Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong?
Quote | Reply
My bike has gained a couple pounds from previous bikes. It's over 19lbs or 8.5kg. It feels heavy when I'm tired.

Weight of bike used to be crucial for me because it was so easily measured (still is). Then aero came along and weight became less important. The bike is aero. My kits are tight fitting. Use 38cm handlebars and try to be aero while riding.

At 6' 145 lbs, it's not like I'm going to lose 3lbs, unless it's water weight.

About a third of a bike's weight is the frame, a third is components (ultegra) and a third is wheels and tires. It seems hard to drop a pound in any one of these areas unless I start over and go with new.

What weight do you find worthwhile to remove/change on your bike? Or does it really matter if the bike is in the ballpark weight wise?

Thank you for letting me know worthwhile weight changes that you have considered/done.

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Unless you're climbing or sprinting, weight is almost meaningless. The old rule of thumb was a pound was worth 4 seconds over a flat 40k. I suspect you could drop a pound, maybe a bit more, but it's likely to cost you.
Last edited by: FatandSlow: Feb 25, 19 5:18
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TT bike: Weight is tertiary after aero performance and quality/function.

Road bike: Weight is secondary to quality/function.

Good stuff tends to weight less. I have Red eTap on my road bike, because that is cooler and lighter. I have a Red crankset because it is awesome and light. I have Ardennes Black wheels because they are the most awesome and light aluminum track wheels.

TT, I chose a Red 22 crankset to pair with Ultegra Di2, because I like Red cranksets better than Shimano, and Red is lighter. The rest is driven by aero performance, and if it happens to be light too, nice bonus.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I actually just started being a little bit of a weight weenie. It started with my newer road bike that is down to 15.5 lbs now.

I dropped almost 8 ounces going from a P2Max FSA Gossamer to a P2Max FSA K Force.
Almost 16 ounces going to a set of HED Ardennes wheels.
Almost 4 ounces on an upgrade to R8000

I dropped 3 ounces on a carbon railed saddle for my tri bike (45cm NP2)
I dropped 4 ounces on an upgrade from shimano 5700 components to R8000
Over the next few years I'll probably change:
The crank on that bike from a P2Max Rotor 3D+ to the K Force
Aero bars may go from a PD Prosvet/Vision Aluminum to something all carbon but it's hard to find anything all carbon that has the same low pad stack/reach/horn length as that combo.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your typical triathalon course will not be won on a light bike. Go aero.

Bike weight means more if you are a lighter rider, and mostly in climbs. I am light, so i have built a 13.5lbs road bike for climbing and general riding (that is fully loaded with electronic gear, heavy aero bottles and deep aero wheels, 13lbs with light climbing wheels, 12.5lbs as you would buy in a store).
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, my tri bike is about three or four pounds heavier than yours, so I down you need to worry. I got into an online argument with some folks who could not shut up about weight so I went out and did and experiment with my tri bike riding aero on a 10K course. My already 23 pound tri bike first with empty bottle and an empty seat pack and then with a bottle full of sand, rocks water and a bunch of tools in the pack to make a 10 pound difference. I had a four second difference between the two runs which for my prior testing I would have said was within the plus/minus of a perfect run. That was not an extremly hilly route, but it was not flat either.
Since I ride gravel about 90 percent of the time now and can't affort a new bike, I converted two different bikes for gravel use; one is a former fat bike and the other a former hybrid ($300 new). One is 24 and the other 29 pounds. The 29 pound bike with a shock is a bit of a beast climbing on pavement, but I suspect it has as much to do with the wider tires as it does the extra five pounds.
Whenever I think my bike is heavy, I just use the 1 pound=15 seconds from the bottom to the top of Alpe D'Huez, or about 3,500 feet. By crunching that number I see how absurd it is to worry about weight when my fitness is so lacking. In a five hour gravel race with 7,000 feet of climbing I could gain about 2:30 with a new, lighter by five pounds bike. But I finished more than an hour behind the leaders. The bike is not my problem.
The bike industry drives the weight weenie craze to sell more expensive gear, but tires are the single biggest contributor to performance and luckily, they are relatively inexpensive.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [cdw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ok....here are my thoughts on this as I I've been pondering this question lately. If you're going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to shave off ounces here and there, have you ever considered how much your helmet weighs, the suit you're racing in weighs, the bike bag you have or the CO2 setup you have? How about the water bottle cages and the water bottles themselves, how about the bolts that hold all this together? Are the bolts that hold your cleats to your shoes titanium? How about your shoe inserts are they lightweight? There is so much you can say weight on that is a lot cheaper then the bike, the wheels, or the components.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
After seeing Best Bike Split calculates that I will lose exactly 22s over my next upcoming Ironman (180km) if my bike is 1kg / 2lbs heavier, weight does not matter to me.

And its a hilly course - interesting that BBS actually calculates time gains on the downhills due to heavier weight, but a negligible net loss overall. More important to me will be whatever gets my ride comfort and nutrition right - even if that that means heavier equipment (e.g. bigger cassette) or an extra bottle on the bike.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [TriDavis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriDavis wrote:
Ok....here are my thoughts on this as I I've been pondering this question lately. If you're going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to shave off ounces here and there, have you ever considered how much your helmet weighs, the suit you're racing in weighs, the bike bag you have or the CO2 setup you have? How about the water bottle cages and the water bottles themselves, how about the bolts that hold all this together? Are the bolts that hold your cleats to your shoes titanium? How about your shoe inserts are they lightweight? There is so much you can say weight on that is a lot cheaper then the bike, the wheels, or the components.

Weight weenies look at all this stuff and more. Though the principal focus does tend to be on the stuff that's on the bike (bolts, cages, etc) not on the rider.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [cartsman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You weigh 145? Unless I was. TdF rider, I would never worry about how much my bike weighs if I was at your weight. I would spend all of my time learning to generate more power & you will absolutely fly.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [Rocket_racing] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rocket_racing wrote:
Your typical triathalon course will not be won on a light bike. Go aero.

Bike weight means more if you are a lighter rider, and mostly in climbs. I am light, so i have built a 13.5lbs road bike for climbing and general riding (that is fully loaded with electronic gear, heavy aero bottles and deep aero wheels, 13lbs with light climbing wheels, 12.5lbs as you would buy in a store).

Wow. I'm impressed. How much of difference do you notice between a bike 5-6lbs heavier compared to the 13.5lbs you are at?

In addition to hills, when riding with others, accelerations from the other guys make me wonder about a lighter bike too. I don't know if there is data on bike weight and accelerations; if so, I would like to know if it is more than mental.

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Aero and Light is Right!
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [TriDavis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriDavis wrote:
Ok....here are my thoughts on this as I I've been pondering this question lately. If you're going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to shave off ounces here and there, have you ever considered how much your helmet weighs, the suit you're racing in weighs, the bike bag you have or the CO2 setup you have? How about the water bottle cages and the water bottles themselves, how about the bolts that hold all this together? Are the bolts that hold your cleats to your shoes titanium? How about your shoe inserts are they lightweight? There is so much you can say weight on that is a lot cheaper then the bike, the wheels, or the components.

Mainly thinking about the shoes. Someone on ST mentioned making his own with carbon bottom and then lightweight running upper from a track shoe. I think he was doing this with used parts.

The bike bag has a small carbon pump that allows me to get up to 60lbs of pressure for the ride home. Lighter the the CO2 setup.

Using Giro Aero helmet. Take anything that is not tight to the tailor.

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [turningscrews] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
turningscrews wrote:
You weigh 145? Unless I was. TdF rider, I would never worry about how much my bike weighs if I was at your weight. I would spend all of my time learning to generate more power & you will absolutely fly.

Well, at age 64, I feel like team Sky trying to find marginal gains (without their budget) lol

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [cdw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cdw wrote:
Well, my tri bike is about three or four pounds heavier than yours, so I down you need to worry. I got into an online argument with some folks who could not shut up about weight so I went out and did and experiment with my tri bike riding aero on a 10K course. My already 23 pound tri bike first with empty bottle and an empty seat pack and then with a bottle full of sand, rocks water and a bunch of tools in the pack to make a 10 pound difference. I had a four second difference between the two runs which for my prior testing I would have said was within the plus/minus of a perfect run. That was not an extremly hilly route, but it was not flat either.
Since I ride gravel about 90 percent of the time now and can't affort a new bike, I converted two different bikes for gravel use; one is a former fat bike and the other a former hybrid ($300 new). One is 24 and the other 29 pounds. The 29 pound bike with a shock is a bit of a beast climbing on pavement, but I suspect it has as much to do with the wider tires as it does the extra five pounds.
Whenever I think my bike is heavy, I just use the 1 pound=15 seconds from the bottom to the top of Alpe D'Huez, or about 3,500 feet. By crunching that number I see how absurd it is to worry about weight when my fitness is so lacking. In a five hour gravel race with 7,000 feet of climbing I could gain about 2:30 with a new, lighter by five pounds bike. But I finished more than an hour behind the leaders. The bike is not my problem.
The bike industry drives the weight weenie craze to sell more expensive gear, but tires are the single biggest contributor to performance and luckily, they are relatively inexpensive.

See... look what you just did. Now that i know 1lbs = 30s on the alps climb, i am justified in all the $$$ i soent to make my bike super light. You just fanned the fires. ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IT wrote:


Wow. I'm impressed. How much of difference do you notice between a bike 5-6lbs heavier compared to the 13.5lbs you are at?

In addition to hills, when riding with others, accelerations from the other guys make me wonder about a lighter bike too. I don't know if there is data on bike weight and accelerations; if so, I would like to know if it is more than mental.


My 13lbs bike feels great, but i have no hard data. It just spins up hills, and i am the limiting factor. It could be mostly mental.

I did some rough math, and at my 130lbs (natural climber) weight, saving 3 lbs on my bike was worth maybe 2.5%. For heavier riders, the gains would be a smaller percent. Add to this that as the heavier you get, the more a component will flex. Flex is lost efficiency, so stiffness likley trumps. I can have satisfactory stiffness with crazy light parts because i am both light and do not produce huge power.

In the last 2.5mths of training post injury, my ftp went up 23%. So you can buy speed, but it does not replace training.

Compared to my 17lbs cx bike, 20lbs dual suspension xc bike, or 30lbs fat bike, i think most of the difference is in the wheels/tires. The rolling resistance is key. But man, my light bikes fly up the hills.

For acceleration, there was a lot of debate, but it was moslty about wheels. Light wheels spun up to speed marginally faster, but it was a non factor at steady state, and the lighter wheels lost speed faster. It was all a trade off... and it is clear that aero is superior over light in all but grades over 4% or so.
Last edited by: Rocket_racing: Feb 25, 19 17:00
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [IT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IT wrote:
turningscrews wrote:
You weigh 145? Unless I was. TdF rider, I would never worry about how much my bike weighs if I was at your weight. I would spend all of my time learning to generate more power & you will absolutely fly.

Well, at age 64, I feel like team Sky trying to find marginal gains (without their budget) lol

That is half the fun!
Quote Reply
Re: No longer a bike weight weenie - am I wrong? [TriDavis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TriDavis wrote:
Ok....here are my thoughts on this as I I've been pondering this question lately. If you're going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to shave off ounces here and there, have you ever considered how much your helmet weighs, the suit you're racing in weighs, the bike bag you have or the CO2 setup you have? How about the water bottle cages and the water bottles themselves, how about the bolts that hold all this together? Are the bolts that hold your cleats to your shoes titanium? How about your shoe inserts are they lightweight? There is so much you can say weight on that is a lot cheaper then the bike, the wheels, or the components.

I kind of did the whole package with my climbing bike.

At 130lbs, i have no weight to loose, and could put on some leg muscle to improve power to weight (up 23%). For my helmet, i went aero, and safety (mips was a must), but pretty light for aero. Shoes: giro empire ltd. I got a few lightweight castelli jerseys (climber 2.0 and superleggera). I keep minimal stuff on me when i climb. I have a 21g mini pump. I am getting a 30g tool set. Ideally i poop before i ride (inconvenient during). ;-)

I also have a garmin 130, and 13g raceware mount. I use elite crono aero bottles currently, but can save 60-80g with elite fly bottles and carbonwerks bottle cages.

So i have sacraficed maybe 0.5lbs for aero wheels (56mm) and bottles... but i am confident the aero gains will make me overally faster. Can’t wait till spring.
Quote Reply