That is a constant. No matter how fat, you or your bike is, you should always be doing that.

Did it ever occur to you two how much easier and fulfilling it would be to particpate in forums if you had ever learned to read. Look back in those seven, now eight pages and see what I said. You will have your pictures next week when I return from travel. And you know what puzzles me: if I am the troll, how come it is you who are instigating the trouble. I don't suppose it is possible to repeat my earlier advice (which you probably also missed) too many times: get a life.

How is the weather in Travel?


Seriously, you've already been given the answer to your question a few pages ago but you didn't seem to accept or even acknowledge it.

Your price comparison is seriously flawed and it will take pics to verify your weight claims (on 3 different scales as you mentioned).

Lol

I like travel, Make sure to hit up restaurant for some good food and park to people watch. Bar is also a great place for a drink

I can't reasonably dispute this.

as usual, this debate is semantics. weight does matter.

to what extent it matters depends on each person, what they are trying to do on the bike, and how much weight. only a fool goes without water during the summer, so most of us gladly carry 3 pounds of water. yes there is a noticeable difference between a 18 pound bike and a 38 pound bike. the difference is obviously less as the weight reduces further to 17, 16, 13 pounds. I doubt it's diminishing returns, every pound probably matters the same, but the pounds do become harder and more expensive to lose.

for most of us, weight isn't the most important thing. we achieve what we achieve based on our endurance and power on the bike.

for those competing, if they are competitive in their group this implies they are doing the work necessary and have the innate physical gifts required to be a peer of their opponents. thus weight matters more for them. all weight carried by the bike-- their body weight, the bike's weight, all of it. improving themselves still matters more than improving the bike, but because they are in a competitive group, they need every advantage.

Just for the heck of it I did an IP search. I can verify that he is halfway across the country from where he was when he started the thread.

Very well stated, ColinL.

This is diminishing returns (the benefit divided by the cost becomes smaller). (Clearly, we aren't talking about pounds weighing less.)

I see that you are also reading-challenged like the two yahoos just above. If you will go back a bit, you will find my appreciative responses to a number of posts with opinions about my question that I could readily accept. When one asks a question, it is rude to disregard the answer. That doesn't mean that every answer must be accepted as fact, however. The purpose of the original post was to open discussion on the topic, not to settle the question according to a certain line of thought. I think the post has been very successful in doing that. I have learned a lot from this exchange of information. I wonder if you have.

As far as the photos you so rabidly seek, well I have explained the delay and there is not much else I can do about it. You know the ancient proverb: "Good things come to those who wait." I think a little waiting is what is required here.

more semantics but not really.

diminishing returns on weight itself would mean that the going from 38 to 37 pounds matters more than going from 16 to 15. it does not. all pounds are equal.

you are talking about diminishing returns on money spent to reduce weight of your bike, which no one would argue with.

My plan is to go from 195 lbs to 175 lbs by September. Can't lose that on a 20 lb bike.

Your souls are mine.

Who is arguing otherwise?

Anyway, no one is really talking about 37 lb bicycles (which is very heavy for a bicycle).

But this is the issue. It's not that people argue against it. It is that they ignore it.

The 3-5 pound difference that we are talking about produces a small difference in performance. This small performance difference is very valuable to racers who have a chance at winning. That it is valuable to racers doesn't mean it has the same value to non-racers.

The original post is flawed because it assumes the only important property of bicycles is weight. It's also flawed because of it's implicit assumption that a $10,000 bicycle is a efficient purchase and that the only thing you are paying-for is less weight. It's the diminishing returns (benefit/cost) that establishes that it isn't efficient.

It appears that the practical limit of bicycle weight is about 13 lbs. The fact that a bicycle costs $10,000 doesn't change physics.

38 pounds is not unheard of for a cruiser or an old/cheap MTB. I do realize that no proper road bike ever weighed 38 pounds.

anyway, there's also at least 3 curves for diminishing returns on capital deployed:
- new complete bike or new component at msrp
- best sale/ebay/whatever price on new bike or component
- used

the OP was comparing new complete bikes weighed on a scale to his optimized combination of sale and used parts. and the reason I disbelieve his claimed weights are this: he knows his claimed component weights (good sign that he has tracked and added them for a composite total), others with similar builds such as gsteinb have heavier bikes, and he hasn't posted a picture of the scale.

I wouldn't need a picture for proof if he had a solid reputation here or if others were agreeing that his weight claims were reasonable.


I think we've beat this dead horse way more than enough.

You really need to learn to sit back and observe an established community before you wade in and start slinging mud.

BDop is a wealth of bicycle industry and racing experience and knowledge that he readily shares. He is deserving of a modicum of respect and trust in his word. You, on the other hand, are new here and need to earn those things.

Then, it's weird that you are talking about them.

The OP's price comparison stuff is dopey.

The OP clearly thinks that he's smarter than everybody else. He was clueless in thinking that people here were going to welcome his crowing about it.

It was an example that you took exception to an started this whole side discussion. I could have written 28 instead of 38, but you'd still say no road bike weighs 28 pounds. Look at the original context. The point is that each pound counts the same, which you already agreed with. I am truly sorry that I didn't say 22 to 21 pounds is the same as 14 to 13.

and on the second part... completely agreed. his attitude is why some folks thought he was trolling. he apparently isn't trolling, but when someone walks in like he owns the place, no one is impressed. bravado doesn't impress me in person, either. if this conversation that the OP started with happened in a bike shop, I'd nod and smile, then walk on. my fault for not letting this thread die the early death it should have!

This thing about performance is only for racers is somthing that gets me. Performance increases are just that - it doesn't make any difference whether you race or not. If you value that extra performance, that's it and all that matters.

Everybody agrees with it. You are arguing against a strawman.

And the "original context" (the original post) was asking the question "why don't expensive bicycles weigh much less than relatively cheaper ones". The fact that there are really heavy bicycles doesn't answer that.

(At least you didn't talk about 175 lb mopeds like some one did in another thread!)

Yes, he missed all that!

I said a lot of things in the post with the 38 pounds. *you* singled out that piece for additional discussion. if you felt it was a given, wouldn't it have been wise to not bother commenting on, let alone argue about agreeing?

+1!!

This thread is a hoot.

Am I the only one impressed that he was able to build a bike of that quality for 3500?

Looks like a really nice ride for that money.

Weight on my bike is not my concern right now at about 18 lbs it is good enough for me. I want to lose ten pounds and am stuck on my weight right now. My speed is increasing slightly so I am not overly concerned. I do want to climb faster so I continue with the effort

OP is a German Weight Weenie. He referred to "Bicycling Magazin" exactly how they spell it, in Deutschland. They are also notorious for never replying.....lol.

My bike may weigh 15.8 pounds....but it accelerates like a missile. And, I'm no Kilojoule burner!

People are free to value what they want. But that they value something doesn't mean it's rational.

Given the time and money that it takes to be a competitive racer and the rarity of winning, the extra cost of a small benefit clearly makes sense. Outside of racing, it is not so clear. Yet many people think "it's worth it for me because it's worth it for racers" (which isn't really correct as a universal rule).

Many people buy really-expensive bicycles because they can, not because it's efficient.

An illustration of this is people who ride expensive bicycles but rarely use the drops!

Anyway, what people should be interested in is what actual performance benefit any particular thing has. Instead, they often are vague and overly optimistic about the benefits.

Because cyclists are so fixated on weight, they might miss other (possibly more effective) ways to get a particular performance benefit.

You can see this happening in this thread:

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...quot-is-a-myth

Talking about 38 pound bicycles is silly.