meanwhile

Rather than saying that people should or shouldn't be weight weenies, wouldn't it make more sense to have a thread that nailed down objectively what gains you could (level speed, climbing, acceleration) expect for a given weight reduction on the frame and on the wheel? Then people could make rational decisions like "It will cost me $1000 to get the bike's weight down by 1.5kg, and that will make me 1 minute faster on a 50 minute hill climb. Together with the improvement I expect from intervals that should get me on the podium, so I'll cut my vacation back this year and do it." Or not, because that 1 minute speed up will only get you from 20th to 15th and who cares? Or because your event is centuries on the level, and saving a kilo doesn't seem likely to matter a damn.

Arguing over whether people should pay for weight savings without this seems doubly pointless. Because its the consequences of saving weight that matter, and then those consequences have to be assessed by a personal value system which is, well, personal. This thread seems to be dedicated to exactly the wrong half of the discussion.

WhyFi

Within the industry (I was the sales manager at (arguably) the highest-end store in the US), it's often used in a derisive tone; when individuals listened to gear, as opposed to listening to the music being reproduced by the gear, they were damned with the label.

Psimet2001 

Let me guess....you're an engineer? (FWIW - so am I).

rollin

So what's with the weight weenies?

rollin

Weight Weenieism is a hobby unto itself. It does not necessarily have a lot to do with cycling per se.

jamesdak 

Wow, I just had a revelation! Using the OPs mindset I can stop dieting and worrying about getting my own personnal weight down. I just need to get stronger and not worry about the extra unneeded pounds I am carrying around. McDonalds, HERE I COME!!!!!!!!!!

WhyFi

That's all well and good, but you're neglecting the fact that these are often emotional, not rational, purchases. When it comes to stuff like this, ration justifies a decision that's already been made, but it's rarely the driving force.

sbxx1985 

There are a lot of overweight WWs that would benefit from more riding and less hand wringing. They obsess about their bikes because it's easier than focusing on the 50 lbs they need to lose.

In the end, who cares? It's their money.

SushiJoe

Agreed. On all fronts.

I built up a super light bike once for the fun of it; like a project. But I'm 6'3 and ~180 lbs. so it doesn't make practical sense for me to always go for the lightest.

i.e. I had a set of Zero Gravity brakes for a couple months and swapped them out for a set of "heavier" SRAM Red calipers. The Zero Gs felt gummy and not at all confidence inspiring in comparison.

SushiJoe

And I only bought the Red calipers to match the rest of the set [i liked the pretty colors].

wkndwarrior

Could be wrong, but I heard that weight doesn't really make a difference on the flats. Hills, probably.

SushiJoe

Rolling weight, i.e. in the wheels, matters if for nothing else to spin up to speed. Aerodynamics, though, is more important where it's flat.

gregf83 

99% of Porsche and BMW owners can't drive fast on a track either; it doesn't stop them from enjoying their cars though.

rat fink

Ah, then that would make me a connoisseur of timbre, since the music is the most important, but I appreciate the nuances of sound which is why I generally can't enjoy heavily compressed music very much.

+1

meanwhile

To a minute extent, yes. You could probably improve acceleration more by taping your ears to the side of your head to improve your aerodynamics.

meanwhile

No! I'm a software designer/systems analyst with a physics degree. Big difference! Like... umm.... let me think for a while...

meanwhile

I should probably confess that I'm a 220lb 5'10 mesomorph - I'm so dense that I sink in water when I stop moving fast enough to hydroplane. So my strategy for keeping up with friends on long uphills is to try to get them to talk a lot. And I'm don't worry about bike weight at all - it's a lost battle for me...

runningDoc

What's is up with all the UPGRADES? Can we just ride bikes that are kinda good and still do OK?

seriously though... all those upgrades you mentioned entail upgrades in performance and also can include upgrades in weight.

weight weeniesm is a hobby, akin to audiophiles. There is logic to the madness mind you, because there are tangible results: a lighter bike.

what I don't understand is how roadies differentiate carrying all their supplies in their jersey pocket as opposed to putting it on the bike (through a seatbag/in the waterbottle/ect). Thats where there is no difference because its weight that you'd carry anyway.

waltersc

Well said!

mpath

A seatbag adds weight.

On sub-century rides I carry two waterbottles; one for Gatoraid, the other for my extra tube and stuff.

hodie21

This^

v70cat

So only really good people should have light bike?

puppypilgrim

Oooh, home hi-fi...home to alchemic tube amps, digital-analog converters, room enhancements, secret-recipe cables, unusually shaped speakers (I use dipole planar speakers myself) and subjective reviews. I'm in! ;D

Psimet2001 

That's not what she said at all. She simply said that her current bike was heavier and she doesn't see any point in trying to shave weight off of it until she feels like that could mean the difference in how placings end up.

puppypilgrim

5'11"/143lb? I'd say pretty slim there my friend. Not much meat left on that bone. Should be a great climber.