Cyclelogikal

Seriously, weight off a bike is going to go unseen. Lose weight off your body by pushing yourself and getting stronger while eating right and you will see bigger gains no bike component can do for you!

rpenmanparker 

You are completely right, but missing the point. First of all, the two areas of weight reduction are not mutually exclusive. You can lose body weight and remove bike weight too, and get even better results. Or you can do the one you want to do. But more importantly, lighter bikes are simply more fun to ride, to maintain, to own. It is not just about speed and competitive results. It is about pure pleasure. Get on a 12-13 lb bike if you can find one and give it a try. There is nothing like it.

KevinF

I have two bikes. My beater is a 1998 Cannondale, comes in at about 23 pounds with its lights attached. The other is my 2004 Calfee which comes in at 17.5 pounds.

I still ride both on my commute, which is 18 miles each way. The time difference between the two bikes is, at most, one minute. The Cannondale feels like a tank though, and I always think I'm crawling... until I pull into the office and realize that it took essentially the exact same amount of time.

Now, if you're racing, that one minute over an hour time gap would be huge...

supe1

Wh..Where are his calves? How does he pedal? or walk?

c0urt

When I delivered in a hilly area, and spent 4-8 hours a day on a 26 pound steel bike, and few days on a 17 pound bike. It felt like a huge difference. over the course of a day, and any day i dont have to carry my camera bag, I feel faster.

Cookiemonsta

Of course, overall you want to have a light bike, since this will enable you to have the performance you are looking for. But beyond a certain weight, I am honestly just looking at the quality of the components. I mean, there is a lot to be gained going from (for example) a heavy comfort bike to a road bike. But the benefits diminish fast, and getting lighter and lighter becomes more expensive as well. There are definitely diminishing returns when it comes to buying high-end stuff to make your bike lighter. For myself, I think I found the sweet spot between price and performance. Paying any more would be kind of silly , since the marginal benefit really does not matter for most people.

That said, I get it. I get that if you are into a sport, you want to get the best gear available, even knowing that it is not the gear that will make you good at it. I have expensive shoes when playing soccer as well. But that was 50% look and 50% because they were good. The latter 50% was mostly in my head.

Cyclelogikal

No not really..............and I would surely bet the farm most people (average Joe's) will not be able to distinguish a 13 lb. bike from a 16 lb. in the grand scheme of the universe.

For the amount of money to drop weight on a bike which we are in all reality talking hundreds if not a thousand or so $$$'s you are better suited to ride a bike like a entry level if that is what you have and can only afford and lose body weight while conditioning your body to riding. Then down the road a few years upgrade to a new bike or used that has a bit better componetry and then you may really see gains.

Your theory is like putting a set of $3k custom made golf clubs in the hands of a rank amateur and expecting them to shoot scratch............not going to happen. Likewise you take a set of $150 clubs from K-Mart and put in the hands of Rory McElroy and he will shoot scratch or less first time using them.

You have to train the body first to get the benefits of better componetry in bikes. Hey, just my 2 cents but I bet I am almost within 2 feet of the hole as they say in golf!

rpenmanparker 

Yeah, it really is about missing the point, and you continue to do it. Maybe I should say one of the points. Certainly the performance question is important, by why can't you understand that it is not only about performance on the bike? I am talking about riding enjoyment, pride of ownership, the feel of a lighter bike when you haul it around. I have to guess you can't relate to these things because you have never experienced them. Quit betting the farm, and do what I said: go for a test ride on a really light bike. Perhaps you will be amazed by your performance gains, but I agree, likely not. But I am sure you will be amazed by how much fun a light bike is. You don't value that? It is not worth your money. Of course that's fine, but you can't say that feeling isn't there for other folks who do value it.

And you keep acting like losing body weight and bike weight are the same thing. Just lose the one that is cheaper to do! But there are very different things are not interchangeable. Why not find out for yourself?

DaveWC

Why do you assume that we are not "down the road a few years"? Your attitude seems to be that everyone talking about the benefits of a light bike have ridden for a week and are choosing between a Nashbar entry level bike and a Wilier Zero 7. Maybe you're at the entry level position so you can only see this discussion from a personal pov.

merlinextraligh

Give the rank amateur custom fit clubs matched to that rank amateur's swing speed, height, lie angle, propensity to fade or draw, etc. and that rank amateur won't shoot scratch, but his score will improve and he'll enjoy the game more.y

Conversely, give McIrory $150 clubs from KMart, he'll still be a + handicap, but he may drop out of the top 125. Just changing from Titleist to Nike coincided with a precipitous drop in his game.

https://www.sbnation.com/golf/2013/7/...faldo-titleist.

canam73

Golf sucks.

SirHustlerEsq

What kind of weight savings were achieved from a right lower-leg amputation?

Phantoj

in before the false dichotomy...


...wait, too late, never mind...

Peiper1

My take on this issue is that all those weight-saving things might make a difference, but it will be a negligible one for the vast majority of non-pro riders. That however is not the point. The point is that some people simply like to have (and can afford) the very best bike out there. It is after all just another toy, just like fast sports cars, expensive watches, tailored Italian suits, etc.

2 wheeler

I agree.

Riding a lighter bike is a LOT more fun. Even choosing lighter tires and tubes can make a bike ride better. I appreciate the superior ride quality of a light bike, even if I'm not racer material any longer. I can still feel the difference... and I LIKE it!

RoadMike

I think for a rider that doesn't race, the benefit of aero wheels and super light frames and components is primarily a psychological one. A light bike with nice wheels just feels like it should be faster. The perceived benefit is greater than the actual benefit, but because the perception of the benefit is exaggerated the rider increases their effort to make the performance more closely match their expectations.

Nihilum

If you're riding for exercise and enjoyment, then no...the weight doesn't matter. If you're racing or doing a tri, then yes, weight does matter.

rpenmanparker 

And then there is that aspect.

rpenmanparker 

"No, no, a thousand times no!" Weight matters if it matters to me (or you, or him...). One more time. Read my lips. The benefits of light weight bikes are not only the ability to accelerate and climb faster. Don't discount the joy of owning and riding a light bike, at least as perceived by some. It isn't just about racing performance.

kenshireen

I am the OP... I think some of you missed the essence of my question. I understand that a lighter bike will accelerate quicker et and is more fun to ride/own.. But et me give an analogy that will show you what I am really asking.

I have 2 bikes... A and B.. assume everything is equal (rider weight, skill etc)unless I state otherwise.

Bike A has a superlight water bottle cage weighing 20 gr but has a large water bottle filled with water.
Bike B has an old heavy water bottle cage weighing 300 gr but does not carry any water. Both bikes weigh the same with this setup. Any difference any difference in performance?

Bike A has a super light seatpost weighing 200 gr and a racing saddle weighing 150 gr. Bike B has a seapost and saddle that weigh a total of 800 gr... that is 450 gr heavier than bike B. However the rider of Bike A is carrying a camelback filled with water that weight 450 gr. Do both bike perform the same.

Bike A has a stem and bar that weigh one pound total. Bike B has a stem/bar wieghing 2 pounds total.
The rider of bike B weighs one pound less than bike A... Do both bikes perform the same?

rpenmanparker 

Actually answers to those questions did appear earlier in the thread. All weight is more or less the same on the bike with regard to climbing and cruising. All weight is the same on the bike with regard to acceleration (and deceleration) unless it is rotating which makes the weight more significant, and in that case the larger the mass average radius of rotation, the more important is the weight. So reducing wheel weight is more significant than reducing frame weight as far as acceleration is concerned because the wheel is rotating mass and the frame isn't. But a lighter hub is less important than a lighter rim because the hub is closer to the center of rotation. Similarly a lighter wheel is more significant than a lighter crank because of the difference in radii of the two rotating bodies.

Rider weight is much more complicated an issue. Most simply you could just lump the rider in with the other non-rotation weight. But rider weight also relates to rider power, so it is not so simple after all.

rebel1916

Why wouldn't there be any water in bike Bs cage. That doesn't make sense. If you aren't carrying water, remove the heavy cage.

Also, rpenmanparker is right. Those disagreeing with him are silly geese.

WhyFi

You're just fanning the flames of a new argument - someone will be here to shortly to tell you you're wrong.

rpenmanparker 

True.

kenshireen

This is a hypothetical situation... the point being the weight is the same on both bikes...