Actually most triathletes have figured out that weight is irrelevant for most races, so we typically don't care as much anymore. And the weights for the above can be found on the weightweenies site most likely (weightweenies.starbike.com). Search their forum. Or go to the manufacturer's websites.

---

---

* updated for frame size and raw fork weight.

I for one would argue that weight matters when climbing, and at the moment of inertia when one cranks it up from one speed to another. Beyond that, weight only seems to matter to those who want to quantify 'cool'.

---

__________________
http://www.cervelo.com

A 54cm P3C is 1300g according to competitivecyclist.com

I haven't been at this long. So, my 2 cents is worth, well probably less than 2 cents, but... I figure I'd rather lose 5 pounds of my own body weight than spend lots of money to lose a few grams off my components. Now having said that I do love the zero G brakes, anything carbon, and would love a sub 15 pound tri/tt bike... I'm just saying as long as I have weight to lose, I'll concentrate more on that.

As for the answer to your question - each of those manufacturers have the weights listed on their sites. For many out there that (weight) matters a lot and as part of marketing most companies want to make that information available, easily.

I find this a strange comment. While I neither agree or disagree, why is everyone (including pro's in tri and cycling) so intent with the weight of the bike. The best ride quality is steel or Ti, yet apparently Ti is "dead".

---

http://theworldthroumyeyes.tumblr.com/

 

Scott Plasma
Cervelo P3C - 1230g size 51 frame, Wolf fork 435g (uncut), dedicated seatpost 252g (uncut)
Specialized Transition
Felt DA - 1079 grams for bare frame only
Cannondale Slice
Trek TTX[/reply][/reply]

I love these threads. Everytime weight comes up, the replies run 10 - 1 stating worrying about weight is silly, yet at any tri all you see is high end carbon and aluminum. One time just for fun I asked a poster, who was adamant that weight was irrelavent, what bike he rode. Turns out he had one of the molded carbon bikes available in a reular and light version. He had the light version which weighed half a pound less and cost $500 more.

I'm not saying weight matters a lot, but we all want light bikes.

Styrrell

For most of the top tri bikes the only real comparison is frame / fork / HS / stem / seatpost. On a lot of bikes all or most of those parts are a package, so unless you include them you can't make a valid comparison.

For instance, most of the proprietary seat "connectors" on frames with seatmasts are heavier that a mid level seatpost. Having the mast as part of the frame might have other advantages, but weight reduction is rarely one of them.

Styrrell

It's because light bikes are awesome. True, they aren't appreciably faster, they're just *neat*. Like red tires or something.

How about losing your 5lbs and then ALSO losing 1 more pound on the bike? What if that lighter bike is then run on a rolling IM course with a total elevation gain of 5000 feet?
It's not worth giving up the aerodynamic advantages, but all else being equal I'd like the lighter bike.

Building a light bike is a fun experience and even if it is the "whole package" with bike and rider I still feel a bigger difference with a lighter bike than a lighter me.

As someone who is currently figuring out how to get my road bike lighter I am all about shaving weight! I've now got my 58 cm Scott CR1 down to 6817 grams ....... just barely over UCI limits. And that is on stock Ksyrium SSC SL clinchers and Dura Ace components (other than the brakes which are now Zero Gravity OG06's).

The fact that the DA is only about 60 grams heavier than my Scott road frame is phenomenal! Too bad my B2 is not that light!!

---

_____________________________________________
Rick, "Retired" hobbyist athlete
Trying to come back slowly from acute A-Fib

Can you pull a DA frame out of a box and weigh it?
Is it anywhere close to 1079 grams?

[/reply][/reply]

Heheh, well put me in the category of having a molded carbon bike...but not a lightweight one. Fully dressed with disc and H3 I think it's 20lb, maybe 20.5 I can't remember. Having a lightweight bike is nice climbing the hills, but realistically it's not a big deal:

http://www.analyticcycling.com/...LessWeight_Page.html

If you put in a 1lb weight difference on the default numbers and do 8% grade over 1km the difference is 1.4 seconds. On a more normal slope (3%) it's 0.4 seconds per kilometer of climbing. On the downhill it claims the lighter bike is 0.1 seconds per km slower...not sure if the calculation is correct or not. ASSuming that it is, a 1lb lighter bike with equivalent aero performance in an IM race would net you a whopping gain of 36 seconds going up the hills and lose 9 seconds on the downhills. (Just using 50% uphill at 3% grade, 50% downhill at 3% grade.) So that 1lb gains you 27 seconds on a 5-5.5 hour race. Weee.

My point was that the relative weight differences between frames are pretty small in general. If you were talking about the difference between a 20lb bike with all the aero doodads vs a 12lb bike with the same aero performance, I'd go that way in a heartbeat. Unless it cost a ton of money of course. That difference is -0.7s downhill and 3.17s uphill per km or a net of -285s and +63, total improvement of 3.7 minutes. But that isn't going to happen unless you intend to spend $10k.

There I go again...bringing numbers and logic into it.

---

---

Funny thing is a 20 pound bike with aero wheels, including a disc, and aerobars would have been very light 10 years ago. I remember when when under 20 pounds for a road bike was more or less the standard for light. Now its more like 16 pounds. Problem is most people who are relatively serious about racing tris have aero light carbon bikes. So we've all spent big bucks over what was aailable 20 years ago, but the playing field is still level. Yet we complain about the UCI mandating standard designs. Hell is the said bikes had to be low profile aluminum wheels, steel tubed frames, and no aerobars we'd all be driving porsche's to the races and the results would be the same. ;-)

Styrrell

Trek TTX 9.9 size=M '07 ('08) -> Frame=1636gram -> Fork=684gram -> Seatpost carbon=227gram Trek TTX 9.9SSL size=M '08 -> Frame=1372gram -> Fork=573gram -> Seatpost carbon=227gram

---

My TT bike
BMC TM01

I think it's been pointed out numerous times, light is cool. Do you think these little kids (and some adults) running around in their Honda Civics with Carbon hoods and fenders with carbon spoilers are any faster than their stock counterparts? Not always, and not even most of the time - it depends on the driver and the engine. But every one of them thinks they're cool... Let's not take this thread the direction of "import racer" but the same is true here. The same person with the same biomechanical input may push a more aero or lighter bike faster than another less-so bike. The point is - will I notice a difference, at my stage in TT/Triathlon probably minimal if any, but I sure do like a nice bit of kit when I'm riding. Am I a poser? No, just a beginner. I get better every race I enter. And I did just purchase a new "light" aero bike, as I thought that, as I get better, I at some point may benefit from a lighter and more aero ride than my standard road bike... So, I prefer light and as long as I can afford it - why not...

So, whether or not weight matters seems pretty loosely dependent upon who you are, or what you wish to accomplish. Take disc wheels over superlight wheels - advantage disc in TT, advantage superlight climbing. Now if you could have both - a sub 500g disc - wouldn't that be sweet! Is there one???

But carbon has the added advantage of being easy to shape in aerodynamic forms in ways that Aluminum and Steel are not. I always thought that that (plus the added comfort it supposedly gives you) was the main reason tri people bought carbon bikes.

Lightweight make a disc that's pretty, er you know.

Styrrell

Weight always matters, don't let anyone tell you otherwise, always has, always will.....

Yes, this is how I got the 1079 gram weight, on the pot scale in our engineering office on one of the 56cm ride test frames we received.

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

How come my DA was 200 grams north of 1079? And it is a 54cm. All the hardware (not headset), decals, rub protectors and clearcoat don't weigh 200 grams.
Did you guys get a batch of B2's with DA decals?

Dropping the lb would save you 6.7 kJ over 5000 ft of straight climbing. But, unless your course is one way uphill, you get most of that potential energy back as kinetic energy on the descent, so it's not a total loss anyway. It's less than 1% when you consider most people are cranking out 800+ kJ per hour when competing and that's not accounting what recovered on the downhill.