Bike Weight redux

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Doug Taylor, Mar 21, 2006.

  1. Ron Ruff

    Ron Ruff Guest

    Doug Taylor wrote:
    > The only real rest is to weigh the whole bike on a scale. You are
    > delusional if you really believe that bike weighs anything less than
    > 18 lbs. NFW you can buy or build a bike that weighs 15 or 16 lbs for
    > less than $4 k, more like $5 k. If you think so, prove it. I'll
    > accept a photo of the bike on your scale...


    I'll bet you $1,000 that the bike weighs less than 18 lbs in a 55-56cm
    size.

    I'll also bet you $1,000 that I can put together a bike with new
    components that weighs less than 16 lbs for <$3,000. You game?
     


  2. Doug Taylor

    Doug Taylor Guest

    On 22 Mar 2006 13:00:00 -0800, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >
    >Doug Taylor wrote:
    >> The only real rest is to weigh the whole bike on a scale. You are
    >> delusional if you really believe that bike weighs anything less than
    >> 18 lbs. NFW you can buy or build a bike that weighs 15 or 16 lbs for
    >> less than $4 k, more like $5 k. If you think so, prove it. I'll
    >> accept a photo of the bike on your scale...

    >
    >I'll bet you $1,000 that the bike weighs less than 18 lbs in a 55-56cm
    >size.
    >
    >I'll also bet you $1,000 that I can put together a bike with new
    >components that weighs less than 16 lbs for <$3,000. You game?


    Until I read the posts from the Euro peons, I would have jumped.
    Apparently they can get 900 gram carbon frames for MUCH cheaper than
    in the USA.

    My new build was just about $3000, has everything but the 900 gram
    frame, all new parts bought on ebay, Dura Ace drive train, FSA compact
    carbon cranks, AC Sprint 350 wheels, Speedplay X-1 pedals, carbon post
    and bars, etc. and is 17 lbs on my scale. Substitute the carbon
    frame for a euro price, maybe another 1/2 to 3/4 lb. less.

    Just explain your theory without giving away trade secrets.
     
  3. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Dans le message de
    > news:[email protected],
    > Mike Reed <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
    > > Sandy wrote:
    > >> Anyway, it's not realisitc to buy things when at or over the limit.

    > >
    > > That gets back to my point. Can you point me to a road racing bike
    > > available for sale in the US with Ultegra level components that comes
    > > with wheels built for a 220 lb man?

    >
    > I don't live in the land of Big Men stores. Sorry.
    >
    > > Note that this doesn't mean it's for an out of shape man. A local
    > > hero, Robbie Robinette, probably runs 215 or 220, and he's the
    > > National Masters Road Champion:
    > >

    http://www.teamhotelsanjose.com/ths...=/thsjcorp/Portals/0/Bio_Robbie_Robinette.jpg
    > >

    http://www.teamhotelsanjose.com/ths...341&tabid=1&img=/thsjdnn/Portals/0/robbie.jpg
    > >
    > > My brother-in-law, however, is no national champ :) Still, the racing
    > > bikes available today are underbuilt. Period.

    >
    > Not for their intended purchasers, I think.


    Well, umm, if they're intending that only people under 150 lbs buy their
    bikes then they are seriously limiting their market.

    Greg
     
  4. alans

    alans Guest

    Doug Taylor wrote:
    >
    > He posited a 5 kilometer, 7% grade. That's a good, stiff climb. The
    > legendary Stelvio climb averages 7.5%. He further assumed a rider who
    > can kick out 250 watts. A 160 pound rider will take 19 minutes and 21
    > seconds to get up the hill. Every 5 pounds added make the trip up the
    > hill take 30 seconds longer.
    >
    > That means each added pound adds 6 seconds to the time it takes to get
    > up this hill. That is only 6 seconds on a stiff, 20 minute climb.
    >


    I always wonder if anyone has tested this sort of claim with real
    riders under real conditions. I suspect that these calculations are
    simplistic and the real difference would be greater. Depending on the
    location of the extra weight, the rider could be moving it a lot
    farther than just up the hill.

    >...your 15 or 16 lb bike can't
    > by definition can't cost you less than $4500 total - as a practical
    > matter much more. ...
    >


    Wild exaggeration...my regular ride is sub-16lb (60cm, incl pedals, two
    bottle cages, computer, etc) - common frame built from common
    components and hand-build wheels and cost less than $2500 total.

    Alan
     
  5. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    "alans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Doug Taylor wrote:
    > >
    > > He posited a 5 kilometer, 7% grade. That's a good, stiff climb. The
    > > legendary Stelvio climb averages 7.5%. He further assumed a rider who
    > > can kick out 250 watts. A 160 pound rider will take 19 minutes and 21
    > > seconds to get up the hill. Every 5 pounds added make the trip up the
    > > hill take 30 seconds longer.
    > >
    > > That means each added pound adds 6 seconds to the time it takes to get
    > > up this hill. That is only 6 seconds on a stiff, 20 minute climb.
    > >

    >
    > I always wonder if anyone has tested this sort of claim with real
    > riders under real conditions. I suspect that these calculations are
    > simplistic and the real difference would be greater. Depending on the
    > location of the extra weight, the rider could be moving it a lot
    > farther than just up the hill.


    And where would that be? Space?

    >
    > >...your 15 or 16 lb bike can't
    > > by definition can't cost you less than $4500 total - as a practical
    > > matter much more. ...
    > >

    >
    > Wild exaggeration...my regular ride is sub-16lb (60cm, incl pedals, two
    > bottle cages, computer, etc) - common frame built from common
    > components and hand-build wheels and cost less than $2500 total.
    >


    Sure dude.

    Greg
     
  6. alans

    alans Guest

    An apparently sarcastic person wrote:

    >And where would that be? Space?


    Uh, gee, which uses more energy: walking up a hill carrying a weight,
    or walking up the hill while lifting the weight up and down 90 times a
    minute? In which case was the weight moved over more distance?
     
  7. On 22 Mar 2006 06:17:12 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >Ozark Bicycle wrote:


    >> Thanks for posting this info. A little counterpoint to all the
    >> mumbo-jumbo, black magic, hype, marketing drivel, and BS that currently
    >> dominates the bicycle market is most welcome.

    >
    >It is but the bicycle industry, with Trek, Specilized and Giant+others
    >at the lead, wonder why it's shrinking. Drivel at it's highest, and
    >it's going to get smaller before the 'big boys' realize that they are
    >the problem.


    Are you saying that over-hyped marketing by bike companies is the
    *cause* of decline or lack of growth in cycling?

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  8. hmmmm? on a 50 mile ride 4 pounds plus shortens your ride flat out
    distance by 5 miles?
     
  9. On 22 Mar 2006 12:55:44 -0800, "Mike Reed" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Ozark Bicycle wrote:
    >> That's American Classic's "classic American" answer to the problem: too
    >> many Americans over 180lbs, thus limiting the market? Simple, raise the
    >> weight limit, increase sales and sweat the consequences later.

    >
    >That's a good point.
    >
    >Remember the old sensible Bridgestone ads? (see Sheldon's site) I
    >remember Bridgestone's claim that the RB-1 had more Cat 1/2 wins than
    >any frame in the US. I raced and trained an RB-1 for 10 years. I even
    >won a hilly race in Colorado on it against many newer and lighter
    >machines.
    >
    >Wouldn't it be nice if a major manufacturer went sensible on us, and
    >started marketing sensible race bikes?


    The race bikes being marketed are sensible -- for racing. The
    Bridgestone RB-1 was a great bike, but is overbuilt if racing is the
    point. I'd love to own one for general riding, dirt roads, etc.
    I've got a steel LeMond that is similar, though without quite as much
    tire clearance.

    Current Giants, Treks, Specialized are all great racing bikes. They
    will last for several years of hard racing use.

    >I know you can build one easily
    >enough, but it would be cool to pick through, say, a Giant catalog and
    >pick an all-around Ultegra-level bike to get a new addict through his
    >first 3-5 seasons of road racing and training. Good for 7500-10000
    >miles/year, and won't hold you back. Maybe for $1500.


    Those bikes exist today, stock.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  10. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    "alans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > An apparently sarcastic person wrote:
    >
    > >And where would that be? Space?

    >
    > Uh, gee, which uses more energy: walking up a hill carrying a weight,
    > or walking up the hill while lifting the weight up and down 90 times a
    > minute? In which case was the weight moved over more distance?
    >


    I thought we were talking about bicycles? What part's are going up and down
    on a bicycle, and what is the weight differential of those parts between an
    18 lb bike and a 19 lb bike? How significant is that weight differential
    considering it's negligible compared to the full biker/rider combo?

    Greg
     
  11. On 22 Mar 2006 15:26:14 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
    >> http://www2.trekbikes.com/us/en/Ins...eights_listed_in_the_specs_on_the_website.php
    >>
    >> I guess the rbr grouches will claim this is some kind of reverse
    >> psychology marketing hype, huh?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >rbr? You posted this solely to RBT, twitwit.


    Thanks, sorry about that. I meant the rbt grouches.

    JT


    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  12. On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:30:08 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> http://www2.trekbikes.com/us/en/Ins...eights_listed_in_the_specs_on_the_website.php

    >
    >Note: You MUST have cookies enabled to use this web site.

    Ack, that's annoying. Sorry.

    Text is given below

    JT

    Why aren't the weights listed in the specs on the website?

    We understand that this is an important piece of information that many
    riders factor into their buying decision. We have chosen not to post
    weights on the website for a couple of reasons:

    1. It is probably most accurate for a rider to simply weigh a bike in
    a shop as opposed to us listing it on the website, because there are
    many variables that affect the weight of the bike- i.e.- frame size,
    decal/color options (some designs weigh more than others, with or
    without pedals, and production/component variables. Tires vary widely
    in weight, even though they come out of the same mold- same with
    tubes. The actual tubing and weld material can vary a good bit,
    depending on the style of the welder and the amount of weld rod added.
    Bottom line, we would have two choices, estimate heavy so we would
    never be called liars, or go light, knowing that we would be wrong on
    occasion.

    2. Many of our competitors do list bike weights, and we know that they
    are not accurate - i.e., we know they have chosen to list a lighter
    weight than 99% of customers would be likely to get. For the rider
    simply looking on the internet, Trek bikes may not compare as
    favorably as they would if you actually weighed actual bikes.

    3. Last, we encourage riders to remember that anyone can make a bike
    lighter, but Trek will only sell bikes that are 'responsibly light',
    meaning that all the components have passed strict impact and fatigue
    testing. We spec our bikes to be safe and last a long time, so be sure
    to compare company warranties when you are comparing weights.


    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  13. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I'll also bet you $1,000 that I can put together a bike with new
    >components that weighs less than 16 lbs for <$3,000. You game?


    Heck, I built one a lot lighter than that for not much more than a
    third that much.

    http://www.habcycles.com/fixie.jpg

    ;-) (probably should be a bit more specific...)

    Mark Hickey
    Habanero Cycles
    http://www.habcycles.com
    Home of the $795 ti frame
     
  14. A Muzi

    A Muzi Guest

    -snip prices-
    Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    Campag prices are too high
    > also. This is common in all 'vehicle' retail, cars, motorcycles, etc.
    > OEM is shimano's specialty and it remains to be seen if Sram can
    > compete with the numbers required in 2007. Campagnolo can't spell OEM,
    > isn't really interested. I don't think they should be. They should be
    > the thing of the higher end, specialty bicycles starting at the shop as
    > frames, not from the factory. I think they should just can Mirage and
    > Xenon, focus on Record, Chorus, Centaur with Veloce an add on. Porshce
    > and Mercedes doesn't do entry level cars. Toyota is all about the
    > Corolla. I think Campagnolo should stop trying to be mainstream and be
    > as unique as the Rolex on the man or woman's wrist.
    >
    > As for pricing in general, i know it would tweak lots of distributors,
    > but I would love to see these manufacturers go direct, like skis.


    'Campagnolo prices are too high'
    Hmmm.

    Ultegra Ten costs me a _lot_ more than Centaur, more than
    Centaur Grey even. Heck, Ultegra _Nine_ costs me more that
    Centaur Ten.

    Agreed games are played with oem prices - there is no level
    playing field. The field is closed and we specialty builders
    are down the next street. . .

    But apples to apples Campagnolo is not expensive per se.

    I just looked at a famous house's Chorus Ten and DA Ten
    prices . To quote a famous bike shop owner, YGBSM!!


    --
    Andrew Muzi
    www.yellowjersey.org
    Open every day since 1 April, 1971
     
  15. Mike Reed

    Mike Reed Guest

    John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
    > The race bikes being marketed are sensible -- for racing. The
    > Bridgestone RB-1 was a great bike, but is overbuilt if racing is the
    > point. I'd love to own one for general riding, dirt roads, etc.
    > I've got a steel LeMond that is similar, though without quite as much
    > tire clearance.


    My point was for the average 19 year-old starting off, who can afford
    only one bike, but will be racing a lot. The RB-1 was not overbuilt for
    this purpose. It was perfect.

    > Current Giants, Treks, Specialized are all great racing bikes. They
    > will last for several years of hard racing use.


    Not by our current 40-45 national champion, 220 lb. Robbie Robinette.
    Big, fast racers exist.

    > Those bikes exist today, stock.


    Linky? Show me something for the 185-220 lbs racer crowd.
     
  16. A Muzi

    A Muzi Guest

    > Doug Taylor wrote:
    >>The only real rest is to weigh the whole bike on a scale. You are
    >>delusional if you really believe that bike weighs anything less than
    >>18 lbs. NFW you can buy or build a bike that weighs 15 or 16 lbs for
    >>less than $4 k, more like $5 k. If you think so, prove it. I'll
    >>accept a photo of the bike on your scale...


    Ron Ruff wrote:
    > I'll bet you $1,000 that the bike weighs less than 18 lbs in a 55-56cm
    > size.
    > I'll also bet you $1,000 that I can put together a bike with new
    > components that weighs less than 16 lbs for <$3,000. You game?


    You are right. 16lb takes selection but not more than $3K.
    15 pounds is a whole 'nother thing

    --
    Andrew Muzi
    www.yellowjersey.org
    Open every day since 1 April, 1971
     
  17. A Muzi

    A Muzi Guest

    >>Doug Taylor wrote:
    >>>The only real rest is to weigh the whole bike on a scale. You are
    >>>delusional if you really believe that bike weighs anything less than
    >>>18 lbs. NFW you can buy or build a bike that weighs 15 or 16 lbs for
    >>>less than $4 k, more like $5 k. If you think so, prove it. I'll
    >>>accept a photo of the bike on your scale...


    >"Ron Ruff" <[email protected]>
    >>I'll bet you $1,000 that the bike weighs less than 18 lbs in a 55-56cm
    >>size.
    >>I'll also bet you $1,000 that I can put together a bike with new
    >>components that weighs less than 16 lbs for <$3,000. You game?


    Doug Taylor wrote:
    > Until I read the posts from the Euro peons, I would have jumped.
    > Apparently they can get 900 gram carbon frames for MUCH cheaper than
    > in the USA.
    > My new build was just about $3000, has everything but the 900 gram
    > frame, all new parts bought on ebay, Dura Ace drive train, FSA compact
    > carbon cranks, AC Sprint 350 wheels, Speedplay X-1 pedals, carbon post
    > and bars, etc. and is 17 lbs on my scale. Substitute the carbon
    > frame for a euro price, maybe another 1/2 to 3/4 lb. less.
    >
    > Just explain your theory without giving away trade secrets.


    Vintage tub rims are one approach

    --
    Andrew Muzi
    www.yellowjersey.org
    Open every day since 1 April, 1971
     
Loading...
Loading...