ideal bike weights

many people would consider a 20lb (9.07kg) bike to be heavy, but I reckon anything under 20lb is light.

For plenty of component weights, check out Weight Weenies
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings.php

they also have a short list of (mostly) super-light, complete bikes
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/articles.php?category=roadbikes

I don't know what level of cycling fitness you currently have? If as a beginner you are currently building up your fitness, then I would stick with your current bike - a bit of extra weight will mean you have to work that bit harder = better workout! At the end of the day, it's the fitness of the rider that makes the biggest difference, not whether he/she has the best bike out there.

nwales1 said:

im new to cycling and have a 23lb Trek 1000c starter.....already obsessed i am looking to get a new bike for xmas and will pay around £1200. In terms of weights for full bikes is 20lbs classed as heavy? I have seen a bike with high spec, shimano ultegra, light alum, etc etc but the weight is 20lbs.......

i want to try time trialling and such like next year and wonder, in my first year out, would a 20lb bike be sufficient or should i be looking to get something lighter........help!!!!!!

What I have seen when you buy a complete bike, is that the frameset may be light weight and an Ultegra groupset is by no means heavy (It's not as light as DUra Ace or Record, but it's respectable) but the rest of the components can be a killer. 370 gram saddles, 300 gram handlebars, 200 gram stem, 300 gram post, heavy tires and wheels that are usually over 2,000 grams. It's pretty easy get up to the 20+ lb range. I personally prefer to build my own bikes that way I can chose the equipment that will keep the weight down. My current bike has a 125 gram stem, 200 gram post, 165 gm saddle, 230 gm bars and 1560 gm wheels with 210 gm tires and lightweight tubes. It's a steel frame in a size 57 and it's about 17.5 lbs.

Little point in stressing over the weight of your bike yet. As said earlier get fit first then worry about bike weight. My winter bike is at least 24lb, but it wil get me fit(again) for next season. I would agree about self build as the end result can be much lighter but often it costs more also. The self build lets you learn about bike mechanics, but only if you have that bent.

Think about it in terms of total weight. If you and your bike together weigh 170 pounds, then +/- 5 pounds is only about a 3% difference. Unless you're already trained to your physiological limits, what you ate for breakfast is going to have more of an effect.

Don't worry about the weight for now, there's plenty of time to lose your mind later. Anything above the UCI 6.8kg limit is seriously heavy to me.

artmichalek said:

Think about it in terms of total weight. If you and your bike together weigh 170 pounds, then +/- 5 pounds is only about a 3% difference. Unless you're already trained to your physiological limits, what you ate for breakfast is going to have more of an effect.

That's a good point that most people overlook. Would also add that weight is only critical for climbing hills and fast accelerations (eg, crit racing). It makes very little difference in level cruising.

artmichalek said:

Think about it in terms of total weight. If you and your bike together weigh 170 pounds, then +/- 5 pounds is only about a 3% difference. Unless you're already trained to your physiological limits, what you ate for breakfast is going to have more of an effect.

That's a good point that most people overlook. Would also add that weight is only critical for climbing hills and fast accelerations (eg, crit racing). It makes very little difference in level cruising.

i have had riders on 25lb bikes ride away from me while i was crying on the inside...

Buddy2004 said:

that bit harder = better workout! At the end of the day, it's the fitness of the rider that makes the biggest difference, not whether he/she has the best bike out there.

i have had riders on 25lb bikes ride away from me while i was crying on the inside...

Buddy2004 said:

that bit harder = better workout! At the end of the day, it's the fitness of the rider that makes the biggest difference, not whether he/she has the best bike out there.

My bike is around 18 lbs. Anything under 20 is fine for me. There's no point in trying to go lighter when I could stand to lose as much as the damn bike weighs.

My bike is around 18 lbs. Anything under 20 is fine for me. There's no point in trying to go lighter when I could stand to lose as much as the damn bike weighs.

dhk said:

That's a good point that most people overlook. Would also add that weight is only critical for climbing hills and fast accelerations (eg, crit racing). It makes very little difference in level cruising.

Even on a monster climb it's not as critical as people think. Given a rider putting out a constant wattage and not going fast enough for much wind resistance, mass and time are a 1/1 relation. That is, x% less mass -> x% less time. Take Mt. Washington for example (http://www.tinmtn.org/hillclimb/results_05/index.cfm). This year the first 50 finishers were spread out by about 23 minutes. (Tail end of the pack was another 1:20 or so) The average for those top finishers being about one hour. So if our hypothetical rider was at the top of the pack to begin with and dropped 5lbs, he would finish about 2 minutes faster. That's only worth an average of four places out of 550 finishers.

dhk said:

That's a good point that most people overlook. Would also add that weight is only critical for climbing hills and fast accelerations (eg, crit racing). It makes very little difference in level cruising.

Even on a monster climb it's not as critical as people think. Given a rider putting out a constant wattage and not going fast enough for much wind resistance, mass and time are a 1/1 relation. That is, x% less mass -> x% less time. Take Mt. Washington for example (http://www.tinmtn.org/hillclimb/results_05/index.cfm). This year the first 50 finishers were spread out by about 23 minutes. (Tail end of the pack was another 1:20 or so) The average for those top finishers being about one hour. So if our hypothetical rider was at the top of the pack to begin with and dropped 5lbs, he would finish about 2 minutes faster. That's only worth an average of four places out of 550 finishers.

artmichalek said:

So if our hypothetical rider was at the top of the pack to begin with and dropped 5lbs, he would finish about 2 minutes faster. That's only worth an average of four places out of 550 finishers.

😕 Maybe I missed your point, but going from 1st to 5th seems like a pretty significant loss to me. In the reverse, going from 5th to 1st, would be a big incentive to lose those 5lbs. Your hypothetical example doesn't seem to support your assertion that weight's not that big a deal on climbing races.

Edit: In short, 2 minutes difference in a 1hr TT *is* a big deal.

To the OP: if you're wanting to try some TT's then aero will be a much bigger factor than weight for relatively flat courses. Maybe look into a specialized TT setup if that's where you'd like to race, and keep the 1000c for all around rides and/or training.

artmichalek said:

So if our hypothetical rider was at the top of the pack to begin with and dropped 5lbs, he would finish about 2 minutes faster. That's only worth an average of four places out of 550 finishers.

😕 Maybe I missed your point, but going from 1st to 5th seems like a pretty significant loss to me. In the reverse, going from 5th to 1st, would be a big incentive to lose those 5lbs. Your hypothetical example doesn't seem to support your assertion that weight's not that big a deal on climbing races.

Edit: In short, 2 minutes difference in a 1hr TT *is* a big deal.

To the OP: if you're wanting to try some TT's then aero will be a much bigger factor than weight for relatively flat courses. Maybe look into a specialized TT setup if that's where you'd like to race, and keep the 1000c for all around rides and/or training.

frenchyge said:

😕 Maybe I missed your point, but going from 1st to 5th seems like a pretty significant loss to me. In the reverse, going from 5th to 1st, would be a big incentive to lose those 5lbs. Your hypothetical example doesn't seem to support your assertion that weight's not that big a deal on climbing races.

I guess the point is that it only makes a difference if our hypothetical climber was already on his way to a 5th place finish. The difference between finishing 254th and 258th is a lot less significant.

artmichalek said:

I guess the point is that it only makes a difference if our hypothetical climber was already on his way to a 5th place finish. The difference between finishing 254th and 258th is a lot less significant.

Ok, agree with you there, although cutting into a personal best by 2 minutes is still a pretty good chunk at any level.