Yeah, me too.

It's hard enough to get clear information on the extra cost of rotating weight at the wheel rim (which has a much larger moment arm). It seems rather bold to claim that the cost of extra pedal weight is "especially true" because it is rotating.

You've been given examples of OEM bikes that are lighter than yours and some that are less than 13 lbs. Do you expect all OEM bikes to be lighter than yours? All you have to do is spec something other than SRAM Red and you're going to be heavier all else being equal. But you might be cheaper. Or more durable. Or have better shifting. Or preferred ergonomics. Weight is not the only quality of a bike that people consider. It's certainly objective and measurable, but it's not the be-all and end-all.

As for folks paying the big bucks and getting lighter bikes, that's generally how it works as you work your way up every OEM's product line. Top line Madone's weigh less than the bottom of the line. The weight savings occurs from higher end components and higher end frame construction (usually higher modulus carbon fiber in a carbon fiber frame).

So what really is your question?

No question you are 100% correct. BUT ( you knew there would be a but, right) I'm talking about standardization. If you can't compare your number to a published OEM number, there is a disconnect. That's why I say go with the flow and do it like the OEMs. And about the pedals being rotating weight, that's true but not very significant say compared to wheels because of the short moment arm and low rotating speed. It is a real effect, just not very large.

I think if you're going to compare bicycle weights, it only makes sense to weigh them as ridden with all parts that are considered part of the bike. If you ride with pedals, include them. If you ride with bottle cages installed, include them. Leave off things that are not part of the bike like water bottles, food, and tools (that are sometimes carried in jersey pockets anyway).

I dont think many people give a crap about manufacturer's claimed weight, or even believe it. I was under the impression this weight is often given sans saddle as well.

So the only number that matters is the one on the scale when you hang up your bike after getting off it. OK, take off your water bottle, but nothing else. This is the number that is used universally, in my experience.

Other than tires, tubes, rim, nipples, and part of the spokes it has the highest rotating mass of anything on the bike.

Probably sans saddle, bar tape, cables, cable housing, frame paint, tubes, and anything else they need to remove to get the weight they are looking for. Paying any attention to manufacturers weights is pretty much worthless. Oh, they also weigh the smallest frameset available.

Are you really wanting to standardize the way manufacturers weigh bikes and the way consumers weigh bikes? You won't even find two manufacturers that weigh their bikes the same. Actually, you won't even find a manufacturer that weighs their bikes the way they claim they weigh their bikes.

After you finish getting everyone to weigh their bikes the same way please start working on getting them to all measure / size their bikes the same way. That would be awesome!

Just for fun, I put some numbers into the bike calculator. I assumed 250W power output, rider weight 154 pounds, and a WW bike weight of 6.5kg (14.3 pounds), and a "normal" bike weight of 8.5 Kg (18.7 pounds, which is likely what mine weighs with a water bottle and saddle bag).

Anyway, the difference on a completely flat course is negligible. I think we can all agree on that.

I put in a 20Km ride with an 8% climb of 10Km and an 8% descent of 10Km. I think this is a reasonable climb one might find on a ride, either all at once or (in my area) 1 Km at a time...anyway the difference on the descent is negligible (actually the heavier bike is a tiny bit faster!), and the time saved by the weight loss on the climb(s) is a whopping 1 minute.

Now if you are racing that 1 minute difference may be significant...however for most recreational cyclists that doesn't really matter...it certainly doesn't matter to me...and I suspect (you would need a different calculator) you could save that 1 minute and more by getting a set of aero wheels.

Your points are well stated and convincing. And other recent posts have addressed my question well also such as the comments about having to appeal to a broad market of variou weight riders. Let's just say I was reading reviews in the magazine whose name may not be mentioned. I had an emotional response to the prices and weights I saw. Kind of like, "Is that the best you can do for that much money?". I just thought it would be fun to kick around here. Buried among all the different kinds of answers i received there were some that really hit home, like yours. I hope that explains it.

So?

The "1 pound off the wheels = 2 pounds off the bike" rule does appear to accurate (the extra cost appears to be much less).

Speed play cleats are heavy.

https://www.training4cyclists.com/buy...ts-and-prices/

What sort of "especially true" performance benefit do you expect with 158 less grams (taking into account all the other weight that is rotating with the pedals)?

No, it appears that it's the weight as sold (but possibly a small frame). The bikes are typically sold without pedals.

This is silly.

Except this.

Good job! But you know what the next question is. What about the lower weight and the aero wheels together? Or at least as much of the lower weight as you can preserve when you change out the wheels. That is what the pro teams are doing for sure.

I think the main take away is that if you aren't racing with significant hills, weight is not that important.

Actually it is one pound off the wheels equals two pounds off the bike.

Oh, I'm not saying 158 grams is going to make much difference at all. I'm just playing the "weight weenie" game right now.

Yes.

Of course, note that most riders rarely use the drops!

Pardon me for asking but shouldn't it be the reverse: 1 pound off the wheels =2 pounds off the bike? That is the enhanced effect of removing rotating weight.

You "should" be right, however it is far from it. Hell, a frame weight can vary almost a pound from claimed weight to actual weight.

Crap! Got it backwards. I haven't come across any good reference for the effect.

You were implying it. The problem with silly weight arguments is that people have no idea of the size of the benefit.

People argue about weight mostly because it's something easy to measure (and brag about).

There's no evidence to suggest that I'm not right. The posted weights are not a contract. Given that there's some normal variation and the bike components might not be the same, if one is interested in the weight of a bike, one would have to measure the actual bike in question. If people take the quoted weight as "gospel", then they are stupid.

If I'm in a no win "debate" I might as well imply things I reckon.

Yes, it's backwards. And there's no credible reference that supports the notion that the effect is anywhere near two-fold. My attempt at finding a reference appears to indicate that the effect is much less.

Pro teams run tubulars, which are significantly lighter than clinchers and have other properties that are important to racers but more hassle than most amateur riders want to deal with. But on any given day and course you will see riders making different choices in wheels and other equipment. Some of it is based on who is sponsoring them, but a lot of it is based on the rider's preference for the course.

Edit:

I'll also add that "more aero" often has tradeoffs. I have Zipp 404's on my primary bike and Hed Belgiums on my backup. On days that I am anticipating strong crosswinds, I'll opt for the bike with Heds because the bike is much more stable under those conditions. Being able to easily hold my line is more important to me than the aero benefits. On days that are more conducive to the 404's I'll take that bike mainly because I like it a little more.

+1

When going up hill, which is where weight is most important, it doesn't matter where the weight is; At the end of your cranks, on your rims - none of it matters when you're not accelerating. It all counts as weight 1 for 1. And if you start talking about the little micro accelerations that occur when you're pressing on the pedals they are just that, micro, and not relevant.