Weights of my bikes

Colnago CLX3.0 bare - 15.8 lbs
Lemond Zurich bare - 20.3 lbs
Douglas Vector with seatpack. - 17.4
Douglas Ti with water bottle and seat pack. - 20.3 lbs.
Eddy Merckx with bottle half full and heavy seatpack - 20.8

My 2018 Trek Emonda bare was 17.5 lbs.

As you can see, aluminum bikes do not necessary have a weight penalty. Nor are titanium bikes particularly light.

I would say that since about 2001 that most decent bikes couldn't be declared as "heavy". The complete Look KG585 which was a light climbing bike was 16 lbs even bare.

On 17/05/2021 18:39, Tom Kunich wrote:
Colnago CLX3.0 bare - 15.8 lbs
Lemond Zurich bare - 20.3 lbs
Douglas Vector with seatpack. - 17.4
Douglas Ti with water bottle and seat pack. - 20.3 lbs.
Eddy Merckx with bottle half full and heavy seatpack - 20.8

My 2018 Trek Emonda bare was 17.5 lbs.

As you can see, aluminum bikes do not necessary have a weight penalty. Nor are titanium bikes particularly light.

I would say that since about 2001 that most decent bikes couldn't be declared as "heavy". The complete Look KG585 which was a light climbing bike was 16 lbs even bare.


Making bikes light is one thing, making them last is another.

My last allow bike was a Specialised Allez. The frame was light enough,
about 1.5KG (3 lbs in old speak). I weighed it when I stripped it for
return, it had cracked due to fatigue. It was a thing of beauty, much
nicer than the horrid oversized carbon frame they replaced it with.

My previous alloy Trek failed at about the same distance, ~10,000 miles.

I thought the benefit of titanium was that like steel it had a fatigue
limit, meaning it wouldn't inevitably eventually fatigue like aluminium.
I know aluminium bikes can be made so the fatigue failure takes a long
time, but I suspect this adds weight. So I bought a cheap heavy gravel
type bike, it is real heavy, but surprisingly fun to ride.

On Mon, 17 May 2021 19:53:11 +0100, Ade
wrote:

On 17/05/2021 18:39, Tom Kunich wrote:
Colnago CLX3.0 bare - 15.8 lbs
Lemond Zurich bare - 20.3 lbs
Douglas Vector with seatpack. - 17.4
Douglas Ti with water bottle and seat pack. - 20.3 lbs.
Eddy Merckx with bottle half full and heavy seatpack - 20.8

My 2018 Trek Emonda bare was 17.5 lbs.

As you can see, aluminum bikes do not necessary have a weight penalty. Nor are titanium bikes particularly light.

I would say that since about 2001 that most decent bikes couldn't be declared as "heavy". The complete Look KG585 which was a light climbing bike was 16 lbs even bare.


Making bikes light is one thing, making them last is another.

My last allow bike was a Specialised Allez. The frame was light enough,
about 1.5KG (3 lbs in old speak). I weighed it when I stripped it for
return, it had cracked due to fatigue. It was a thing of beauty, much
nicer than the horrid oversized carbon frame they replaced it with.

My previous alloy Trek failed at about the same distance, ~10,000 miles.

I thought the benefit of titanium was that like steel it had a fatigue
limit, meaning it wouldn't inevitably eventually fatigue like aluminium.
I know aluminium bikes can be made so the fatigue failure takes a long
time, but I suspect this adds weight. So I bought a cheap heavy gravel
type bike, it is real heavy, but surprisingly fun to ride.

Given that the CDC reports that 70.2% of U.S. adults are overweight or
obese the frantic search for a lighter bicycle seems rather futile.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inf...ity#definition
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 18/05/2021 00:37, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 19:53:11 +0100, Ade
wrote:

On 17/05/2021 18:39, Tom Kunich wrote:
Colnago CLX3.0 bare - 15.8 lbs Lemond Zurich bare - 20.3 lbs
Douglas Vector with seatpack. - 17.4 Douglas Ti with water bottle
and seat pack. - 20.3 lbs. Eddy Merckx with bottle half full and
heavy seatpack - 20.8

My 2018 Trek Emonda bare was 17.5 lbs.

As you can see, aluminum bikes do not necessary have a weight
penalty. Nor are titanium bikes particularly light.

I would say that since about 2001 that most decent bikes couldn't
be declared as "heavy". The complete Look KG585 which was a light
climbing bike was 16 lbs even bare.


Making bikes light is one thing, making them last is another.

My last allow bike was a Specialised Allez. The frame was light
enough, about 1.5KG (3 lbs in old speak). I weighed it when I
stripped it for return, it had cracked due to fatigue. It was a
thing of beauty, much nicer than the horrid oversized carbon frame
they replaced it with.

My previous alloy Trek failed at about the same distance, ~10,000
miles.

I thought the benefit of titanium was that like steel it had a
fatigue limit, meaning it wouldn't inevitably eventually fatigue
like aluminium. I know aluminium bikes can be made so the fatigue
failure takes a long time, but I suspect this adds weight. So I
bought a cheap heavy gravel type bike, it is real heavy, but
surprisingly fun to ride.

Given that the CDC reports that 70.2% of U.S. adults are overweight
or obese the frantic search for a lighter bicycle seems rather
futile.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inf...ity#definition

Not really, it's easier to push up a hill :-)

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 4:19:57 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 18/05/2021 00:37, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 19:53:11 +0100, Ade
wrote:

On 17/05/2021 18:39, Tom Kunich wrote:
Colnago CLX3.0 bare - 15.8 lbs Lemond Zurich bare - 20.3 lbs
Douglas Vector with seatpack. - 17.4 Douglas Ti with water bottle
and seat pack. - 20.3 lbs. Eddy Merckx with bottle half full and
heavy seatpack - 20.8

My 2018 Trek Emonda bare was 17.5 lbs.

As you can see, aluminum bikes do not necessary have a weight
penalty. Nor are titanium bikes particularly light.

I would say that since about 2001 that most decent bikes couldn't
be declared as "heavy". The complete Look KG585 which was a light
climbing bike was 16 lbs even bare.


Making bikes light is one thing, making them last is another.

My last allow bike was a Specialised Allez. The frame was light
enough, about 1.5KG (3 lbs in old speak). I weighed it when I
stripped it for return, it had cracked due to fatigue. It was a
thing of beauty, much nicer than the horrid oversized carbon frame
they replaced it with.

My previous alloy Trek failed at about the same distance, ~10,000
miles.

I thought the benefit of titanium was that like steel it had a
fatigue limit, meaning it wouldn't inevitably eventually fatigue
like aluminium. I know aluminium bikes can be made so the fatigue
failure takes a long time, but I suspect this adds weight. So I
bought a cheap heavy gravel type bike, it is real heavy, but
surprisingly fun to ride.

Given that the CDC reports that 70.2% of U.S. adults are overweight
or obese the frantic search for a lighter bicycle seems rather
futile.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inf...ity#definition

Not really, it's easier to push up a hill :-)
John is probably so overweight that he can't get up from the sofa without a lift.

Overweight is NOT a measurement. You can be overweight with just 5 lbs above your ideal weight for your body type. I am 6'4" and have a slender body type and I have an ideal weight of 180 lbs. So my 190 lbs. puts me overweight even though a "normal" body type has an ideal body weight of 185-190.

Gross Obesity is and it is only 1 in 7 Americans and most of those are Hispanics.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 16:50:02 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 4:19:57 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 18/05/2021 00:37, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 19:53:11 +0100, Ade
wrote:

On 17/05/2021 18:39, Tom Kunich wrote:
Colnago CLX3.0 bare - 15.8 lbs Lemond Zurich bare - 20.3 lbs
Douglas Vector with seatpack. - 17.4 Douglas Ti with water bottle
and seat pack. - 20.3 lbs. Eddy Merckx with bottle half full and
heavy seatpack - 20.8

My 2018 Trek Emonda bare was 17.5 lbs.

As you can see, aluminum bikes do not necessary have a weight
penalty. Nor are titanium bikes particularly light.

I would say that since about 2001 that most decent bikes couldn't
be declared as "heavy". The complete Look KG585 which was a light
climbing bike was 16 lbs even bare.


Making bikes light is one thing, making them last is another.

My last allow bike was a Specialised Allez. The frame was light
enough, about 1.5KG (3 lbs in old speak). I weighed it when I
stripped it for return, it had cracked due to fatigue. It was a
thing of beauty, much nicer than the horrid oversized carbon frame
they replaced it with.

My previous alloy Trek failed at about the same distance, ~10,000
miles.

I thought the benefit of titanium was that like steel it had a
fatigue limit, meaning it wouldn't inevitably eventually fatigue
like aluminium. I know aluminium bikes can be made so the fatigue
failure takes a long time, but I suspect this adds weight. So I
bought a cheap heavy gravel type bike, it is real heavy, but
surprisingly fun to ride.

Given that the CDC reports that 70.2% of U.S. adults are overweight
or obese the frantic search for a lighter bicycle seems rather
futile.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inf...ity#definition

Not really, it's easier to push up a hill :-)
John is probably so overweight that he can't get up from the sofa without a lift.

Overweight is NOT a measurement. You can be overweight with just 5 lbs
above your ideal weight for your body type. I am 6'4" and have a
slender body type and I have an ideal weight of 180 lbs. So my 190
lbs. puts me overweight even though a "normal" body type has an ideal
body weight of 185-190.

Gross Obesity is and it is only 1 in 7 Americans and most of those are Hispanics.

Well you should have googled this one as you are all wrong.

You are 6'4"= 76 inches, and you say that you weigh 190 lbs. then your
BMI (Body Mass Index) is 23.

BMI is less than 18.5, the underweight range.
BMI is 18.5 to 25, the healthy weight range.
BMI is 25.0 to 30, the overweight range.
BMI is 30.0 or higher, the obesity range.

As for obesity by race you missed again.
Non-Hispanic Black adults (49.6%)
Hispanic adults (44.8%),
Caucasian adults (42.2%)
Asian adults (17.4%

See Tommy if you look things up instead of just yapping at the moon
you wouldn't look so stupid.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 6:50:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 4:19:57 PM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 18/05/2021 00:37, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2021 19:53:11 +0100, Ade
wrote:

On 17/05/2021 18:39, Tom Kunich wrote:
Colnago CLX3.0 bare - 15.8 lbs Lemond Zurich bare - 20.3 lbs
Douglas Vector with seatpack. - 17.4 Douglas Ti with water bottle
and seat pack. - 20.3 lbs. Eddy Merckx with bottle half full and
heavy seatpack - 20.8

My 2018 Trek Emonda bare was 17.5 lbs.

As you can see, aluminum bikes do not necessary have a weight
penalty. Nor are titanium bikes particularly light.

I would say that since about 2001 that most decent bikes couldn't
be declared as "heavy". The complete Look KG585 which was a light
climbing bike was 16 lbs even bare.


Making bikes light is one thing, making them last is another.

My last allow bike was a Specialised Allez. The frame was light
enough, about 1.5KG (3 lbs in old speak). I weighed it when I
stripped it for return, it had cracked due to fatigue. It was a
thing of beauty, much nicer than the horrid oversized carbon frame
they replaced it with.

My previous alloy Trek failed at about the same distance, ~10,000
miles.

I thought the benefit of titanium was that like steel it had a
fatigue limit, meaning it wouldn't inevitably eventually fatigue
like aluminium. I know aluminium bikes can be made so the fatigue
failure takes a long time, but I suspect this adds weight. So I
bought a cheap heavy gravel type bike, it is real heavy, but
surprisingly fun to ride.

Given that the CDC reports that 70.2% of U.S. adults are overweight
or obese the frantic search for a lighter bicycle seems rather
futile.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inf...ity#definition

Not really, it's easier to push up a hill :-)
John is probably so overweight that he can't get up from the sofa without a lift.

Overweight is NOT a measurement. You can be overweight with just 5 lbs above your ideal weight for your body type. I am 6'4" and have a slender body type and I have an ideal weight of 180 lbs. So my 190 lbs. puts me overweight even though a "normal" body type has an ideal body weight of 185-190.

Gross Obesity is and it is only 1 in 7 Americans and most of those are Hispanics.

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Above link lists rates of obesity in the USA. Strangely the article is dated Feb 2021 but is using 2017-18 for its data. Not sure why its using data that is three years old now.

"most of those are Hispanics." Tom, are you trying to cozy up to Trump by explicitly insulting Hispanics? He is known for that lovable trait.

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html
In the above link "obesity" is split into three categories. If your Body Mass Index is 40 or above you are in the "severe" category. I guess we can equate Gross Obesity to Severe Obesity. At your 76 inch height, you would need to be 328 pounds to qualify as 40 BMI.

Following is from the first link above.
"Non-Hispanic Black adults (49.6%) had the highest age-adjusted prevalence of obesity, followed by Hispanic adults (44.8%), non-Hispanic White adults (42.2%) and non-Hispanic Asian adults (17.4%)."

Following quote below is also from the first link above. If "severe obesity" was 9.2% in 2017-18. Then your statement of "Gross Obesity is and it is only 1 in 7 Americans and most of those are Hispanics." would imply 1 in 7 is 14.3% and that is 5% higher than reality. But that is a fact and must be thrown away because its the truth. 18% of USA population is Hispanic. 1 in 5 roughly. "most of those are Hispanics" means at least 50% of the severe obesity is from Hispanics. So they account for 7.15% of the total. They are only 18% of the population, so if we divide your 7.15% by 18%, we get 39.72% of the total USA Hispanic population must be severely obese, BMI of 40. You are overestimating and exaggerating on many different numbers. Please try to get some of the facts correct before making your outlandish comments.
"From 1999–2000 through 2017–2018, the prevalence of obesity increased from 30.5% to 42.4%, and the prevalence of severe obesity increased from 4.7% to 9.2%."

Of course BMI is not a great scale for determining obesity or evaluating weight healthiness. A short, stocky, muscular man could easily be considered obese if only using BMI.

On 5/17/2021 2:53 PM, Ade wrote:

Making bikes light is one thing, making them last is another.

My last allow bike was a Specialised Allez. The frame was light enough,
about 1.5KG (3 lbs in old speak). I weighed it when I stripped it for
return, it had cracked due to fatigue. It was a thing of beauty, much
nicer than the horrid oversized carbon frame they replaced it with.

My previous alloy Trek failed at about the same distance, ~10,000 miles.

I thought the benefit of titanium was that like steel it had a fatigue
limit, meaning it wouldn't inevitably eventually fatigue like aluminium.
I know aluminium bikes can be made so the fatigue failure takes a long
time, but I suspect this adds weight.

Well, as we've mentioned, steel and titanium alloys can and do fail by
fatigue - specifically, when a local stress exceeds the fatigue limit.
The way to prevent that is usually to make things heavier.

The difference with aluminum alloys is that at least in principle, every
aluminum bit subject to fatigue loading will _eventually_ fatigue. But
if it fails after enough billions of fatigue cycles, the original
designer usually doesn't care.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 18/05/2021 02:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/17/2021 2:53 PM, Ade wrote:

Making bikes light is one thing, making them last is another.

My last allow bike was a Specialised Allez. The frame was light
enough, about 1.5KG (3 lbs in old speak). I weighed it when I stripped
it for return, it had cracked due to fatigue. It was a thing of
beauty, much nicer than the horrid oversized carbon frame they
replaced it with.

My previous alloy Trek failed at about the same distance, ~10,000 miles.

I thought the benefit of titanium was that like steel it had a fatigue
limit, meaning it wouldn't inevitably eventually fatigue like
aluminium. I know aluminium bikes can be made so the fatigue failure
takes a long time, but I suspect this adds weight.

Well, as we've mentioned, steel and titanium alloys can and do fail by
fatigue - specifically, when a local stress exceeds the fatigue limit.
The way to prevent that is usually to make things heavier.

The difference with aluminum alloys is that at least in principle, every
aluminum bit subject to fatigue loading will _eventually_ fatigue. But
if it fails after enough billions of fatigue cycles, the original
designer usually doesn't care.


I reckon 10,000 miles is in the region of only 6 million stress cycles.
Assuming stress cycles are predominantly from pedalling.

In my case that was about 4 years, not really enough.

My suspicion is that very few bikes get ridden 10,000 miles. They either
get ridden occasionally or replaced regularly. It is probably cheaper to
give lifetime guarantees and quote fantasy figures for fatigue cycles,
rather than engineer light aluminium frames that do last a lifetime

Op dinsdag 18 mei 2021 om 10:37:14 UTC+2 schreef Ade:
On 18/05/2021 02:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/17/2021 2:53 PM, Ade wrote:

Making bikes light is one thing, making them last is another.

My last allow bike was a Specialised Allez. The frame was light
enough, about 1.5KG (3 lbs in old speak). I weighed it when I stripped
it for return, it had cracked due to fatigue. It was a thing of
beauty, much nicer than the horrid oversized carbon frame they
replaced it with.

My previous alloy Trek failed at about the same distance, ~10,000 miles.

I thought the benefit of titanium was that like steel it had a fatigue
limit, meaning it wouldn't inevitably eventually fatigue like
aluminium. I know aluminium bikes can be made so the fatigue failure
takes a long time, but I suspect this adds weight.

Well, as we've mentioned, steel and titanium alloys can and do fail by
fatigue - specifically, when a local stress exceeds the fatigue limit.
The way to prevent that is usually to make things heavier.

The difference with aluminum alloys is that at least in principle, every
aluminum bit subject to fatigue loading will _eventually_ fatigue. But
if it fails after enough billions of fatigue cycles, the original
designer usually doesn't care.

I reckon 10,000 miles is in the region of only 6 million stress cycles.
Assuming stress cycles are predominantly from pedalling.

In my case that was about 4 years, not really enough.

My suspicion is that very few bikes get ridden 10,000 miles. They either
get ridden occasionally or replaced regularly. It is probably cheaper to
give lifetime guarantees and quote fantasy figures for fatigue cycles,
rather than engineer light aluminium frames that do last a lifetime

Every road bike I have/had has or will be ridden 10000 miles/16000 km.

Lou