Aluminum bikes are almost automatically 2lbs lighter than the same size steel bike w/ similar components. You will have to spend quite a bit to drop 2lbs on non-frame/fork components on a steel bike.

Getting a bike down to 18lbs is easy. Getting it to 16 or sub 16 is exponentially more expensive.

Fit is more important than weight, but if the Langster fits you better, then you get fit and a lighter bike.

Weight... is sign of reliability...

I like to go fast and enjoy things like climbing hills and doing intervals. Weight is a factor for me but there's other important aspects of a bike as well. I think a lighter bike feels better in most conditions. A couple exceptions are bombing big hills (more weight makes me feel more stable and less like I'm going to start flying away) and riding in really ****ty conditions (like snow or wind). Other than that, less weight is nice for me. I've got two bikes, one is ~19 or 19.5lb, the other is ~17. While there's a couple important variables (17lb bike has looseball bearings, 19lb has sealed; 17lb bike has track drops, 19lb has bullhorns), the 17 feels nicer to ride. I'm gonna sell off the 17lb and build a Concept to have something like 15 or 16lb, too, if I can get my hands on one.

Like Ken said, one of the most important areas to look is the wheels, and specifically the TIRES. Rotational weight matters more the farther you move away from the hub: therefore hub weight doesn't matter a whole lot for ratational mass (mostly it's a factor for weight weenie roadies doing long climbs), while tires are the most important. Want to rapidly change the feel of your bike? Go from 700x23 racing slicks to 700x35 touring tires... you'll see what I'm saying. Rims are also pretty important: I can't see myself riding any rim over 500g unless it was a nice Zipp or HED that I got for cheap.

It's important to remember the non-weight factors that change the bike's feel too: drivetrain efficiency (having good components, keeping your chain clean/lubed, replacing things when they die out) as well as bearings. Ride some ****ty old bearings, or ill-maintained looseballs, and then compare it to some freshly broken-in quality sealed bearings and see how each feel. Then compare all of it to loose ball and see how superior that is!

But none of this really matters if you just go cruise and most of it doesn't matter if you don't want to take your riding to the next level and race. And less weight often comes at the expense of less durability. There's a nice balance one needs to strike when building up a bike.

My Pista is 17-19 pounds depending on component selection. I can tell the difference on hills. When I made the switch to a lighter wheelset, the improvement was significant.

WHEN YOUR ONLY 58KG LIKE ME, WEIGHT DEFINATELY MAKES A DIFERRENCE....

whoops sorry for shouting, cant be bothered to type it again

Think there'd be any noticeable difference between 700x25 and 700x23? I'm running 700x25s right now because I like how they roll on city streets and I feel more confident bashing on them than I would on 700x23s. But I've been interested to see how different they feel, if much at all.

Crappy roads = slightly wider tires are going to be better not because of weight but because they take the potholes, bumps and ****ty surfaces a lot better. So of course there's lots of factors going into play. 700x23's excel best on smooth pavement. It's not that easy to tell the difference between the two though because there's not much of a jump in size or weight. Some people are more sensitive to these things than others though...

Totally depends what you're using the bike for. I have a Steamroller with 36 spoke Deep V's, but it feels light to me, because it's the lightest bike I've owned. And I carry tools, locks, work clothes, groceries, etc. in my mess bag most of the time, so how the hell am I gonna notice a half pound difference on my bike? Besides, I'm a big guy. If you race competitively and weigh 120 lbs., be a weight weenie, but otherwise don't waste time worrying about it.

I will care about the weight of my bike when I am skinny. Until then, I am ditching weight off my bike the cheap way.

It's called geometry... it has some profound effects on how different bike's perform.

All my fixed gear bikes are steel and lugged.

My 1955 Lenton... despite hitting the curb at 32 pounds it is still an amazingly good climber, very fast on the flats, and very stable on descents. It is also an excellent long tour bike and is comfortable enough that riding 100 miles will just make you want to ride 100 more. It has very slack frame angles.

My 1963 Peugeot is 22 pounds (with fender and rack) and is much stiffer and tighter than the Lenton... it's is a rocket on flat ground, climbs exceptionally well, handles like it is on rails, but can get a little twitchy on really fast descents if things aren't perfectly set up. It runs 77 gear inches and has a typical road geometry on a slightly more compact frame.

My 1973 Phillip's Twenty folder is 26 pounds and runs 70 gear inches on 1.95 Kenda Contact semi slicks... it dials up faster than any bike I own and will cruise nicely at 30 kmh, handles very well, but does fall a little short in the hill climbing department as it has shorter cranks that decrease pedalling leverage.

My 1987 Kuwahara Cascade mtb/tourer/commuter hits the curb at 26 pounds with full fenders and front and rear racks and with the lowest gearing I have (65 gear inches) and a touring geometry is a great climber and stable descender. Despite running 26 by 2.0 semi slicks it is still capable of some decent flat ground speeds and is on a par with the Lenton when it comes to comfort and ride.

i like lighter bikes
makes it easier when u travel w/ them and take them nice places

Do you high performance riders also wear bibs and shave your legs?

i do. why do you ask?

If it doesn't work... you can always hit them with it.

I'm teasing only the people who require weight weenie machines to commute to work in jeans and sneakers... as (I assume) an actual roadie, you are exempt.

*BUZZER* Oooohhhh, that's wrong but great try. The next line is when Boris the Sneaky ****ing Russian says, "I always go for reliability." Thanks for playing!



Great movie, innit?

Ahem, I love light weight bikes.

I went from a bikeboom 10 speed to a threadless Kilo with mavic 22s and formula hubs. The difference between the two was like night and day. Hills that would leave me gasping for breath on my old bike, I could clear quickly. Plus it's easier to carry it up and down stairs. I have to carry my girlfriend's 3-speed ross up the stairs while she carries my kilo.

only when going uphill...

Bike shorts on anything over 30 minutes in the saddle. My leg hairs would likely clog even the heaviest duty razors though, I'll wait until track season on the whole shaving thing...

Given that a bike is a small percentage of the total weight of the rider and machine together, I think a lower polar moment of inertia is of high importance while sheer "bike weight" is less important. This means lighter wheels, cranks, pedals etc...

Don't get me wrong, the frame weight, for example, does matter. But I think having a light bike is more about it feeling good and feeling nimble, while lower rotational masses are more about tangible increases in performance. Then again, an ounce is an ounce, so any weight savings does matter. It all adds up.

Smaller crank arms, smaller wheels etc... greatly decrease the polar moment of inertia on those parts, but also have downsides (less leverage, less distance per rotation), so at a given size, lighter is better.

I do not think using light wheels, cranks, chainrings etc... on a heavy frame is a waste of money, or pointless.