Now I am not a weight weenie, but jsut wanted to get an idea of what a light TRI frame weighs compared to a ‘pig’.
I knwo that there are a lot of different ways to shave weight, I just want to knwo what the ball park is for frames or frame sets.
It also looks like you can shave .5 lbs by going with an easton EC 90 Aero over some stock forks. Any houghts?
True aero frames will be heavier than their round tubed counterparts. Aero and light have very little to do with each other.
I think the whole weight thing is overblown. I rode a 23.5lb TT rig for years and smoked many a sub 19 pound rig going uphill and needless to say downhill. Who cares what it weighs. How big, powerful and efficient is the engine is the more important question. Then the next question would be how good are your bike handling skills? Either of those improving will do more for your bike split than reducing a bike by 1 pound.
Now to answer your question. I would define light as sub 18.5, med as sub 20.5 and med/heavy as 20.5-21.5 and hefty as 21.5+. My old TT bike was super hefty (and super fast).
Amen, brother.
I know that Tri frames are heavier relative to roadies, and that an extra lb on a bike is not that big a deal (my bike currently weighs in at 22.5 lbs) I just wanted to get an idea of frame weight.
Is a 4 lb frame relatively heavy or light for a Tri frameset?
desert dude, I agree with you 100% However, you have to remember that in the tri ranks they have to put 20 pounds of accessories on their bikes. H20 bottle holders one on the seat, one between their aero bars, 2 on the bike, they need 40 powerbars stuck to the top tube, gu’s in their bento boxes, motrin too, cyclometer(with cadence) maybe even a power meter, spare tire or tubes and C02’s, tire levers, tissues, money, extra bags of their favorite sports drink powder, sunblock, sports slick, frame pump just in case, tool(only god knows what they’ll actually do with it) maybe throw it at the rabid dog chasing them? ANyhow, you get my point, for these peeps the lighter the bike is to start off with the better.
I know that my Cervelo Dual frame is 1438g (3.17 lbs.) but when it is built up it weighs in at 18.5 pounds. Not too bad for a tri-bike. Things that I did change was the forks (Easton EC90 Aero) like you mentioned, I already had some Syntace C2’s (pretty light at 360g), a Syntace F99 stem (98g) and bought a Easton Delta base bar (204g) and Tektro carbon levers (140g). So this makes for a very comfortable and light front end.
Now my Giant TCR frame weight is 1052g (2.2 lbs.) and the fork (Easton EC90 superlight) is 323g. The total weight for frame and fork is less than the Dual frame by itself.
Let’s say you weigh 150lbs. and have a 22lb. bike. If you changed components or bought a new bike that weighed 18lbs, you would effectively only decrease total weight by 2.3%. THAT’S 4 POUNDS off of your bike which is pretty tough to shave without spending a substantial amount of money. Also note that the lightest components aren’t all that aero. So by “going light” you may be slowing yourself down. At 20+ mph 200 grams means nothing, but a well designed aero fork or seatpost probably would. And that’s just an example. My point is, most of us could gain 2% through training or by adapting a little more aero position on the bike, etc.
My opinion is that light bikes are more for bragging rights than outright performance. But it is cool to pick up a 16.8 lb bike once in a while. One thing you could do is reduce as much weight at the wheels as possible. Get some light race tube/tires, or even check out some of the ultralight rim strips. It isn’t too hard to take 200 grams off a stock wheelset in tires and tube alone sometimes.
funny coming from you jason as you were the one posting pics of your ultra lightweight gisallo in another thread 
but, it depends on the course…
the tt course for masters/juniors nats TT the past two years had tw good climbs in it and weight would matter on that course (antelope island jason)…
but for realtively flat courses, static weight (frame, forks, bars etc) is of small consequence…
rotating weight is a different story.
Now, with all that said, if I were a pro and had to ride under the UCI weight limit, I would have a set of obermayers and a heavy frame…
g
Ah, but my climbing bike is definitely not a TT bike.
You should run some models for rotating weight on analyticcycling.com. You might be surprise at how insignificant it really is.
depends on the difference no?
lets see…
training wheels are cheapo campy clinchers.
race wheels are 1150g lews.
difference: 2.2 lbs!
Dropping 2.2 lbs is meaningful, whether it’s on your wheels or on your vehicle, assuming you’re going to be accelerating repeatedly or climbing. Otherwise, it’s not a big deal, as the recent hour record rider demonstrated by using a heavy disc wheel.
I beg to differ on the antelope island course. Climbs are short and you are in the aero position pretty much the entire race.
Unless the course has steep extended climbing or is very technical, you will go faster on a full aero bike regardless of weight.
Look at tt’s like Redlands prologue, Bisbee prologue hillclimb, and Gila tt. All climb a fair amount, all are good for full aero bikes regardless of weight.
I did mention that it matters for non-flat courses right?
just checkin…
g
"but for realtively flat courses, static weight (frame, forks, bars etc) is of small consequence…
rotating weight is a different story."
I was taking issue with the idea that rotating weight on a flat course amounts to anything more than a negligible difference.
I’ll be the first to agree with you that lighter is better for long, steep climbs. However, the original post asked about weight of TT/Tri frames, and I know of very few TT/Tris with long, steep climbs (Antelope Isl. is neither long nor steep). As such, weight isn’t a huge issue in these situations.
Antelope has 800 vertical feet of climbing and 2 ~2km climbs at about 4% - put that in AC.com and you will see a difference.
outbound only:
I would never characterize a course with 800ft vertical in under 40k as flat. Flat is <100vertical feet (FLAT).
g
we aren’t comparing a full tt vs. road…
it was about weither or not a LIGHT tt bike was faster or worth the investment over a heavier tt bike…
and on non-flat courses, lighter will be faster.
and I disagree:
"All climb a fair amount, all are good for full aero bikes regardless of weight. "
yes, all are good for full aero (ANY tt is) but weight does matter. if you can remove weight and not sacrifice aero, you will go faster.
the original posters question was does it (weight) matter for tt/tri. to which my response still is YES if the course is non-flat.
g
My contention is that there is not much out there that is both aero and light. Even the light stuff is not all that light.
Take a P3C and outfit it with Dura-Ace, Hed bars, Zipp disc and 808 or tri-spoke. That is probably close to as light and aero as you can get. Probably close to 20 lb.
Now take an aluminum full aero bike like a Griffen, Tiemeyer, etc. Probably .5 lb. more.
Race both of them, I bet you cannot tell the difference in terms of speed.
By dropping 1 kg you’ll gain ~2.03 seconds on each of the 2k 4% climbs. I didn’t say Antelop Isl. was FLAT, I said it had neither long nor steep climbs. I wouldn’t consider 2k @ 4% a long nor steep climb, but it’s all a matter of perspective, I suppose.
Here’s the data from analytic cycling:
Benefit From Less Weight
This Much Less Weight 1 kg
Over This Distance 2000 meters
On Hill of Slope 0.04 Decimal
Faster by 2.03 s
Ahead by 15.00 m
Frontal Area 0.5 m^2
Coefficient Wind Drag 0.5 Dimensionless
Air Density 1.226 kg/m^3
Weight Rider & Bike 75 kg
Rolling Coefficient 0.004 Dimensionless
Power 300 watts
at masters nats on the antelope course:
in 2004, the difference between 1st and 2nd in the 30-34 was 11s.
in 2005, the difference between 1st and 2nd in the 45-49 was 6s.
in 2005, the difference between 1st and 2nd in the 60-64 was 1.7s.
in 2005, the difference between 1st and 2nd in the 65-69 was 7s.
Most of the others were around ~30s… I would say that 2s x 2 climbs would be significant (which was my original suggestion).
g