The bike weight thread

[al_yrpal]

Why does total weight of bike plus rider matter? Because work in simple terms is the product of overall weight and distance climbed. Therefore with more overall weight, you are doing more work, thus its more knackering. A heavier bike and rider is harder to accelerate and stop too.

Some physicist or engineer will be along in a moment to confuse things further.

Al

[gerrymcm]

I've just weighed my Kona Paddy SS (small frame size 52cm I think) for the first time and it's 10.5KG or 23lbs. It's got guards, a rear carrier and all components are cheapo nothing expensive. When I first set it up I clearly remember thinking how light it was compared to my previous bike, which was a Pompetamine with an ALfine 8 hub, guards and rack etc,
If I can I'll weigh that.

The other thing to mention relevant to weight is that I've replaced the steel fork on teh Kona with a Columbus Tusk fork.

Limiting factor in the speed of this bike is my legs not the potential extra few lbs
Gerry

[fastpedaller]

Why does total weight of bike plus rider matter? Because work in simple terms is the product of overall weight and distance climbed. Therefore with more overall weight, you are doing more work, thus its more knackering. A heavier bike and rider is harder to accelerate and stop too.

Some physicist or engineer will be along in a moment to confuse things further.

Al

And the other thing people forget is that the further you ride the bike the heavier it becomes

[ljamesbee]

whilst i appreciate a good, light bicycle i don't know the weights of any of my fleet. nor care.

i'd like to see people interested in such quote the "all up" weights of bike and rider combined though. that might make more sense in the real world.

Just curious, why does bike+rider weight make 'more sense'?

Me plus bike is 75.43kg or 166.3 lbs.

as i find there are quite a few riders who obsess over trimming ounces from their bike but never seem to direct the same attention to themselves. bike or rider - it's still weight going up the same hill, along the same road.

Agreed on that point . Both matter the same, but this means that saving weight from the bike isn't any less important. In fact, saving weight from rotational masses (wheels etc), which have more of an effect to the bike's acceleration than saving the same weight from your belly.

The other thing is that saving weight from the bike is far easier than saving weight from your body. Plus, losing weight from your body is hopefully gonna happen by itself if you go cycling (one of the main reasons people take up cycling), whereas losing weight from the bike will only happen by itself if something goes catastrophically wrong and parts start falling off the bike!

[Neil C]

I recently saved 3.2kg from my bike....

I'm interested in saving weight too. How did you save quite so much?

[fossala]

Weight should be measured in newtons mass is measured in kg/lbs...

[mig]

depends on the bike and rider whether or not losing weight from either is more easy. i'd argue that in the case of an overweight rider on a stripped down bike it's easier to drop weight from the rider.

[axel_knutt]

i'd like to see people interested in such quote the "all up" weights of bike and rider combined though. that might make more sense in the real world.

I gave up trying to weigh the bike because I could never decide what counts as bike and what counts as luggage. Nobody has clarified whether we're talking about touring weight or local leisure riding, but fully laden for touring (including food & water):

Me (naked): 72.7kg
Everything else: 36.9kg
Total 109.6kg

[ljamesbee]

I gave up trying to weigh the bike because I could never decide what counts as bike and what counts as luggage. Nobody has clarified whether we're talking about touring weight or local leisure riding, but fully laden for touring (including food & water):

I weigh mine without racks, mudguards, lights, bottle cages. Mostly because I consider those things to be accessories or 'touring kit'. Those things are still important, but I just don't include them in bike weight.

I recently saved 3.2kg from my bike....

I'm interested in saving weight too. How did you save quite so much?

I'm gonna make a post in the next few days about it and list all the specific components I changed etc. Main thing is that I was methodical - weighed all the bike parts, then looked for the most efficient (in terms of cost per gram saved) components to switch things out for.

[Mick F]

Don't forget that the weight of the whole thing .......... rider plus bike plus luggage ............. is obviously a total weight, but it's more than that .................. It's a dynamic mass in that it MOVES not just forwards, but side-to-side as well.

Because of this, the weight needs to be low down. The more low down and the more stable, the less the weight means to the overall effort.

[Brucey]

I weigh mine without racks, mudguards, lights, bottle cages. Mostly because I consider those things to be accessories or 'touring kit'. Those things are still important, but I just don't include them in bike weight...

in which case you have not weighed 'a touring bike' then. I could make mine a lot lighter by removing all the useful bits too....

cheers

[Vitara]

Both my bikes, 1 aluminium, 1 Carbon weight in at around 9.5Kg with pedals, racks, bottle cages, so not especially leightweight but not heavy. I usually carry a small saddle bag with spare top, snacks, etc so riding weight will be plus 1-3Kg depending on weather forecast and how far I'm going.

Here's the interesting bit since June I've reduced the overall ride weight, Bike + Luggage + Rider, from 95Kg to 82Kg, so 13Kg less to haul uphill or accelerate on the flat. Does it make a difference? Absolutely, my average speed when riding solo has increased by 2-3mph, I'm going up hills faster and easier and often staying in higher gears on a lot of climbs. I also feel better for it generally having got my BMI into the "normal" range. It makes sense of course that lighter is faster, the analogy would be riding my bike with 13 bags of sugar in my panniers.

The down side is that I'm missing the beer, chocolate & belgian buns!

[ljamesbee]

I weigh mine without racks, mudguards, lights, bottle cages. Mostly because I consider those things to be accessories or 'touring kit'. Those things are still important, but I just don't include them in bike weight...

in which case you have not weighed 'a touring bike' then. I could make mine a lot lighter by removing all the useful bits too....

cheers

A bike rack is not a necessary part of the bike in order to be able to ride it and nor are mudguards.Things like handlebars, derailleurs, brakes, wheels, tyres etc. are though.

Giving just the bike weight seems much more reasonable to me since this is a 'bike weight thread', not 'bike with all accoutrements thread'. How many racks should I include in the weight? I have a front and rear, sometimes I only take one of them. I have a trailer which I may use use instead of racks. Same goes for the mudguards - sometimes I won't take them at all if I know it's unlikely to rain. Sometimes I only take the front (my rear rack acts as a mudguard).

[Vantage]

My bike in 'lightweight' mode hits the scales at around 45lbs. That includes mudguards, Bagman rack thingy, Carradice Pendle, waterproof, lock, tools and tubes, filled bottle and cage, lights and electronic gizmos and airhorn.
Fully loaded for attempted and inevitably failed tours (3 so far) she crushed the scales at her heaviest at 101lbs. I've trimmed a lot of weight off it since but still hitting I think around 90lbs ish.
As long as I can get the heavy brute up the hills without it rolling back and killing me I'm happy

[Brucey]

.....My touring bike is a steel '94 Marin Team Marin mountain bike. It's 8.75kg with pedals (never understood why anyone would weigh a bike without pedals! lol).....

and then in another post...

I weigh mine without racks, mudguards, lights, bottle cages. Mostly because I consider those things to be accessories or 'touring kit'. Those things are still important, but I just don't include them in bike weight...

A bike rack is not a necessary part of the bike in order to be able to ride it and nor are mudguards.Things like handlebars, derailleurs, brakes, wheels, tyres etc. are though.

Giving just the bike weight seems much more reasonable to me since this is a 'bike weight thread', not 'bike with all accoutrements thread'. How many racks should I include in the weight? I have a front and rear, sometimes I only take one of them. I have a trailer which I may use use instead of racks. Same goes for the mudguards - sometimes I won't take them at all if I know it's unlikely to rain. Sometimes I only take the front (my rear rack acts as a mudguard).

Well I think it is OK to weigh your bike and mention how it is equipped when you do that. Not everyone takes their bike half to bits on a sunny day when they are not carrying luggage you know! I think describing a naked mountain bike as 'my touring bike' is a little disingenuous unless you mention how it is equipped in the same breath.

FWIW I have a '97 Marin Team Ti and with front suspension, bar ends, knobblies etc, (i.e. ready for the trail) it weighs less than 10kg.[BTW there are some light parts on it eg Ti saddle, seat pin, stem, bars etc but it is also fitted with heavy SPD pedals, heavier wheelset, steel BB etc in the interests of durability. There is another kg (two, probably) to come out of it if I wanted, but frankly I can't see the point unless I'm also down to race weight.]

BTW on an unladen road bike I prefer a lightweight one (if we are talking steel/Ti frames, traditional wheelsets) not because it is quicker and easier (which it is, a little bit), but usually because the ride quality is better. I note with interest that with modern carbon frames and wheels with deep section rims, this isn't necessarily true any more.

Also what MickF says about where the weight is located is true too, but I think it usually only makes a big difference when you are riding out of the saddle, much less so when seated.

cheers