that works up until you get old, and know there's no way to improve on any of your PBs. Then you buy the P3C for consolation, and to hell with what anyone else thinks ;-)

I bought my first pair of racing flats as a reward for getting under 35 for 10k..

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

I did a local mass start hill climb last October. (Mt. Diablo Challenge for you Bay Area types. It climbs about 3400 ft in 10.8 miles.) I finally got dropped with about .5 miles to go and finished 3rd about 20-25 seconds down. The guy who won was on a Cervelo R3 that weighs 12.8 lbs. I was on a steel bike that weighs about 19 on a good day. So, yeah, you can say I've been thinking about what might have happened if I had a lighter bike too. A LOT! :-)

If you think that weight isn't that important, why don't you stick a 5lb scuba weight in your back pocket for your next ride. :-)

Another point that has been alluded to is that with a light frame you can put some heavier stuff on that you might otherwise leave off. For instance if the UCI weight limit is a requirement you need to meet, with a light frame you can afford the extra weight of a SRM.

Of course a 15 lb bike isn't going to help you much if you are packing an extra 15 lbs of fat. But if you're skinny...

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

Don't get me wrong - weight DOES count under certain circumstances like you've described. You lose something like six seconds per lb over 40 kms on an 8% gradient. That's not a lot, but you still probably lost that race, or close to it, because of the extra six lbs weight of your bike.

What you described is a non UCI rules hill climb race. The winning 12.8 lb R3 would have been illegal on the Tour however.

It's very easy to make a 15 lb bike without an ultralite frame. If you want the lightest bike possible regardless of cost to race hill climbs, then definately go for the lightest frame.

Most people who are really into light weight bikes don't really consider them to be "fastest". Its a hobby unto itself. A few years ago 10 lbs was about as light as a bike could get that would make it through a hilly century. Now you can go probably sub 8. A reasonably reliable 850 gram wheel set has just been released as well as a 600 gram frame. Yep about 3/4 of a pound lighter than the silly light frames you quote in the OP.

But now you have to play fair, what bikes do you ride?

Styrrell

I agree,....

Personally, - they should worry more about coming up with a bike that doesn't look so ugly and one without those horrible Shimano components....

:-)

"what bikes do you ride? "

Is what I ride important to this? At the moment - just my 17.2 lb Lemond as peviously described and my Schwinn hybrid winter beater. Sold my Cervelo P2K last fall and still haven't replaced it yet with another tri bike. When I do, aero will definately be far more important than weight.

Important, no but at 17 punds or so you definately could've spent less and had a bike equal to yours, only heavier.

So I ask you - Why did you sent X dollars to ride a 17 pound bike versus say 21 pounds.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but all these questions boil down to how much disposable income to we devote to hobbies. Luckily everyone here has both money and time to devote to hobbies, so the relative amount is pretty meaningless.

I think you reach a point where cost vs performance gain becomes hard to justify. Like I said, for the miniscule performance gain it's hard to rationally justify $1200 to save 200 gms no matter how much money you're willing to spend on your hobby. That's not to say that won't stop some people's emotion clouding logic and will happily spend it for an ultralite frame, but there are much more cost effective ways to save 200 gms.

Light isn't always best. There is often a compromise in ride quality and durability. I would judge a bike purchase on a lot of factors, not weight alone. Handling characteristics, reliabiity, comfort and aero would trump weight every time in my book unless you're talking mega lbs.

As mentioned previously most of the ultra light road frames have big fat non aero tubing. So I'd suspect any performance gain from weight could very likely be offset by slower aerodynamics.

I think alot of miss understanding is over the purpose of the ultra light weight bikes. Cervelo claims that the R3 was created to offer a light weight platform for CSC to race with built proof wheels and more durable componets for the classics.

But someone had the best point so far, when you show up for a Saturday AM group ride you see more people lifting up bikes to compare weight, or asking what does it weight. Its more status symbol crap at this point.

me too. I'd appreciate a 15 pound bike, but I've seen a lot of product recalls over the years, and as much as I might appreciate a 15 pound bike heading up a mountain, I appreciate my very solidly built 20 pounder as I'm heading down the hills at 45mph or so. I go about 195 currently and I see plenty of guys much bigger than me out there riding low spoke count wheels, light forks, etc, and I've seen more than a few of these wheels pull spokes out of the rim or hub.

I'd like to see the industry work in the direction of more durability or easier service. Light weight can't be the only selling point that interests people. I also think the components have gotten very fugly lately...I much prefer the shiny old Record to this new carbon stuff, especially hate the cut out brakes.

As for frames, the difference in bottom line performance between a 2 pound frame and a 4 pound frame is not enough to interest me. I'd rather have a nice paint job. Wheel and tire choices have much more to do with how fast and comfortable your ride will be.

"Most people who are really into light weight bikes don't really consider them to be "fastest". Its a hobby unto itself."

This is true. Some people just want to build the lightest bike just for the sake of doing so. Just look at some of the reader's bikes over on the Weight Weenies site. I don't know how often or hard those bikes are rode though. I'd be afraid to abuse some of them.

It's often just a technical exercise. Remember this guy from several years ago?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/.../speedplaybike.shtml

same issue with aerodynamics - the questions that used to be asked a lot was - is a 2000$ pair of Zipp 909 worth it? Well if you missed Kona by 15seconds it might well be to you right at that moment you see the results!

---

__________________________________________________
Simple Simon
Where's the Fried Chicken??

and....

American Randonneur, - too many letters to be a four letter word in cycling, - although many treat them so; did study on tire rolling resistance. In conjunction with overall weight of the bike, plus weight and condition of the rider, is another aspect that should not be ignored...

I agree, but the point depends on your personal economics. For Bill Gates in the time spent reading this post his wealth cold go up by a few hundred thou, so if he wants to spent 30K on a bilke that weighs 5 pounds, so be it.

If you go to the weight weenies forum you'll find that very few weight weenies think it makes much difference in performance, its just a hobby.

Look at virtually every picture thatgets posted here. Someonw will always comment on the color coordination of the bike. At least weight matters, even if only a small amount. Some people want the prettiest, some the lightest, some most durable, oddest etc. What ever floats your boat.

Styrrell