Road Cycling Essentials

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a question for you guys about bike weight.

I weighed my bike last night, it's just under 10kg unloaded (well, two bottle holders on it).

I weigh about 80kg. Now, I've read a few bike reviews, you can spend 2k and get a 7kg bike. In the grand scheme of things, taking into account up to 1.5kg of water, a bag with tools and food in it, would I even notice losing 3kg off the bike?

This is obviously not taking into account more expensive bike components, which I assume offer a higher degree of efficiency etc.

I suppose it works better for someone who has already gotten down to their minimum weight, carrys a light load and takes part in races etc.
 
I think thats pretty much the gist of it, but i can say moving from a 14kg bike to a 9kg bike i noticed the difference, it seemed more agile and quicker up the hills
 
I went from a heavy full sus mountain bike to my current one, and the difference was pretty huge, so I guess I've just countered my own point!

I was only thinking about it as I'd always said I'd keep my current bike for a year, and then get another one and use this one for winter, but I don't think I'll bother unless I can save 3-4kg and get some much better components.
 
godinman said:
I have a question for you guys about bike weight.

I weighed my bike last night, it's just under 10kg unloaded (well, two bottle holders on it).

I weigh about 80kg. Now, I've read a few bike reviews, you can spend 2k and get a 7kg bike. In the grand scheme of things, taking into account up to 1.5kg of water, a bag with tools and food in it, would I even notice losing 3kg off the bike?

This is obviously not taking into account more expensive bike components, which I assume offer a higher degree of efficiency etc.

I suppose it works better for someone who has already gotten down to their minimum weight, carrys a light load and takes part in races etc.
Click to expand...

You can't really take in to account the tools and drinks as you would have had them on a heavier bike making that bike even heavier.

IMO I'd rather have a light, high quality bike, then if I don't perform I can't blame the bike.
 
if your not competing in anything i think its silly to spend more than £1/gram on reducing weight. thats the standard i go for anyway.

If you have silly cheap heavy wheels or something then by all means swap them out for decent road wheels as thats beneficial weight. but when it comes to spending £150 on a stem or seatpost to save a few grams!
 
Lakeland said:
You can't really take in to account the tools and drinks as you would have had them on a heavier bike making that bike even heavier.

IMO I'd rather have a light, high quality bike, then if I don't perform I can't blame the bike.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the tools etc bit, although I guess they make the frame weight a bit of a smaller factor in terms of weight percentage.

Once you're used to how you perform on a bike, you can't really blame it if you suddenly start performing poorly. Obviously I'd love an absolutely awesome, feather-light bike with amazing components. :cool:

I'll have to stick some of my bike pictures up at some point, after last weekends rides I am absolutely in love with the thing, it's awesome!:D
 
No won't be this year unfortunately. Will use this classic Raleigh for now, use the MTB for commuting in winter then look at getting something new in April when the C2W scheme is open again.
 
I hope the 'training' on the steel frame pays off!

I don't think I am doing too badly at the moment and as long as I keep it up when the weather goes bad I should be in good shape for next year.
 
touch said:
The 11-28 on the compact will give you better gear ratios for going downhill than a 12-25 on a double.


*You can pay a bit extra for the non-default cassette if you want, so you could have the 11-28 on a double chainset.
Click to expand...

I didn't say otherwise did I?

Personally I would always go with a Double. The advantage of 11-28 is obviously wider range of gears, the downside is bigger gaps between each gear change resulting in not as smooth gear changes. But it's cheaper in the long run to change the cassette than the cranks.

For most people of even moderate fitness a 34 is going to be too low imo.
 
uniQ said:
I didn't say otherwise did I?
Click to expand...

Maybe i just read it wrong?

uniQ said:
The compact will give you the gearing closer to that of the lower gearing on a triple. Good if you need a granny gearing but you will run out of pedal downhill.
Click to expand...

Technically, you will run out of pedal with any gear ratio if your going fast enough. But you'll be able to go faster on the compact than the double*.


*with the default cassette.
 
I always find these discussions about gears to be depressing; I have a triple with 52/39/30 and an 11-28 cassette and still find myself wanting more gears. Am I really that weak of a cyclist, after all this time??
 
I'm specifically trying to address the main difference between compact vs double cranks so it's not really helping that your comparing 11-28 cassette on the compact and 12-25 on the double when both cassettes are available for both sets of cranks. IMO it makes it confusing for someone reading who is trying to understand which is the best for them to go for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom