Does bike weight really matter?

[Austin Dave]

My bottom line is that riding bikes should be fun. Three thoughts:

1) Durable, lightweight, great handling, bikes are more fun than rugged, heavy, sluggish bikes. But if lightweight bike frames or parts are frail because they are light, and something surrenders to the laws of physics when you are out and about, the the fun diminishes fast.

2) I've only been to MTBR's Weight Weenies board a few times, and to me it looks like anorexia for men. I just don't get the obsession. Reading about the weight of paint or stickers on a bike is like peering in on someone else's fetish. But I reckon there are guys for whom creating the lightest possible bike is fun. That's where the kick is for them. Not my thing, but to each his own.

3) And lastly: Who enjoys bikes more than anyone? Little kids, that's who. And little kids ride bikes that weigh as much as they do--oh, and with pedals about a foot apart for you Q-factor weenies-- and they have a ball.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Good point!

I favour durability over lightness any day, and the happy medium seems to be around 25lbs.

 

[jaypee]

http://www.rtbf.be/video/detail_versus- ... id=1858008

World champ vs postie on each other's bikes

 

[andrewl]

Of course weight matters.

A lighter retrobike is so much easier to hang on the wall and take down for dusting

 

[Carsten G]

And less arm muscles to ad extra weight when riding.

The frame weight have very little to say, unless the frame weigh 3-4kg... Its a balance between low friction and weight strength on the rotating parts that matters.

Every five grams spared on rotating parts gives about 30gr on a non rotating part but if the parts are so light and made from a poor quality then the energy watt waste is bigger then the benefit the less weight gives and don't forget the extra weight the money gives to the Taxi - Bus -Train when the bike ends up faulty on a singletrack :roll:

 

[ozone1]

When I was 18 ....... No

Add 20 years of burgers, beer, fags and single malt scotch........yep

But I recon you have to spend shit loads of cash and save about 1.5 kg to notice any difference

 

[The History Man]

Liposuction!

 

[M-Power]

^^^ exactly. If you are worried about bike weight, then consider lipo, its probably cheaper that paying silly money for boutique retro parts

 

[ozone1]

You're probably right

 

[Fusagasuga]

It´s more fun to ride a light bike but the fun is gone if it´s not stable and the components aren´t solid. Examples: doin a little leap and then having your Grafton cranks cracked, doin a MTB marathon and having a Syncros Revolution crank cracked (I weigh in at 75 kilos) on the first climb (!). Goin down an alpine downhill and your Grafton Speed Controllers with their tiny fixing screws let the cable slip away.
A superlight bike also can slow you down if it has a wrong geometry. I was doin amateur road racing on sub 7 kilo bikes and then bought me a 1992 Somec ProMax with Columbus Max tubing. That bike was much heavier than my aluminum/carbon ones but the geometry was better - it was faster than the light ones. I remember seeing Miguel Indurain on the climb to the Col du Galibier in 1995 at the Dauphiné Libéré, going like a steam train on his "heavy" steel bike. Nah, I don´t need no extralight carbon frame anymore...