Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Reality Check for Weight Weenies?

Started by Edward Kleinbar · · Last activity · 19 posts · 6,410 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
15 September 2003
Last activity
21 September 2003
Original author
Edward Kleinbar
Posts
19
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
6,410
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–19 of 19
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The August issue of the French cycling magazine Le Cycle has an interesting article on the weights
    of the bicycles used in the Tour de France. One point that the article makes is that the average
    weight of the bikes in the Tour declined by roughly one pound from 2002 to 2003 (from 8.14kg to
    7.72kg), due to the increasing carbonization of so many components, and lighter frames. To me,
    however, the even more interesting fact is that the bikes used by the pros in the most important
    road cycling event of the year varied in weight, from lightest to heaviest, by 1.5kg -- 3.3 pounds!
    (The 2002 Tour bikes had exactly the same range of weights.) Yes of course the USPS Treks were among
    the lightest, but the Bianchi ridden by one of Jan Ullrich's teammates was 800 grams heavier, and a
    Pinarello Dogma ridden by a Team Telekom rider was one of the heaviest (at 8.4kg -- 18.5lbs).

    All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the highest levels on
    bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage scale and not
    worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or that component.

    I would be interested in the reactions of others.

    Edward Kleinbard

  2. (Edward Kleinbard) said:

    The August issue of the French cycling magazine Le Cycle has an interesting article on the weights
    of the bicycles used in the Tour de France. One point that the article makes is that the average
    weight of the bikes in the Tour declined by roughly one pound from 2002 to 2003 (from 8.14kg to
    7.72kg), due to the increasing carbonization of so many components, and lighter frames. To me,
    however, the even more interesting fact is that the bikes used by the pros in the most important
    road cycling event of the year varied in weight, from lightest to heaviest, by 1.5kg -- 3.3 pounds!
    (The 2002 Tour bikes had exactly the same range of weights.) Yes of course the USPS Treks were
    among the lightest, but the Bianchi ridden by one of Jan Ullrich's teammates was 800 grams heavier,
    and a Pinarello Dogma ridden by a Team Telekom rider was one of the heaviest (at 8.4kg -- 18.5lbs).

    All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the highest levels on
    bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage scale and not
    worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or that component.

    I would be interested in the reactions of others.

    As stated so many times... It's the engine!!!!

  3. "Edward Kleinbard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    the bikes used by the pros in the most important road cycling event of the year varied in weight,
    from lightest to heaviest, by 1.5kg -- 3.3 pounds! (The 2002 Tour bikes had exactly the same range
    of weights.) Yes of course the USPS Treks were among the lightest, but the Bianchi ridden by one
    of Jan Ullrich's teammates was 800 grams heavier, and a Pinarello Dogma ridden by a Team Telekom
    rider was one of the heaviest (at 8.4kg -- 18.5lbs).

    Quoted message said:

    All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the highest levels on
    bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage scale and not
    worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or that component.

    Quoted message said:

    I would be interested in the reactions of others.

    I think you hit the nail right on the head.

    Riders' weight (with respect to their power output of course) varies even more.

    Matt O.

  4. How long did it take you to figure that out?

    Edward Kleinbard said:

    All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the highest levels on
    bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage scale and not
    worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or that component.

  5. Quoted message said:

    As stated so many times... It's the engine!!!!

    so true!

    and the weight thing is not always a matter of choice. as a bigger heavier rider, i need a bigger
    frame and sturdy wheels. "stupid light" is just not an option.

    jb

  6. "jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    and the weight thing is not always a matter of choice. as a bigger heavier rider, i need a bigger
    frame and sturdy wheels. "stupid light" is just not an option.

    Not for me either, and I'm not that heavy. Remember that pros have teams of mechanics going over
    their bikes, checking them for the slightest flaw, and replacing anything suspect. A recreational
    rider is more likely to have his sub-3# scamdium frame fail after from being dented, etc., or a
    stupid-light, few-spoked rim collapse from an unnoticed fatigue crack.

    OTOH, there's nothing more thrilling than a stupid-light bike on a fast, twisty mountain
    descent. :-)

    Matt O.

  7. I think it's a mental thing. We weight my 1990 Paramount the other day, and with pedals and cages it
    was 20lbs even. Threaded steel fork, not the lightest bars/stem. The frame is a 59cm also. Not too
    bad for old tech that's been updated. Some light wheels a few components here and there and it'd be
    at 18 or so. As it is it's a 13 year old bike that I plan on keeping around for quite some time.

    Phil Brown said:
    Quoted message said:

    and the weight thing is not always a matter of choice. as a bigger heavier rider, i need a bigger
    frame and sturdy wheels. "stupid light"

    is just not an option.

    Sure it is. It's just a question of how long you want the frame to last. Phil Brown

    --
    Mark Wolfe wolfenet.orgwolfenet.org gpg fingerprint = 42B6 EFEB 5414 AA18 01B7 64AC EF46 F7E6 82F6
    8C71 Linux is harder to learn than Windows. But it is easier to use.

  8. ekleinbard-<< All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the
    highest levels on bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage
    scale and not worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or
    that component. >><BR><BR>

    Remember that when Indurain was racing, his bike was about 23 pounds but so was Johnnie Bugnos..

    Way too much importance placed on bicycle weight, even for these 135 pound pros. Adding or
    subtrating a pound is such a teeny slice of the total weight, it really makes little or no
    difference. 1 pound on a 150 pound rider and bicycle is less than 1% of the total. Adding it doesn't
    make the rider 1% slower and vice versa.

    But ya gotta get to the finish line. I would guess that reliability is down along with the weight,
    particularly with wheels.

    Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
    (303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

  9. In article said:

    I think it's a mental thing.

    Precisely.

  10. [email hidden] (Edward Kleinbard) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    The August issue of the French cycling magazine Le Cycle has an interesting article on the weights
    of the bicycles used in the Tour de France. One point that the article makes is that the average
    weight of the bikes in the Tour declined by roughly one pound from 2002 to 2003 (from 8.14kg to
    7.72kg), due to the increasing carbonization of so many components, and lighter frames. To me,
    however, the even more interesting fact is that the bikes used by the pros in the most important
    road cycling event of the year varied in weight, from lightest to heaviest, by 1.5kg -- 3.3
    pounds! (The 2002 Tour bikes had exactly the same range of weights.) Yes of course the USPS Treks
    were among the lightest, but the Bianchi ridden by one of Jan Ullrich's teammates was 800 grams
    heavier, and a Pinarello Dogma ridden by a Team Telekom rider was one of the heaviest (at 8.4kg --
    18.5lbs).

    All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the highest levels on
    bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage scale and not
    worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or that component.

    I would be interested in the reactions of others.

    Edward Kleinbard

    It's easy to calculate the penalty from having an extra kg of mass on your bike. while not climbing,
    the penalty is near zero. while climbing, it is a pretty simple problem. Just using lance
    armstrong's reported w/kg at anaerobic threshold of 6.5, then having a bike that weighs one kg less
    is like having a free ~6.5 watts on alpe d'huez (very rough estimate). this is not a ton of watts in
    terms of percentage when you're (lance is) putting out 400+ watts while climbing, but there's no
    reason not to take any advantage you can get.

    As for us mere mortals, I still think 1kg can add up over a 60+ mile hilly road race. Maybe enough
    to potentially affect the outcome in a race where the sprint to the finish line might be decided by
    meters (or even centimeters). I could be wrong though . . . it's certainly better to focus on
    training and getting faster.

  11. Mark Wolfe <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    I think it's a mental thing. We weight my 1990 Paramount the other day, and with pedals and cages
    it was 20lbs even.

    That is good as my Litespeed Classic with Chorus, 32 spoke Moscova wheels and 2 bottle cages is
    20lbs 2 oz.

  12. [email hidden] (Edward Kleinbard) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>... [snip]

    Quoted message said:


    All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the highest levels on
    bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage scale and not
    worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or that component.

    I would be interested in the reactions of others.

    There are two simple ways to reduce weight:
    a) spend money
    b) train more, eat less.

  13. Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

    Way too much importance placed on bicycle weight

    ...with the possible exception of off-road bicycling, IMO. Off-road, you need to be able to throw
    the bike around; and the easier you can do so, the better.

    So, lighter bike == easier to throw bike around == more fun.

    Also, for equivelant weight, I believe that equipment and water in a backpack is better than
    attached to the bike, for off road biking.

    On-road, I agree that weight, in general, and backpack vs. bike-mount in specific, is not as
    important...not to mention the already-light weight of a road bike.

    Quoted message said:

    Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
    (303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"


    --
    Rick Onanian

  14. Rick Onanian said:

    Also, for equivelant weight, I believe that equipment and water in a backpack is better than
    attached to the bike, for off road biking.

    Care to argue that one for me? Why do you think so?

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simon

    ;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. ;; Jim Morrison

  15. How does one weigh his bike accurately? Fishing scale?

    "Edward Kleinbard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The August issue of the French cycling magazine Le Cycle has an interesting article on the weights
    of the bicycles used in the Tour de France. One point that the article makes is that the average
    weight of the bikes in the Tour declined by roughly one pound from 2002 to 2003 (from 8.14kg to
    7.72kg), due to the increasing carbonization of so many components, and lighter frames. To me,
    however, the even more interesting fact is that the bikes used by the pros in the most important
    road cycling event of the year varied in weight, from lightest to heaviest, by 1.5kg -- 3.3
    pounds! (The 2002 Tour bikes had exactly the same range of weights.) Yes of course the USPS Treks
    were among the lightest, but the Bianchi ridden by one of Jan Ullrich's teammates was 800 grams
    heavier, and a Pinarello Dogma ridden by a Team Telekom rider was one of the heaviest (at 8.4kg --
    18.5lbs).

    All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the highest levels on
    bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage scale and not
    worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or that component.

    I would be interested in the reactions of others.

    Edward Kleinbard

  16. I usually get on my digital scale and weigh myself. Then I pick up my bike and weigh myself again.
    Difference is the bike weight. For my scale this is only accurate to +/- ~.25lbs.

    "KBH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<vuD9b.365355$Oz4.141563@rwcrnsc54>...

    Quoted message said:

    How does one weigh his bike accurately? Fishing scale?

    "Edward Kleinbard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The August issue of the French cycling magazine Le Cycle has an interesting article on the
    weights of the bicycles used in the Tour de France. One point that the article makes is that the
    average weight of the bikes in the Tour declined by roughly one pound from 2002 to 2003 (from
    8.14kg to 7.72kg), due to the increasing carbonization of so many components, and lighter
    frames. To me, however, the even more interesting fact is that the bikes used by the pros in the
    most important road cycling event of the year varied in weight, from lightest to heaviest, by
    1.5kg -- 3.3 pounds! (The 2002 Tour bikes had exactly the same range of weights.) Yes of course
    the USPS Treks were among the lightest, but the Bianchi ridden by one of Jan Ullrich's teammates
    was 800 grams heavier, and a Pinarello Dogma ridden by a Team Telekom rider was one of the
    heaviest (at 8.4kg -- 18.5lbs).

    All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the highest levels
    on bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage scale and
    not worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or that
    component.

    I would be interested in the reactions of others.

    Edward Kleinbard

  17. Yepper, gave up the "stupid light" quest, myself, 6 years ago. Never been happier cycling. People
    now marvel and ask me how I can ride a bike with 36 spoke wheels!

    Edward Kleinbard said:

    The August issue of the French cycling magazine Le Cycle has an interesting article on the weights
    of the bicycles used in the Tour de France. One point that the article makes is that the average
    weight of the bikes in the Tour declined by roughly one pound from 2002 to 2003 (from 8.14kg to
    7.72kg), due to the increasing carbonization of so many components, and lighter frames. To me,
    however, the even more interesting fact is that the bikes used by the pros in the most important
    road cycling event of the year varied in weight, from lightest to heaviest, by 1.5kg -- 3.3
    pounds! (The 2002 Tour bikes had exactly the same range of weights.) Yes of course the USPS Treks
    were among the lightest, but the Bianchi ridden by one of Jan Ullrich's teammates was 800 grams
    heavier, and a Pinarello Dogma ridden by a Team Telekom rider was one of the heaviest (at 8.4kg --
    18.5lbs).

    All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the highest levels on
    bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage scale and not
    worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or that component.

    I would be interested in the reactions of others.

    Edward Kleinbard

    --

    Tp

    -------- __o ----- -\<. ------ __o --- ( ) / ( ) ---- -\<. ----------------- ( ) / ( )
    ---------------------------------------------

    Freedom is not free; Free men are not equal; Equal men are not free.

  18. In article said:

    Yepper, gave up the "stupid light" quest, myself, 6 years ago. Never been happier cycling. People
    now marvel and ask me how I can ride a bike with 36 spoke wheels!

    Edward Kleinbard said:

    The August issue of the French cycling magazine Le Cycle has an interesting article on the
    weights of the bicycles used in the Tour de France. One point that the article makes is that the
    average weight of the bikes in the Tour declined by roughly one pound from 2002 to 2003 (from
    8.14kg to 7.72kg), due to the increasing carbonization of so many components, and lighter
    frames. To me, however, the even more interesting fact is that the bikes used by the pros in the
    most important road cycling event of the year varied in weight, from lightest to heaviest, by
    1.5kg -- 3.3 pounds! (The 2002 Tour bikes had exactly the same range of weights.) Yes of course
    the USPS Treks were among the lightest, but the Bianchi ridden by one of Jan Ullrich's teammates
    was 800 grams heavier, and a Pinarello Dogma ridden by a Team Telekom rider was one of the
    heaviest (at 8.4kg -- 18.5lbs).

    All of which suggests to me that if the top pros in the world can compete at the highest levels
    on bicycles with these sorts of disparities in weight, maybe I can retire the postage scale and
    not worry about saving a few grams (at tremendous cost) with the latest carbon this or that
    component.

    I would be interested in the reactions of others.

    Well, first off, once they get to the mountains, I think you'll find every rider on a sub-7 kg bike,
    near the minimum weight.

    For the flat stages, the weight just doesn't make a lot of difference, and reliability does. In TT
    stages, aero trumps everything.

    Various sites offer reasonably accurate formulae that describe how much difference weight makes on a
    hill climb. When you're talking about a pound, it has to be a very long or very steep hill for the
    difference to be worth troubling about.

    My race bike's fighting weight is a relatively porky 22 pounds. Since I started riding it earlier
    this year, I've lost about 15 pounds, and the process that got my weight down made me faster beyond
    just the weight loss. I plan to lose another 6-9 pounds (see what happens and when my gut
    disappears) before stopping.

    If, on the other hand, I take weight out of my bike, I might be able to modify it to be a pound or
    two lighter at considerable expense, or replace it with a bike 5 pounds lighter at ludicrous
    expense. Anything less is probably in stupidlight territory. I have no intention of even thinking
    about a bike replacement until I'm at my goal weight, and even then I'll probably just work on some
    better training techniques and at least one category upgrade before I change bikes. Why? I have a
    low budget, and exercising is nearly free. Light bikes are not.

    For "non-optimized" riders, it basically makes no sense (except as a diverting hobby) to spend what
    it costs to go from a fairly heavy road bike (say 20-22 pounds) to a fairly light (17-19 lbs.) bike.
    For a well-trained racer with no body weight to lose, A bike change might be the easiest way to
    improve climbing performance. Maybe.

    Tour riders mostly ride what they get paid to ride. When that impedes performance, they "cheat",
    mostly by using equipment from one company labelled with their sponsor's logo.

    What you can see on the tour is that virtually nobody engages in sponsor-spoofing on the flat
    stages. The riders ride bikes made by their sponsors, though in some cases with custom fitting
    unavailable to mere mortals (I think some of the Bianchi riders have frame sizing you and I could
    not request). But when the mountains hit, sponsor-spoofing becomes quite common. This is where
    riders break out their super-light custom jobs, sometimes built by their sponsor, sometimes only
    stickered by their sponsor. Similar things happen on the TT stages, where Cervelo was one popular
    frame that until this year frequently made cameo appearances under another maker's label. This time
    they got star billing as the CSC frame sponsor.

    So we can take from this that frame weight doesn't matter to the pros very much except when it does
    (in the mountains), and when it does, they want their bikes to be an extra bit lighter.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

  19. In article said:

    Well, first off, once they get to the mountains, I think you'll find every rider on a sub-7 kg
    bike, near the minimum weight.

    Well, the best riders, yes. The water carriers will likely carry on on their regular bikes.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.