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

Why not lighter?

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

Why not lighter?

Old 06-06-12, 05:48 AM
  #101  
out walking the earth
 
gsteinb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake Placid, NY
Posts: 21,441
Liked 752 Times in 342 Posts
I'm all for different strokes (moderator). That tone seemed to be missing from some of the earlier posts, thus the answers that sought to refute the why isn't this more commonplace question.
gsteinb is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 05:52 AM
  #102  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,468

Bikes: 2011 Cervelo S2, 2001Trek USPS 5200, 06 Cervelo P3 Alum, 1999 Schwinn Pro Stock BMX, 1987 Schwinn Traveler

Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gregf83
Another philosophy grad who failed high school physics...
That sums it up I'd say.

Originally Posted by abstractform20
im pretty sure it takes more energy to move an object with more mass.

are you suggesting the there are times when a cyclist wastes energy when choosing to move an object/bike of lesser mass?
As much of a weight weenie as I am, I must point out this is a possible scenario when you bring aerodynamics into play on a flat course. Say bike A, is an 11lbs Cervelo R5ca, with superlite box section wheels, and for conversation sake bike B is my S2 at just under 13lbs on my 404s. If both bikes are on the same flat course, and not drafting anyone. The heavier aero bike will require less energy to go the same speed. As soon as you start climbing hills however weight becomes much more important.

Since some of you may not be familiar with me, or my S2 here is the proof some of you requested of the OP.


Weight was as in this picture, except it is 7g heavier with the new Red FD, well actually it was 11g heavier, but then I took the Dremel to RD and cut 4g out.
Soloist Assassin is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 05:53 AM
  #103  
SLJ 6/8/65-5/2/07
 
Walter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SE Florida, USA aka the Treasure Coast
Posts: 5,399
Liked 20 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
Interesting perspective and certainly valid. A couple of alternative thoughts: First my quoted costs were "all in", shipping and taxes when paid were definitey included as were LBS charges for the one or two mechanical tasks I didn't have the experience to perform (then) like head set installation and fork cutting. Second cycling is not only my exercise, it is also my hobby. So the search, the ebay haggling, the anticipation of delivery, the mechanical work are all part of the project and a major part of the satisfaction. I don't just ride a great bike or two or three (that is the spousal limit), but I ride great bikes THAT I BUILT. Not everyone cares about this, but I do. Different strokes...
I'll join in late...

I'm like you in that I'm willing to scour eBay and elsewhere for deals. I ride a Ti Litespeed with Campy Record that is probably less than $2K out of pocket. Obviously, that's a fraction of what it would've been msrp at a LBS. But it's also not a fair comparison. Parts were used or NOS or bought only after many hours of scouring eBay and European suppliers and similar sources. It took time to find these parts and more time for me to build (most of) the bike. It just is completely different than taking a bike off a shop floor or even filling out the spec sheets at the shop and having the parts ordered and the bike built for you.

The Ultimate was considered a pretty light Ti frame but my bike certainly ain't 14lbs. I have some heavy stuff on there but I don't see getting it to 14 without dropping several thousand dollars if even then. I'd like to see your build.
__________________
“Life is not one damned thing after another. Life is one damned thing over and over.”
Edna St. Vincent Millay
Walter is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 05:55 AM
  #104  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
By the way, in all the hubbub no one seems to have picked up on my comment about also having a 16.3 pound STEEL Ritchey Breakaway. To see what is possible you can just extrapolate the weight of the carbon bike on the basis of the frame weight difference. Actually it was built with some cheaper and slightly heavier parts like an aluminum bar and SRAM Rival derailleurs. Now that is a sweet ride. It is satisfying to reach 14.0 lb with carbon, more so with Ti, but 16.3 with steel. Now that feels good... in every sense. I am about comfort for long rides, and I have never had better in that respect than the Ritchey steel. Oh yeah, also around $3,000, all in. Paid close to retail for the frame new, but not quite.
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 05:56 AM
  #105  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 855

Bikes: Surly Disc Trucker, Ribble Nero Corsa, Surly Karate Monkey, Surly Ice Cream Truck, Cannondale MT800, Evil Insurgent

Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by abstractform20
this is like reading the comments on youtube from people in opposition to evolution...

"its only a theory..."

Dear Jesus Christ-opher Hitchens,

Save us all.

In your name, Darwin.
Not true at all. Pointing out that something is a theory and not a "fact" is not an expression on the merits of the issue.

Evolution has elements of both theory and fact. We have watched generations of some simpler organisms evolve. Those observations are "facts." The broader conclusions we've drawn given such observations are the theory, and predictions based on those phenomena are also theory.

Originally Posted by abstractform20
im pretty sure it takes more energy to move an object with more mass.

are you suggesting the there are times when a cyclist wastes energy when choosing to move an object/bike of lesser mass?
I'm pretty sure that it'd be easier to move a 5,000 lb automobile on flat ground, in neutral, with the brakes not applied than it would be to push a 2,500 lb. block of stone across the same stretch of street. This suggests that there might (at least there is the possibility) that there are more variables at play, and that people who agree about the underlying theory might disagree about the conclusions.

If you read what I said, however, I wasn't disagreeing about the merits. I was merely saying that one person's interpretation of the facts is not a fact.

Originally Posted by robotkiller
Remove all variables, leaving identical riders in identical conditions riding bikes that are identical with the exception of one being heavier. The heavier bike will require greater force to achieve the same acceleration. Granted, these test conditions do not exist in real life, and there are other variables which can play a greater role than weight when bike performance is assessed. That said, the affect of weight is hard to refute, as it applies to acceleration in a theoretical context.
Those are expressions--conclusions--on the merits of the issue. The reasons why such a conclusion could be technically correct on paper and completely wrong in the real world, youv'e already identified. There is no way to "remove all variables" because we cannot observe something like "all variables." That's why there's still something for the 41 to argue about--the world doesn't reduce itself to simple arithmetic for everything.

I never said that anyone's particular application of theory was the right one. I just said that their application is not a "fact."

Gravity probably provides a good example. An application of gravity suggests that if I were to release an object, that it would fall toward the earth. Even though everyone knows that's the case, it's not a "fact" that it would occur. It's repetition of all your past experiences (when objects are released, they always fall).

The fact is the observation once you release the object (when I released the object, I observed that it fell).

There is a distinction between telling someone that their conclusion is "only a theory" and saying that their application of that theory is wrong or unjustified.

If it weren't, then two scientists could never disagree with each other. But scientists disagree every day, and both are using the scientific method. They don't disagree about "facts" and their conclusions--based on the agreed methods--are not facts. Their observations are "facts." What those facts imply about the world is where they disagree.

Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. I'm as certain as I'll ever be that if I were to push something off the table that I'm sitting at, that it would fall toward the earth, but that still doesn't make it "fact" that it would do so.
twodownzero is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 06:00 AM
  #106  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
"Obviously, that's a fraction of what it would've been msrp at a LBS. But it's also not a fair comparison. Parts were used or NOS or bought only after many hours of scouring eBay and European suppliers and similar sources. It took time to find these parts and more time for me to build (most of) the bike. It just is completely different than taking a bike off a shop floor or even filling out the spec sheets at the shop and having the parts ordered and the bike built for you."

In home construction/ownership it is known as "sweat equity" and is a highly valued approach to buying more than you can afford.
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 06:13 AM
  #107  
pan y agua
 
merlinextraligh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,357

Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike

Liked 769 Times in 396 Posts
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
I didn't say I thought the bikes weigh 14.0 lb. I said they do weigh 14.0 lb. If you care, here is the recipe for the carbon bike:

2007 Giant TCR Advanced M Frame (not SL) and fork. Frame weight is 1207 g, 227 g (0.5 lb) HEAVIER than an early review promised.
Red Groupo except for Zero Gravity (195 g) brake calipers and KMC lightest chain
Red inner and outer cables
Performance Pro Carbon seat post
Terry Falcon Y (227 g) saddle
FSA OS-99 stem
FSA SLK bar
Cane Creek IS-8 headset
American Classic Micro 58 and Road 205 hubs
Kinlin SR 200 rims - 20/24
Sapim C-XRay spokes
Ritchey rim tape
Continental GP 4000 tires 23mm
Performance Lunar Light tubes
Look Keo carbon 240g pedals
I'm having trouble believing that weighs 14 lbs even. My TCR Team Advanced SL, with Dura Ace 7800, and Zipp 303 tubulars weighs 14.9lbs on my LBS's scale.

While your Red group is lighter than the D/A on my bike, the wheels , saddle, pedals, and frame (compared to frame and seatpost), are lighter on my bike.

I'd believe just under 15lbs for that setup. I'm struggling with the math for 14 even.
__________________
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
merlinextraligh is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 07:43 AM
  #108  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,745

Bikes: S-Works Roubaix SL2^H4, Secteur Sport, TriCross, Kaffenback, Lurcher 29er

Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
I am interested that the discussion zeroed in on my cost. That was really just extra information.
Are you for real? Your entire original post was about two things: 1) weight and 2) cost, and why bike manufacturers don't build bikes in line with the (still dubious) weights you claim for the costs you claim. The cost wasn't "extra information", it was an integral part of your post.

By the way, the assumptions you make about people in here not building their bikes (I do, including setting headsets, cutting steerers, and building wheels) are pretty amusing. There are quite a few here who do build their own bikes (or substantially modify a stock bike, often resulting in take-off parts that are sold on the cheap on eBay) because of how bikes are spec'd, which BDop outlined very well for you.
svtmike is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 08:17 AM
  #109  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 4,144
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
Your comment about concessions is very interesting to me. That is exactly why I posted in the first place. Please tell me what you mean. When I point out the choices I made and suggest they are not concessions, I get thrashed on the grounds of my style of setting out the information. But the underlying quality issues is the discussion I was hoping to have. Please say more. And as for the price difference, yes it is not apples to apples, but isn't that the point? Cheaper bike, lighter weight.
I would suggest that few would be willing to give up their excellent dual pivot brakes for a set of Zero Gravs, from my (albeit limited) experience with them. Also, I would expect a set of 1250g clinchers to be unacceptably flexy, fragile, and short-lived for most riders. That weight has to come from somewhere, and I bet they wouldn't last me one season before I went through the brake track. Of course, I ride in the rain, but still.

The point about the cost is that you're starting the whole comparison with an enormous advantage. There is simply no red, carbon equipped bike available new (from a major manuf), at any weight. If you take the true, new cost of your bike and compare it to similarly priced models from the manufacturers, and then simply subtract the weight-weenie parts...well the conversation ends because the results are identical.
Commodus is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 08:45 AM
  #110  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,576
Liked 2,590 Times in 1,537 Posts
After reading through the whole thread I still don't know what the OP is wanting from the thread. Is he tooting his own horn and patting himself on the back? Is he ranting about the OEMs and thinks they are duping their customers? OP, what was/is the intention of your post? To inform the public?

The OEMs sell their products at the prices they do because they can. If you think you can do better, which you are trying to to prove in these posts, then take the plunge and start your own company. If you are successful we will be talking about your bikes like the OEMs. Good luck, I hope you are successful.
seypat is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 08:54 AM
  #111  
Professional Fuss-Budget
 
Bacciagalupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,494
Liked 25 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
I am interested that the discussion zeroed in on my cost. That was really just extra information. My real focus was the weight.... My parts pick is anything but esoteric, and my Giant frame was far heavier than "promised" in its reviews. If I could do it under these conditons, why couldn't they do even better with such resources and array of components at their disposal?
Again: A modern manufacturer won't even sell a fairly light frameset for the costs you're citing.

Cervelo won't sell a 13 pound wonder-bike for $3500 at retail, when they are charging close to $3000 for the frame alone, and when a SRAM Red gruppo retails for $2000.

Again: Your perception of retail pricing is heavily skewed by your own ability to buy stuff cheap, assemble it yourself, and have no intent whatsoever to resell it.
Bacciagalupe is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 09:09 AM
  #112  
Speechless
 
RollCNY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Central NY
Posts: 8,842

Bikes: Felt Brougham, Lotus Prestige, Cinelli Xperience,

Likes: 0
Liked 39 Times in 16 Posts
On the lighter side:

From a different angle, you have three bikes weighing 14.0, 14.0, and 16.3, which cost $3k-3.5k each. Lets call it $10k across the 3, netting you 44.3 lbs. of bike. In $ per lb, that is $225.73 per lb. To achieve this, you have a mix of new and used parts.

I have three bikes, weighing 19.25, 19.75, and 22.0, with a total investment of $3700, and all parts purchased new, and totally outside of e-bay. Total weight of 61 lbs, and a cost of $60.66 per lb.

Clearly, on price per pound, you could have done much better.
RollCNY is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:01 AM
  #113  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 3 Posts
Came across this article on Velonews: https://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...uestion_222524. Not sure if it will shed any light on this conversation but I found it interesting.
Mayday328 is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:20 AM
  #114  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe
Again: A modern manufacturer won't even sell a fairly light frameset for the costs you're citing.

Cervelo won't sell a 13 pound wonder-bike for $3500 at retail, when they are charging close to $3000 for the frame alone, and when a SRAM Red gruppo retails for $2000.

Again: Your perception of retail pricing is heavily skewed by your own ability to buy stuff cheap, assemble it yourself, and have no intent whatsoever to resell it.
What part of I'm not talking about what I paid do you not understand? I'm asking why with such light frames now available don't OEMs make 13 lb bikes for the money they are able to get from folks. I think the folks who pay the big bucks should get a lighter bike. I just used my bike weight and price to show how much room there was for improvement by OEMs not to suggest light bikes should be going for $3,500. Sheesh!
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:28 AM
  #115  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by RollCNY
From a different angle, you have three bikes weighing 14.0, 14.0, and 16.3, which cost $3k-3.5k each. Lets call it $10k across the 3, netting you 44.3 lbs. of bike. In $ per lb, that is $225.73 per lb. To achieve this, you have a mix of new and used parts.

I have three bikes, weighing 19.25, 19.75, and 22.0, with a total investment of $3700, and all parts purchased new, and totally outside of e-bay. Total weight of 61 lbs, and a cost of $60.66 per lb.

Clearly, on price per pound, you could have done much better.
You can only ride one bike at a time. Personally ( that means it is just my opinion) I would rather have one 14 lb bike than three heavier ones. Sorry but you don't accelerate a pound easier just because it was cheaper. Icould hardly have done better for the weight I got. Intersting perspective though. I will have to keep that in mind.
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:29 AM
  #116  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,458
Liked 1,454 Times in 1,009 Posts
Originally Posted by twodownzero
I'm pretty sure that it'd be easier to move a 5,000 lb automobile on flat ground, in neutral, with the brakes not applied than it would be to push a 2,500 lb. block of stone across the same stretch of street. This suggests that there might (at least there is the possibility) that there are more variables at play, and that people who agree about the underlying theory might disagree about the conclusions.


Obviously, lighter weight is preferable all else being equal.

Comparing a car to an over-sized brick is stupid. No one else is doing that.

Last edited by njkayaker; 06-06-12 at 10:40 AM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:33 AM
  #117  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,458
Liked 1,454 Times in 1,009 Posts
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
By the way, in all the hubbub no one seems to have picked up on my comment about also having a 16.3 pound STEEL Ritchey Breakaway.
Meh. Seems heavy

https://www.rodcycle.com/
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:35 AM
  #118  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
I'm having trouble believing that weighs 14 lbs even. My TCR Team Advanced SL, with Dura Ace 7800, and Zipp 303 tubulars weighs 14.9lbs on my LBS's scale.

While your Red group is lighter than the D/A on my bike, the wheels , saddle, pedals, and frame (compared to frame and seatpost), are lighter on my bike.

I'd believe just under 15lbs for that setup. I'm struggling with the math for 14 even.
Right. Please remember I did correct myself to stipulate without the pedals as is normal for posting a bike weight. Sorry if that caused any confusion. What do your Zipps weigh with the skewers your are using and the rim tapes?
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:37 AM
  #119  
Throw the stick!!!!
 
LowCel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 18,150

Bikes: GMC Denali

Liked 92 Times in 31 Posts
Why don't bike companies make their bikes lighter? Simple. They have to warranty their bikes. If they put an ultra-light wheelset on and the rider taco's it while jra then sues them they just lost a lot of profit. Same goes for handlebars, stem, seatposts, and light weight brakes.

Also, all customers don't weigh 150 pounds, the company has to make the bike work for 220 - 240 pound riders. Any idea how many sales a company would lose if they put 150 pound weight limit on their top of the line bikes? A lot of heavy people have money and some of those people like to ride nice bikes.
__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.
LowCel is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:38 AM
  #120  
Throw the stick!!!!
 
LowCel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 18,150

Bikes: GMC Denali

Liked 92 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
Right. Please remember I did correct myself to stipulate without the pedals as is normal for posting a bike weight. Sorry if that caused any confusion. What do your Zipps weigh with the skewers your are using and the rim tapes?
Actually without pedals is the normal way for a bike company to post the weights. Most people here need pedals to ride so they include them in the weight of their bike. Same goes for water bottle cages.

Also, tubulars don't use rim tape.
__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.
LowCel is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:42 AM
  #121  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by svtmike
Are you for real? Your entire original post was about two things: 1) weight and 2) cost, and why bike manufacturers don't build bikes in line with the (still dubious) weights you claim for the costs you claim. The cost wasn't "extra information", it was an integral part of your post.

By the way, the assumptions you make about people in here not building their bikes (I do, including setting headsets, cutting steerers, and building wheels) are pretty amusing. There are quite a few here who do build their own bikes (or substantially modify a stock bike, often resulting in take-off parts that are sold on the cheap on eBay) because of how bikes are spec'd, which BDop outlined very well for you.
Nope, never meant to suggest no one builds or modifies bikes, just talking to those who don't. Really I'm glad we share that interest and experience. Bike building is good for your soul. Enjoy.
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:44 AM
  #122  
RT
The Weird Beard
 
RT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: COS
Posts: 8,554
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by IthaDan
I will never understand the mentality that asks a question only to fight off and dismiss the answers.
This happens because the 41 responses very often take the contrary position just because. OP is correct in the opening of his response. It takes many, many posts to harden up enough to have these just roll off ignored.

It is the way of the internet.

More on topic - my bikes are not nearly as light as the OP's, but I build all of my bikes as well, and have also wondered at how my bikes come in significantly lighter that what my LBS carries or the big manufacturers spec. I'm not using exotic brands, quite the contrary, I am using easily accessible budget yet durable parts like Tektro, FSA and Dimension.

EDIT: LowCel, your manufacturer's bike spec'ing theory is sound.

Last edited by RT; 06-06-12 at 10:56 AM.
RT is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:48 AM
  #123  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by LowCel
Actually without pedals is the normal way for a bike company to post the weights. Most people here need pedals to ride so they include them in the weight of their bike. Same goes for water bottle cages.

Also, tubulars don't use rim tape.
Right you are about the tape. My mistake. But about the policy of posting bike weights with or without pedals wouldn't you agree that one standard is necessary. You are not going to change the OEMs policy. Wouldn't it make sense for everyone to post weights without pedals? Less confusion and such. Sure you have to have pedals to ride, but it is just a comparative number. As long as everyone understands what is or is not included, there is a basis for comparison.
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:51 AM
  #124  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Originally Posted by LowCel
Why don't bike companies make their bikes lighter? Simple. They have to warranty their bikes. If they put an ultra-light wheelset on and the rider taco's it while jra then sues them they just lost a lot of profit. Same goes for handlebars, stem, seatposts, and light weight brakes.

Also, all customers don't weigh 150 pounds, the company has to make the bike work for 220 - 240 pound riders. Any idea how many sales a company would lose if they put 150 pound weight limit on their top of the line bikes? A lot of heavy people have money and some of those people like to ride nice bikes.
I can get behind that answer. Thanks. Makes sense.
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 06-06-12, 10:52 AM
  #125  
Throw the stick!!!!
 
LowCel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 18,150

Bikes: GMC Denali

Liked 92 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
Right you are about the tape. My mistake. But about the policy of posting bike weights with or without pedals wouldn't you agree that one standard is necessary. You are not going to change the OEMs policy. Wouldn't it make sense for everyone to post weights without pedals? Less confusion and such. Sure you have to have pedals to ride, but it is just a comparative number. As long as everyone understands what is or is not included, there is a basis for comparison.
Actually, I don't agree at all. The bike manufacturer has no idea what pedals you are going to ride, you do. Simply weigh your pedals and add that to the bike weight.

How is not including the pedal weight "fair" for everyone? If I spend the money for a pair of ti speedplays and another person has some heavy Shimano 105 pedals wouldn't it be "unfair" to me for us to not include pedal weight when comparing? This is especially true since this is rotating weight.
__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.
LowCel is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.