Bike Weight redux

Came across this article on the Torelli website which I thought was
interesting:

"Bicycle Weight, the Benefits Quantified

Everyone talks about bicycle weight. It consumes our discussions.
Magazine reviews make it clear that if the very lightest parts are not
chosen, if it is not as light as possible, the bicycle being examined
is suspect. Light weight has become the sine qua non of a good
bicycle. A light bicycle is a good bicycle, without any further
discussion of its other merits or qualities.

Can we step back for a moment?

Let's get some numbers. Let us see if, as I believe, the handy
availability of a single number has led people to make poor decisions
in their choice of bicycle.

First of all, weight is important. If it weren't, we would all be
enjoying pleasant 75-mile rides on 42-pound Schwinn Varsity bikes. The
road bikes offered today are a far cry from those mild-steel tanks.
We're not talking about riding heavy bikes. I want to limit the
discussion to modern, well-made, well equipped bikes.

My personal favorite bike is a 55-centimeter all Columbus Foco Steel
Torelli bike with a steel fork, generously chromed, built up with a
Campagnolo Record 10-speed group. It weighs about 19 pounds. Beyond
aluminum spoke nipples and double-butted spokes, there is nothing
heroic about the equipment to make it lighter. The Squadra HDP saddle
is heavy by the usual standards.

UCI regulations limit a racing bike to about 15 pounds. What we are
discussing, from a normal all-steel bike to a super-light, barely
legal bike is about 4 pounds. This is what we're going crazy about, 4
pounds. Maybe a bit more with a less expensive groups. In any case,
given the usual rider-bike package of at least 180 pounds or more, the
difference is obviously very small indeed.

But how does this weight difference affect performance? Does removing
these few pounds make the bike fly? Is a lighter bike the fountain of
youth? The September 2003 Bicycling Magazine has a chart that makes it
easy to quantify the performance gains from light weight. James C.
Martin, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of exercise and
sport science at the University of Utah provided some interesting
calculations that make the cost of weight very clear.

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.

So, given our roughly 4-pound range from a full steel bike to a
super-light carbon or aluminum bike, the time difference up this hill
would be 24 seconds from best to worst.

But, most weight conscious people aren't bringing their bikes down to
15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy.
17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range. The real discussion is about 1.5
to 2 pounds.

The performance advantage of a lighter bike is greatest when the hill
is steepest. What happens as things flatten out? Then, as the speed of
the bike increases, the resistance comes from the wind, tire rolling
resistance, bearing drag, etc. Those 6 seconds/pound grow ever
smaller.

The variations in body weight, however, being so much greater, make
large difference. If that same 160 pound-250 watt rider were to be 220
pounds, he would come in 6 minutes, 10 seconds later.

So what do we do with this information?

There are two basic groups of riders to whom this is important.

The first is the serious athlete. A few seconds advantage is not
something he can give up. No matter what the quality of the ride of
the bike in question, he must seek every attainable performance gain
in his equipment or his body.

Then there is the large body of dedicated cyclists who enjoy the sport
at various levels, but do not compete in the higher racing categories.
I think this is almost everyone reading this essay. For these riders,
the choice of bike and equipment should involve a more complex,
qualitative study. Weight is one consideration. But there are others.
How does the bike feel? Is it stable? Does it fit? Does it have the
snappy, clean, vibrant feel that should be the soul of a great bike?

These basically sensuous questions that are beyond simple
quantification. It's not a matter of a 73 degree head tube or 18
pounds or 9 sprockets in the rear. It is the whole bike, taken as a
whole that must be considered. One should not pick a bike as if he
were one of the 7 blind men describing the elephant.

The fact that these 1.5 - 2 pounds are so unimportant in choosing a
bike should be looked upon a truly liberating. Now we can to back to
judging bikes on their real merits.

Before leaving this discussion, let's look at the most common
"upgrade".

A full carbon fork is considered an upgrade that will add greatly to
the competitive advantage of the bike. A full carbon fork replacing a
steel fork can take off a little less than a pound. Remember, that's
our 6 seconds. Clearly, we have all been oversold on the carbon fork
as the easy performance upgrade. There is some improvement, but it is
minuscule. And it is not without its costs in quality of road feel.
For more about carbon, please see my essay on materials.

Or in other words, Scarpelli, you can't buy a bike light enough to
keep up me with on a climb."

http://www.torelli.com/tech/weight.shtml


Bikes which in actual fact (weighed on your scale, not in a marketing
add) get down to 15 -16 lb range (forget about UCI illegal and pie in
the sky sub 15) are going to require a 2lb frame, which means
expensive carbon or a Litespeed Ghisallo. Try finding one of those
for less than $2500 or $3000, frame only. When you add your Campy
Record Carbon and your Zipp wheels, etc., your 15 or 16 lb bike can't
by definition can't cost you less than $4500 total - as a practical
matter much more. A boatload of cash for that 1.5 lb. Somebody
please do the cost/ benefit calculations.

What really makes me laugh is ads like this one:

http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...p06_sl_pre.htm

If it sounds too good to be true...

Doug Taylor wrote:
Came across this article on the Torelli website which I thought was
interesting:

"Bicycle Weight, the Benefits Quantified

Everyone talks about bicycle weight. It consumes our discussions.
Magazine reviews make it clear that if the very lightest parts are not
chosen, if it is not as light as possible, the bicycle being examined
is suspect. Light weight has become the sine qua non of a good
bicycle. A light bicycle is a good bicycle, without any further
discussion of its other merits or qualities.

Can we step back for a moment?

Let's get some numbers. Let us see if, as I believe, the handy
availability of a single number has led people to make poor decisions
in their choice of bicycle.

First of all, weight is important. If it weren't, we would all be
enjoying pleasant 75-mile rides on 42-pound Schwinn Varsity bikes. The
road bikes offered today are a far cry from those mild-steel tanks.
We're not talking about riding heavy bikes. I want to limit the
discussion to modern, well-made, well equipped bikes.

My personal favorite bike is a 55-centimeter all Columbus Foco Steel
Torelli bike with a steel fork, generously chromed, built up with a
Campagnolo Record 10-speed group. It weighs about 19 pounds. Beyond
aluminum spoke nipples and double-butted spokes, there is nothing
heroic about the equipment to make it lighter. The Squadra HDP saddle
is heavy by the usual standards.

UCI regulations limit a racing bike to about 15 pounds. What we are
discussing, from a normal all-steel bike to a super-light, barely
legal bike is about 4 pounds. This is what we're going crazy about, 4
pounds. Maybe a bit more with a less expensive groups. In any case,
given the usual rider-bike package of at least 180 pounds or more, the
difference is obviously very small indeed.

But how does this weight difference affect performance? Does removing
these few pounds make the bike fly? Is a lighter bike the fountain of
youth? The September 2003 Bicycling Magazine has a chart that makes it
easy to quantify the performance gains from light weight. James C.
Martin, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of exercise and
sport science at the University of Utah provided some interesting
calculations that make the cost of weight very clear.

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.

So, given our roughly 4-pound range from a full steel bike to a
super-light carbon or aluminum bike, the time difference up this hill
would be 24 seconds from best to worst.

But, most weight conscious people aren't bringing their bikes down to
15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy.
17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range. The real discussion is about 1.5
to 2 pounds.

The performance advantage of a lighter bike is greatest when the hill
is steepest. What happens as things flatten out? Then, as the speed of
the bike increases, the resistance comes from the wind, tire rolling
resistance, bearing drag, etc. Those 6 seconds/pound grow ever
smaller.

The variations in body weight, however, being so much greater, make
large difference. If that same 160 pound-250 watt rider were to be 220
pounds, he would come in 6 minutes, 10 seconds later.

So what do we do with this information?

There are two basic groups of riders to whom this is important.

The first is the serious athlete. A few seconds advantage is not
something he can give up. No matter what the quality of the ride of
the bike in question, he must seek every attainable performance gain
in his equipment or his body.

Then there is the large body of dedicated cyclists who enjoy the sport
at various levels, but do not compete in the higher racing categories.
I think this is almost everyone reading this essay. For these riders,
the choice of bike and equipment should involve a more complex,
qualitative study. Weight is one consideration. But there are others.
How does the bike feel? Is it stable? Does it fit? Does it have the
snappy, clean, vibrant feel that should be the soul of a great bike?

These basically sensuous questions that are beyond simple
quantification. It's not a matter of a 73 degree head tube or 18
pounds or 9 sprockets in the rear. It is the whole bike, taken as a
whole that must be considered. One should not pick a bike as if he
were one of the 7 blind men describing the elephant.

The fact that these 1.5 - 2 pounds are so unimportant in choosing a
bike should be looked upon a truly liberating. Now we can to back to
judging bikes on their real merits.

Before leaving this discussion, let's look at the most common
"upgrade".

A full carbon fork is considered an upgrade that will add greatly to
the competitive advantage of the bike. A full carbon fork replacing a
steel fork can take off a little less than a pound. Remember, that's
our 6 seconds. Clearly, we have all been oversold on the carbon fork
as the easy performance upgrade. There is some improvement, but it is
minuscule. And it is not without its costs in quality of road feel.
For more about carbon, please see my essay on materials.

Or in other words, Scarpelli, you can't buy a bike light enough to
keep up me with on a climb."

http://www.torelli.com/tech/weight.shtml


Bikes which in actual fact (weighed on your scale, not in a marketing
add) get down to 15 -16 lb range (forget about UCI illegal and pie in
the sky sub 15) are going to require a 2lb frame, which means
expensive carbon or a Litespeed Ghisallo. Try finding one of those
for less than $2500 or $3000, frame only. When you add your Campy
Record Carbon and your Zipp wheels, etc., your 15 or 16 lb bike can't
by definition can't cost you less than $4500 total - as a practical
matter much more. A boatload of cash for that 1.5 lb. Somebody
please do the cost/ benefit calculations.

What really makes me laugh is ads like this one:

http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...p06_sl_pre.htm

If it sounds too good to be true...

The good Chairman has been in the world of 'reality, what a concept',
for a long time. If only the marketeers and putz salepeople would take
this to heart. Gadgetry and fluff has reached high levels of BS and
blackmagic, with salespeople who regularly make promises they cannot
keep.

Maybe, just maybe if this tomfoolery would abate some, decent bicycles
would be made...and sold...and RIDDEN, the object, afterall, of the
bicycle.

Doug Taylor wrote:
Came across this article on the Torelli website which I thought was
interesting:

"Bicycle Weight, the Benefits Quantified

Everyone talks about bicycle weight. It consumes our discussions.
Magazine reviews make it clear that if the very lightest parts are not
chosen, if it is not as light as possible, the bicycle being examined
is suspect. Light weight has become the sine qua non of a good
bicycle. A light bicycle is a good bicycle, without any further
discussion of its other merits or qualities.

Can we step back for a moment?

Let's get some numbers. Let us see if, as I believe, the handy
availability of a single number has led people to make poor decisions
in their choice of bicycle.

First of all, weight is important. If it weren't, we would all be
enjoying pleasant 75-mile rides on 42-pound Schwinn Varsity bikes. The
road bikes offered today are a far cry from those mild-steel tanks.
We're not talking about riding heavy bikes. I want to limit the
discussion to modern, well-made, well equipped bikes.

My personal favorite bike is a 55-centimeter all Columbus Foco Steel
Torelli bike with a steel fork, generously chromed, built up with a
Campagnolo Record 10-speed group. It weighs about 19 pounds. Beyond
aluminum spoke nipples and double-butted spokes, there is nothing
heroic about the equipment to make it lighter. The Squadra HDP saddle
is heavy by the usual standards.

UCI regulations limit a racing bike to about 15 pounds. What we are
discussing, from a normal all-steel bike to a super-light, barely
legal bike is about 4 pounds. This is what we're going crazy about, 4
pounds. Maybe a bit more with a less expensive groups. In any case,
given the usual rider-bike package of at least 180 pounds or more, the
difference is obviously very small indeed.

But how does this weight difference affect performance? Does removing
these few pounds make the bike fly? Is a lighter bike the fountain of
youth? The September 2003 Bicycling Magazine has a chart that makes it
easy to quantify the performance gains from light weight. James C.
Martin, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of exercise and
sport science at the University of Utah provided some interesting
calculations that make the cost of weight very clear.

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.

So, given our roughly 4-pound range from a full steel bike to a
super-light carbon or aluminum bike, the time difference up this hill
would be 24 seconds from best to worst.

But, most weight conscious people aren't bringing their bikes down to
15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy.
17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range. The real discussion is about 1.5
to 2 pounds.

The performance advantage of a lighter bike is greatest when the hill
is steepest. What happens as things flatten out? Then, as the speed of
the bike increases, the resistance comes from the wind, tire rolling
resistance, bearing drag, etc. Those 6 seconds/pound grow ever
smaller.

The variations in body weight, however, being so much greater, make
large difference. If that same 160 pound-250 watt rider were to be 220
pounds, he would come in 6 minutes, 10 seconds later.

So what do we do with this information?

There are two basic groups of riders to whom this is important.

The first is the serious athlete. A few seconds advantage is not
something he can give up. No matter what the quality of the ride of
the bike in question, he must seek every attainable performance gain
in his equipment or his body.

Then there is the large body of dedicated cyclists who enjoy the sport
at various levels, but do not compete in the higher racing categories.
I think this is almost everyone reading this essay. For these riders,
the choice of bike and equipment should involve a more complex,
qualitative study. Weight is one consideration. But there are others.
How does the bike feel? Is it stable? Does it fit? Does it have the
snappy, clean, vibrant feel that should be the soul of a great bike?

These basically sensuous questions that are beyond simple
quantification. It's not a matter of a 73 degree head tube or 18
pounds or 9 sprockets in the rear. It is the whole bike, taken as a
whole that must be considered. One should not pick a bike as if he
were one of the 7 blind men describing the elephant.

The fact that these 1.5 - 2 pounds are so unimportant in choosing a
bike should be looked upon a truly liberating. Now we can to back to
judging bikes on their real merits.

Before leaving this discussion, let's look at the most common
"upgrade".

A full carbon fork is considered an upgrade that will add greatly to
the competitive advantage of the bike. A full carbon fork replacing a
steel fork can take off a little less than a pound. Remember, that's
our 6 seconds. Clearly, we have all been oversold on the carbon fork
as the easy performance upgrade. There is some improvement, but it is
minuscule. And it is not without its costs in quality of road feel.
For more about carbon, please see my essay on materials.

Or in other words, Scarpelli, you can't buy a bike light enough to
keep up me with on a climb."

http://www.torelli.com/tech/weight.shtml


Bikes which in actual fact (weighed on your scale, not in a marketing
add) get down to 15 -16 lb range (forget about UCI illegal and pie in
the sky sub 15) are going to require a 2lb frame, which means
expensive carbon or a Litespeed Ghisallo. Try finding one of those
for less than $2500 or $3000, frame only. When you add your Campy
Record Carbon and your Zipp wheels, etc., your 15 or 16 lb bike can't
by definition can't cost you less than $4500 total - as a practical
matter much more. A boatload of cash for that 1.5 lb. Somebody
please do the cost/ benefit calculations.


Six seconds per pound (that's 453.6 grams, folks) going up a long,
steep hill.......makes the whole "whatsitweigh?" mindset seem a bit
silly, eh?


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.

Amen.

My brother-in-law recently purchased a Fuji for a good deal. The
American Classic Sprint 350 wheels are really light, but they are
already crumbling under his 220 lbs weight. Plucking the front spokes
sounds like a 3-year-old playing the piano with his elbows.

He's already ordered some parts for me to build him a set of 36H
Deep-Vs. He has let go of the bike weight, and I'm proud of him for it.


-Mike

On 21 Mar 2006 16:55:28 -0800, "Ron Ruff"
wrote:


15.1lbs is likely an exaggeration... I added up all the actual weights
of the components (including an actual weight for the frame of 3.0lbs
in 55cm) and got about 16lbs... and that is without pedals.

You added up the "claimed weights." Do the same with your bike, then
for $28.00, buy a scale, hang it in your shop, weigh your bike, read
out the results, and then slap your forehead with your palm and say
"doh!" :-)

http://saveonscales.com/product_jenn...ing_scale.html

Dans le message de
oups.com,
Mike Reed a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Amen.

My brother-in-law recently purchased a Fuji for a good deal. The
American Classic Sprint 350 wheels are really light, but they are
already crumbling under his 220 lbs weight.

Who was surprised ? He is around 40 pounds over the weight *limit* the
manufacturer states, and it doesn't take an IQ of 175 to realize that a
lower weight, just over half his weight, is that of the target user.

If he also bought size small shorts, and complained about their splitting
and being too constrictive, would that also fall into the category of
manufacturing fault for you ?
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].

Doug Taylor wrote:
On 21 Mar 2006 16:55:28 -0800, "Ron Ruff"
wrote:
15.1lbs is likely an exaggeration... I added up all the actual weights
of the components (including an actual weight for the frame of 3.0lbs
in 55cm) and got about 16lbs... and that is without pedals.

You added up the "claimed weights." Do the same with your bike, then
for $28.00, buy a scale, hang it in your shop, weigh your bike, read
out the results, and then slap your forehead with your palm and say
"doh!" :-)

Uh... no. Like I said, I added up the *actual* weights for the
components that are on the bike. Weightweenies is a good source for
this info. Some things like the fork and the seat are generic items, do
I had to guess.

Surprised?.

He "recently purchased" (see OP) the bike (four weeks ago), and
ordered wheel parts to replace the wheels only three weeks into his
ownership experience. I told him two weeks before he bought the bike
that the wheels weren't keepers for him. Nobody was surprised, and it's
being corrected.

The problem is that you can't buy a decent Ultegra-level stock bike
with good wheels these days. He didn't push the shop for stronger
wheels, so here we are.

40 lbs over the limit? Where do you get a 180lb weight limit for AC
S350? It's 200 lbs, and we knew that before he bought the bike. He's
only 10% over the limit.
http://www.amclassic.com/Wheels_Road.html

My beef isn't with the wheels, it's with the people who spec bikes for
weight rather than quality. A stronger set of wheels could be spec'd
for le$$.

-Mike

Ron Ruff wrote:
Doug Taylor wrote:
http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...p06_sl_pre.htm

If it sounds too good to be true...

15.1lbs is likely an exaggeration... I added up all the actual weights
of the components (including an actual weight for the frame of 3.0lbs
in 55cm) and got about 16lbs... and that is without pedals. Still a
pretty good parts spec for $1295.


Kinda makes you wonder what OEM wholesale is on some of that stuff, eh?
And how little it costs to make that aluminum frame.


If you swapped out for good quality lighter parts (Thompson
Masterpiece, DA shifter and cassette, KMC chain, Pedal Force carbon
frame) and add Speedplay Ti pedals, you'd be down to 15.5lbs for ~
$2,000 total... but, I agree... what would be the point? In that
neighborhood it is difficult to save weight for less than $1,000 per
pound.

Mike Reed wrote:
Surprised?.

He "recently purchased" (see OP) the bike (four weeks ago), and
ordered wheel parts to replace the wheels only three weeks into his
ownership experience. I told him two weeks before he bought the bike
that the wheels weren't keepers for him. Nobody was surprised, and it's
being corrected.

The problem is that you can't buy a decent Ultegra-level stock bike
with good wheels these days. He didn't push the shop for stronger
wheels, so here we are.

Ain't it the truth. Fancy low spoke wheels on the floor with an
ignorant salesperson saying they will be just fine and dandy. 2 weeks
later, the wheels are a mess and the salesperson AND owners blame the
rider...so one more bike hangs in the garage and one more cyclist takes
up tennis.

40 lbs over the limit? Where do you get a 180lb weight limit for AC
S350? It's 200 lbs, and we knew that before he bought the bike. He's
only 10% over the limit.
http://www.amclassic.com/Wheels_Road.html

My beef isn't with the wheels, it's with the people who spec bikes for
weight rather than quality. A stronger set of wheels could be spec'd
for le$$.

-Mike