)
are you being serious, or are you being facetious?
grimace308 is offline  
Reply
Old 06-26-10 | 02:42 AM
  #84  
patentcad's Avatar
Peloton Shelter Dog
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 90,508
Likes: 32
From: Chester, NY

Bikes: 2017 Scott Foil, 2016 Scott Addict SL, 2018 Santa Cruz Blur CC MTB

Originally Posted by Grumpy McTrumpy
great. a pissing contest in high-school physics
I never took high school physics.

But I did engage in many pissing contests.
patentcad is offline  
Reply
Old 06-28-10 | 11:36 PM
  #85  
SwingBlade's Avatar
Here to Learn
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
From: SoCal, USA

Bikes: 2008 Specialized S-works Tarmac SL & Specialized Hybrid

Originally Posted by SwingBlade
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.
Originally Posted by gregf83
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.
Sorry, but where did I mention nicer shifting? I'm talking about high tech lightweight carbon frame efficiencies, BB30's, and all the other aspects of these newer super bikes that optimize energy transfer and, hence, energy conservation. Of course it is about significant weight reductions as I stated above, "... as overall bike weight plummets ...".

However, if it was simply a matter of weight reduction, we could build a bike frame of any number of materials that would yield a 9 pound bike but it likely wouldn't remotely perform as well as one of the current crop of high tech 12 pound super bikes. So, nope, these gains are not solely due to weight loss ... unless you are talking about the rider.
SwingBlade is offline  
Reply
Old 06-28-10 | 11:58 PM
  #86  
KiddSisko's Avatar
Has coddling tendencies.
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,360
Likes: 59
From: Topanga Canyon

Bikes: 2008 Blue RC8 w/ '09 Rival

Originally Posted by donrhummy
I've found the weight of a bike to be a very small difference, but the stiffness of a bike to be a HUGE difference, especially on climbs out of the saddle. An aluminum bike has a lot of flex (for example) but ride one of the top carbon fiber bikes and it'll literally leap forward on every pedal stroke - zero wasted watts.
Please. Under no circumstance will there ever be zero wasted watts. There are so many factors that add up to wasted energy. Body position (fit) and pedal stroke being two. A serious road cyclist can take years to develop an efficient pedal stroke. A "top carbon fiber" bike isn't going to magically cure the shoulder heaving Fred out there pedaling squares.
KiddSisko is offline  
Reply
Old 06-29-10 | 08:40 AM
  #87  
Braden1550's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
From: Australia

Bikes: I hate bikes.

Originally Posted by KiddSisko
Please. Under no circumstance will there ever be zero wasted watts. There are so many factors that add up to wasted energy. Body position (fit) and pedal stroke being two. A serious road cyclist can take years to develop an efficient pedal stroke. A "top carbon fiber" bike isn't going to magically cure the shoulder heaving Fred out there pedaling squares.
Every single joint in your leg, connection to you bike (shoes, pedals, hands, seat), and many parts of the bike (chain, cranks, pedals and pedal axles, bearings, wheel stiffness, frame stiffness, frame geometry, chainrings, cassettes, hubs and associated mechanisms, you name it) can each represent potentially wasted wattage.
Braden1550 is offline  
Reply
Old 06-29-10 | 08:56 AM
  #88  
furiousferret's Avatar
Senior Member
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,329
Likes: 504
From: Redlands, CA
I used to have a 19.5 lb bike and a now I have a 16 lb bike. I'm about 2 mph faster on it than my old bike.



Never mind the 20 lb weight loss and the fact I've doubled my mileage; its either the bike or the LIVESTRONG jersey!
furiousferret is offline  
Reply
Old 07-01-10 | 11:09 PM
  #89  
DScott's Avatar
It's ALL base...
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,716
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles
I <3 light bike threads!


DScott is offline  
Reply
Old 07-01-10 | 11:47 PM
  #90  
KiddSisko's Avatar
Has coddling tendencies.
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,360
Likes: 59
From: Topanga Canyon

Bikes: 2008 Blue RC8 w/ '09 Rival

Originally Posted by Braden1550
Every single joint in your leg, connection to you bike (shoes, pedals, hands, seat), and many parts of the bike (chain, cranks, pedals and pedal axles, bearings, wheel stiffness, frame stiffness, frame geometry, chainrings, cassettes, hubs and associated mechanisms, you name it) can each represent potentially wasted wattage.
Especially not cleaning your chain regularly.

Seriously, looking at that list, it's remarkable how people question why a more expensive bike can help you go faster given that the materials and construction of each component were designed to lessen as much forward resistance as possible.
KiddSisko is offline  
Reply
Old 07-01-10 | 11:47 PM
  #91  
KiddSisko's Avatar
Has coddling tendencies.
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,360
Likes: 59
From: Topanga Canyon

Bikes: 2008 Blue RC8 w/ '09 Rival

Originally Posted by DScott
I <3 light bike threads!


[video]
Have you been drinking?
KiddSisko is offline  
Reply
Old 07-02-10 | 01:01 AM
  #92  
DScott's Avatar
It's ALL base...
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,716
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles
Originally Posted by KiddSisko
Have you been drinking?
Always!

But tell me this isn't true about some of the things people say in these discussions:

"When you believe in things
That you don't understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition aint the way."

Besides, it's my favorite song of all time, and the Sesame St. reference is just too apropros for BF, n'cest pas?



and
DScott is offline  
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JBerman
Road Cycling
180
04-11-17 08:29 PM
gpo1956
General Cycling Discussion
48
09-13-14 07:37 PM
Wait For Me
General Cycling Discussion
136
08-28-12 07:19 PM
Iief
General Cycling Discussion
15
07-05-11 09:15 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.