Bicycle weight.
#1
On Sabbatical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Bicycle weight.
I've been doing some window shopping, just looking around at various touring specific bikes as well as road bikes. Almost all of the road bikes I see list their weight, usually around 19-22 pounds, which is much lighter than my 38lb commuting bike I have been riding. But none of the touring bikes I see list their weights. Now it's not necessarily a big concern of mine, just more of a curiosity. But how much would a run-of-the-mill touring bike weigh, unloaded of course. Are they sub 30lb bikes... somewhere in the 25lb range?
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Just a guess, but I imagine most newer touring bikes weigh in between 25-35 lbs. depending on frame size, materials, weight of your rack, fenders etc. etc.
#3
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
My steel sport-touring bicycle weighs 27 lbs.
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
In the real world, bikes weigh more than advertised weights. A good quality size 58 touring bike with typical wheels and tires will weigh between 23 pounds and 26 pounds, BEFORE adding racks, lights and bags. If you use front and rear racks, four saddle bags, a handle bar bag, front and rear lights, etc., that 23 pound bike can turn into a 40 pound bike.
Weight is not that big of an issue in touring. If a 200 pound rider carries 50 pounds of gear, food, clothes, and water on a 25 pound bike, the total load is 275 pound. On a 35 pound bike, he is pushing 285 pounds. With high quality tires and wheels, I doubt anyone can tell the difference between pushing 275 pounds and pushing 285 pounds.
Weight is not that big of an issue in touring. If a 200 pound rider carries 50 pounds of gear, food, clothes, and water on a 25 pound bike, the total load is 275 pound. On a 35 pound bike, he is pushing 285 pounds. With high quality tires and wheels, I doubt anyone can tell the difference between pushing 275 pounds and pushing 285 pounds.
#7
Macro Geek
My 1985 Miyata 1000 weighs about 28 lbs. without racks and fenders.
I also have a custom-built touring bike, but I have never weighed it. My guess is that it weighed 22 or 23 lbs. when new, but I have since changed the carbon fork to a steel one, upgraded from 28 mm to 32 mm tires, and changed the feather-weight (yet flimsy) seat with a Brooks saddle. Plus some other alterations, and it's probably somewhere between 24 and 27 lbs.
I also have a custom-built touring bike, but I have never weighed it. My guess is that it weighed 22 or 23 lbs. when new, but I have since changed the carbon fork to a steel one, upgraded from 28 mm to 32 mm tires, and changed the feather-weight (yet flimsy) seat with a Brooks saddle. Plus some other alterations, and it's probably somewhere between 24 and 27 lbs.
#8
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
It is a good question, but it pretty much weighs what it weighs. You could use slightly more spendy material in a frame and never notice it. Most of us probably share a majority of similar parts. Probably the area where the most weight can really easily be saved is in panniers, they can easily add more unecesarry weight from being over featured, than any 2 frames would shed. It also still pays to what wheel component weight, though there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it beyond a basic level of quality.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
pj7... seems you're looking in the wrong windows. To get to 19lbs; steel = $1,800, LeMond "racing" or we have 19.5 lbs = Jamis, steel "racing; many other Treks, Jamis, LeMonds, aluminum 17.5 to 09 lbs. $2,000 to $1,000 respectively; TOURING ,mainstream Jamis, Fuji,Trek, Bianchi = 26.5 to 28 Lbs... all from $950 to $1,250 I've not seen ONE tourer weighing less than 25lbs EVER, unless you consider an aluminum or Titanium bike. Weight in tourers hasn't changed much in 30 years. I'm SURE though that SOMEONE here at the forum will dig-up something obscure though.
#10
Senior Member
The posts above are right on - my Volpe weighs 25lbs, or did when I brought it home. I had a T800 for awhile and it was about 28lbs. My older Trek 520 was 27lbs stock and is about 40 with Arkels and HD Jandd racks. Interestingly, front and rear racks will weigh from 3-5 lbs, and four empty panniers between 7-10lbs. So a full set of racks/pans can weigh anywhere from 10 to 15lbs - a pretty significant weight variation of 5lbs, depending on which brand/style you get.
With all the other stuff we often add - handlebar bag, lights, tools - you can see there is little need to be overly concerned about the bike weight UNLESS you intend to travel light and fast. Then it would pay to get a reasonably lightweight bike and spend a bit more for the lighter gear to go with it. Pack minimally, and as someone mentioned you might trim the overall weight by 10-15 lbs. For short tours it might be the way to go - on a longer trip there is no sense in worrying about a few pounds since you need some amenities and enough gear for changing conditions.
With all the other stuff we often add - handlebar bag, lights, tools - you can see there is little need to be overly concerned about the bike weight UNLESS you intend to travel light and fast. Then it would pay to get a reasonably lightweight bike and spend a bit more for the lighter gear to go with it. Pack minimally, and as someone mentioned you might trim the overall weight by 10-15 lbs. For short tours it might be the way to go - on a longer trip there is no sense in worrying about a few pounds since you need some amenities and enough gear for changing conditions.
Last edited by mtnroads; 06-05-07 at 12:49 AM.
#12
Macro Geek
There is a point of diminishing return when considering the weight of a touring bike. It may be possible to create a sub-20 pound touring bike from titanium and carbon. But on a tour one typically needs tools and spare parts and carriers and water bottles and cages for the water bottles and maps and insect repellent and sunglasses and a book (or two) and a wallet and lights and a bell and plastic bags for carrying dirty laundry and laundry detergent and a toothbrush and toothpaste and dental floss and maybe a cell phone and maybe an MP3 player and extra batteries or a recharger and a helmet and shoes and socks and maybe a pair of sandals and a first-aid kit and maybe a camera and a journal (and perhaps a spare pen or two) and a Swiss Army knife and a lock (or two locks) and a bike jersey (or two or three) and a sweater and rain gear and... and... and...
It all adds up. Suddenly, you no longer riding a 19 pound bicycle, but a 30 or 35 pound bicycle. And that's not including camping gear, food, and water (which is heavy).
I have ridden two different touring bikes, one weighing several pounds less than the other. The weight of the bike has had no bearing on my enjoyment on any trip I have made. It is more important to have a well-tuned bike that fits well.
It all adds up. Suddenly, you no longer riding a 19 pound bicycle, but a 30 or 35 pound bicycle. And that's not including camping gear, food, and water (which is heavy).
I have ridden two different touring bikes, one weighing several pounds less than the other. The weight of the bike has had no bearing on my enjoyment on any trip I have made. It is more important to have a well-tuned bike that fits well.
#13
Senior Member
Originally Posted by acantor
There is a point of diminishing return when considering the weight of a touring bike. It may be possible to create a sub-20 pound touring bike from titanium and carbon. But on a tour one typically needs tools and spare parts and carriers and water bottles and cages for the water bottles and maps and insect repellent and sunglasses and a book (or two) and a wallet and lights and a bell and plastic bags for carrying dirty laundry and laundry detergent and a toothbrush and toothpaste and dental floss and maybe a cell phone and maybe an MP3 player and extra batteries or a recharger and a helmet and shoes and socks and maybe a pair of sandals and a first-aid kit and maybe a camera and a journal (and perhaps a spare pen or two) and a Swiss Army knife and a lock (or two locks) and a bike jersey (or two or three) and a sweater and rain gear and... and... and...
It all adds up. Suddenly, you no longer riding a 19 pound bicycle, but a 30 or 35 pound bicycle. And that's not including camping gear, food, and water (which is heavy).
I have ridden two different touring bikes, one weighing several pounds less than the other. The weight of the bike has had no bearing on my enjoyment on any trip I have made. It is more important to have a well-tuned bike that fits well.
It all adds up. Suddenly, you no longer riding a 19 pound bicycle, but a 30 or 35 pound bicycle. And that's not including camping gear, food, and water (which is heavy).
I have ridden two different touring bikes, one weighing several pounds less than the other. The weight of the bike has had no bearing on my enjoyment on any trip I have made. It is more important to have a well-tuned bike that fits well.
While I agree that there is a point of diminishing returns when worrying about the weight of a bike,and touring weight in general, I still think that it should be considered as its good to save weight where you can, and if you take pains to lighten your touring gear you should do the same with the bike. Obviously if you carry 50lbs plus of gear a couple of pounds more in bike weight won't make much difference, but if you go ultralight you can also lighten up the bike a bit and a few pounds will be a larger percentage of your overall weight.
For me the biggest weight saving area will be for me to reduce the size of my gut. I can easily take 20lbs off my touring weight by going on a diet.
#14
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
"While I agree that there is a point of diminishing returns when worrying about the weight of a bike,and touring weight in general, I still think that it should be considered as its good to save weight where you can, and if you take pains to lighten your touring gear you should do the same with the bike. Obviously if you carry 50lbs plus of gear a couple of pounds more in bike weight won't make much difference, but if you go ultralight you can also lighten up the bike a bit and a few pounds will be a larger percentage of your overall weight.
For me the biggest weight saving area will be for me to reduce the size of my gut. I can easily take 20lbs off my touring weight by going on a diet."
That is certainly the flip side. I think all the talk about easily loosing body weight is probably not true for most people, that's pretty much what every study shows. I loose weight easily while touring, but not so easily any other time.
While there are often dozens of choices, most of us would choose probably fairly similar items if we had a free bike build offer. one might or might not get the Paul neo retros, how different in weight would those parts be from a NOS Shimano. On tour is just doesn't mater, because one doesn't get any points for edging out the competition by a nose. It does mater a lot to keep overall load down, and rotating weight. Rims matter, very little else does. Rims are a freebie, touring on Nos 20 mm Mavic rims is just as strong as rhinos and there is a big weight savings. They were designed to run anything from 23 MM to MTB tires. There really isn't anything else that saves like that, maybe kevlar bead tires, but I haven't tried them myself.
For me the biggest weight saving area will be for me to reduce the size of my gut. I can easily take 20lbs off my touring weight by going on a diet."
That is certainly the flip side. I think all the talk about easily loosing body weight is probably not true for most people, that's pretty much what every study shows. I loose weight easily while touring, but not so easily any other time.
While there are often dozens of choices, most of us would choose probably fairly similar items if we had a free bike build offer. one might or might not get the Paul neo retros, how different in weight would those parts be from a NOS Shimano. On tour is just doesn't mater, because one doesn't get any points for edging out the competition by a nose. It does mater a lot to keep overall load down, and rotating weight. Rims matter, very little else does. Rims are a freebie, touring on Nos 20 mm Mavic rims is just as strong as rhinos and there is a big weight savings. They were designed to run anything from 23 MM to MTB tires. There really isn't anything else that saves like that, maybe kevlar bead tires, but I haven't tried them myself.
#15
Destroyer of Worlds
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My Centurion Pro Tour 15 weighs 24 pounds without racks or fenders (with pedals). It's a 54cm, tange 2. Not too shabby I guess. Once I add a brooks, fenders, and maybe a rack, I'll be looking at about 26 pounds I guess.