Can a steel bike simply be too light?

[dd74]

I'm starting to wonder if a 15 or even a 16-pound steel bike might simply take away from the characteristics of a steel bike, particularly the smoothness of the ride. While my Serotta is steel (with carbon fork and seat stays) and a little bit below 16.5 pounds, it certainly rides closer to my carbon bike than my old Colnago, though better than both in a performance/ride way. But there are days when I wonder if it's lost some of its inherent character only for the sake of trying to be in a similar weight class with carbon.

Does anyone feel the same?

[Louis]

I'm not a frame designer or builder, but IMO you need the appropriate amount of stiffness and strength in the right places. Damping also plays a role, but it's probably secondary.

If you use a really stiff and strong material (using those terms generically) then you can get away with using less of it. The actual weight or density of that material is not that critical. So, if it's stiff enough and strong enough, no, the frame can't be too light. But, if in order to make it light you remove so much material that you compromise stiffness and strength, then yes, it can be too light.

Edit: All this ignores tube cross-sectional geometry, which also plays a role.

[pbarry]

I think so, if component decisions are based soley about weight. There are much lighter bikes than my 1998 Mondonico Diamond with Veloce parts and Ambosio Excellence rims, (22lbs.), in my stable, but it's my go-to ride 75% of the time. I never think about the bike, or listen for weird noises or clicking on that bike. It just works and does what I want it to do--go fast in the right direction. Caveat: no power meter or gps or basic computer on that rig, but I've had some PB's on measured courses riding it, (using a stop watch).

[wallymann]

i disagree. there's more to ride quality than just stiffness and strength. there's also mass, and IMO the mass that traditional steel has actually contributes to the velvety smooth ride that many aficionados appreciate. that mass may make you slower when the road goes skyward, but it puts a smile on your face when the road is flat or heads down.


I'm not a frame designer or builder, but IMO you need the appropriate amount of stiffness and strength in the right places. Damping also plays a role, but it's probably secondary.

If you use a really stiff and strong material (using those terms generically) then you can get away with using less of it. The actual weight or density of that material is not that critical. So, if it's stiff enough and strong enough, no, the frame can't be too light. But, if in order to make it light you remove so much material that you compromise stiffness and strength, then yes, it can be too light.

[Louis]

there's more to ride quality than just stiffness and strength. there's also mass, and IMO the mass that traditional steel has actually contributes to the velvety smooth ride that many aficionados appreciate.

Please explain what the "contribution" of this mass is.

[tiretrax]

Please explain what the "contribution" of this mass is.

It's all the pizza and beer I've been consuming.

[Louis]

It's all the pizza and beer I've been consuming.

I'm pretty sure that improves your aerodynamics, so yes, I agree that mass does have an effect. ;)

[dd74]

Since my first frame which was made from Columbus SL, each successive new steel frame I've had in which the tube sizes increased in width, have felt substantially more rigid. It makes me fear what I may get into with stainless steel, whether Columbus XCR or Reynolds 953.

[Louis]

Would this be an off-the-shelf frame, or a custom frame?

I would think that a custom builder could give you what you want. Off-the-shelf, you get what's already baked in, which may or may not be what you're looking for, in which case test-rides are critical.

[wallymann]

more mass can change the natural harmonics of a structure and more mass increases a structures inertia, both of which can have a damping effect on the bikes response to bumps and other undulations, and all that comes across in how the ride feels. in addition to the stiffness and strength factors you mentioned.

build up 2 identical modern CF bikes (so they have identical stiffness/strength) but hang a 5lb weight on the down-tube of one of them to simulate the mass of a typical steel bike. then take 'em both down the roughest stretch of road you like...guarantee the ride will be quite different between the 2. guarantee.

Please explain what the "contribution" of this mass is.

[dd74]

Would this be an off-the-shelf frame, or a custom frame?
Both off-the-shelf and custom. However, this is no complaint against the one custom I've had, which is the Serotta CDA; that bike is plenty comfy and performs really well. I guess my initial point is a bit of weight on a steel-framed bike isn't a terrible idea ride-wise. The problem is with "light weight" now becoming so pervasive in steel manufacturing, it seems as if some of the original ride qualities of the material are fading away.

I guess the place to compromise would be with wheels and tires (heavier=better ride), but that feel is more in the wheels, and not the frame.

I would think that a custom builder could give you what you want. Off-the-shelf, you get what's already baked in, which may or may not be what you're looking for, in which case test-rides are critical.
Without a doubt. After the Serotta, I'd never again buy off-the-shelf. I once considered a Colnago C-59, but I'm not into carbon. Even so, I wouldn't buy the frame unless it was personally built for me -- which Colnago will do with the C-59.

[dd74]

build up 2 identical modern CF bikes (so they have identical stiffness/strength) but hang a 5lb weight on the down-tube of one of them to simulate a typical steel bike. then take 'em both down the roughest stretch of road you like...guarantee the ride will be quite different between the 2. guarantee.
I think it's a little more complex than just a five-pound weight. The fork and stays play major roles in this as do the main tubes. I think the experiment would be to build two identical frames with similar angles and components, one from XCR and the other from SL. I bet the SL would become the go-to bike.

[John H.]

Post build specs of your Serotta.
Frame and fork are not too light- it should ride nice unless you have made build choices that detract from ride quality.

[dd74]

Post build specs of your Serotta.
Frame and fork are not too light- it should ride nice unless you have made build choices that detract from ride quality.
As I said, nothing's wrong with the Serotta. I was referring to frames in general. (Unless you want me to post the specs, thinking I'm going to sell it -- which I'm not. : >

[CunegoFan]

build up 2 identical modern CF bikes (so they have identical stiffness/strength) but hang a 5lb weight on the down-tube of one of them to simulate the mass of a typical steel bike. then take 'em both down the roughest stretch of road you like...guarantee the ride will be quite different between the 2. guarantee.

Maybe I am insensitive, but I cannot detect a difference between when my water bottles are full or empty.

[John H.]

I think it is possible to under build a frame. Especially in steel or ti.
However, there are many good builder out there that can build a 3.5 lb steel frame that rides nice or a 3 lb-ish ti frame that rides nice.

[John H.]

5 lb might be a bit much. I think you can get a comparably built steel frame within 1.5-2 lb of a modern carbon frame.

[cnighbor1]

Can a steel bike simply be too light?
Yes if you find your self floating up into the air.
I saw a English steel bike at 11 pounds. English himselfused it for racing in Oregon. if race not sponsored by USA bicycle racing than it is ok to be that light. and seeing it was being raced it must perform fine

on another post about steel bike weigth there is link to this bike

[John H.]

Sure you don't mean Rob English?
Light bikes are not really Winters thing.
Rob English does buld some light stuff. Too light? Not sure- need to take it n a hairy descent to see.

Can a steel bike simply be too light?
Yes if you find your self floating up into the air.
I saw a Winters steel bike at 11 pounds. Winter himselfused it for racing in Oregon. if race not sponsored by USA bicycle racing than it is ok to be that light. and seeing it was being raced it must perform fine

[Louis]

more mass can change the natural harmonics of a structure and more mass increases a structures inertia
True, but unless we specify what modes we’re talking about, it’s difficult to know how important these harmonics are. Are we talking about the bending modes of the tubes? Those would be felt as vibrations by the rider, but they can’t be that bad, since the CF frames that are notoriously “dead” probably have higher damping than say a lugged steel bike. If we’re talking about shell modes of the tubes, I agree, the mass of the material plays in important role, but so does the stiffness, and the ratio of E to density for steel is essentially constant, so it’s really the geometry that’s at play there. And even so, those modes will be at such high frequencies that I doubt the rider would be able to feel them. We certainly can’t be talking about overall modes of the frame-rider system, because the contribution of the mass of the frame to that is miniscule. The frame stiffness and rider mass are hugely important, but the frame mass has almost no effect at all.

When you talk about the structure’s mass moments, that is by definition affected by mass, but exactly how that comes into play isn’t obvious, other than in the tube bending modes.

When you talk about adding a 5 lb weight to the DT how much difference do you feel when you have two large full water-bottles on the bike vs no water-bottles at all? I don’t feel any difference at all, and that’s 25 oz each, so more than 3 pounds.

Personally, I think that the single most important factor in what people consider the proverbial “magic carpet ride” is stiffness, not the weight of the frame tubes. Caveat: I'm not a bike engineer at say, Trek, where I assume they understand these relationships much better than we do.

Here’s a thought experiment: Let’s say you have your favorite frame builder make you something using a classic steel, say, Reynolds 531, and you absolutely love that frame, best riding frame ever. Then someone magically develops a similar steel, call it Unobtanium XXX, that has the exact same properties as the 531, except that the density is 1/10 the density of the 531. You take that and have your frame builder build you frame #2. I bet that although there might be some very subtle differences in the way things feel, perhaps because the tube bending modes would now be at much higher frequencies, the “magic carpet ride” that you liked so much in Frame #1 would be 100% unaffected, even though Frame #2 is clearly way, way lighter.

All other things being the same, I really don’t think there is such a thing as a frame that’s too light.

[Louis]

Maybe I am insensitive, but I cannot detect a difference between when my water bottles are full or empty.

Ha! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of this.

[dd74]

English builds some fancy stuff. You'll be gray and old before you get one, though. His wait time is two or three years.

[Ahneida Ride]

Kelly has built a few 16 pound steel bikes. (56 cm ??? )

They ride like a steel bike should.
Feedback has been very good indeed.

---------

Now ..... do you really want a 16 pound 65cm frame ?

[dd74]

Dave Kirk could probably build a 16-lb frame as well, particularly in my size (53 cm), though weight has never been a concern of his for what I feel are the correct reasons.

It's funny, I've heard people poo-poo Kirk, Bedford, etc., becaue of the fact they don't use fancy butted, swagged tubing a la what Serotta did when it built steel frames. I had one guy even tell me all DK and KB do is simply weld "pipes" together and call it a frame. :eek:

[Louis]

Kelly has built a few 16 pound steel bikes. (56 cm ??? )

They ride like a steel bike should.
Feedback has been very good indeed.


This is as I would expect. Of course adding in the weight of the components muddies the water, and it would be better to compare the weights of the bare frames, but just the same, 16 lbs is pretty durn light for steel, and I would think that there is no way in the world that that's an "old school" steel.

[EricEstlund]

Any bike can be made "too light"- we've all see super light parts break because they gave up material where it needed to be to save the grams.

Build for ride quality and use. Let the weight fall were it may.

As noted above, I'm not a weight chaser, but I do built light bikes. Mostly as a side effect of building a nice bike and dressing it with good part spec.

[John H.]

Well said.

Any bike can be made "too light"- we've all see super light parts break because they gave up material where it needed to be to save the grams.

Build for ride quality and use. Let the weight fall were it may.

As noted above, I'm not a weight chaser, but I do built light bikes. Mostly as a side effect of building a nice bike and dressing it with good part spec.

[Louis]

Not to beat a dead horse, but there's a difference between the OP's question of "too light?" and not enough material.

The question was whether the new fancy-pants steels can be too light, as in, just not enough mass in the tubes, and the effect that might have on the ride. That's a different issue from not enough material, where they would fail due to insufficient strength.

[StephenCL]

The magic of steel in my opinion is the resiliency it provides. Certainly its heft and strength contribute. Steel is not as resilient as ti, but much more so than Carbon. Carbon feels dead. It soaks it all up...it takes all your energy and gives nothing back. A nice steel bike provides tactile feedback about the road surface, the shift of weight in a nice corner (thats why I prefer steel forks), a satisfaction that you get when hammering out of the saddle that carbon just does not provide.

I dont think you can get it too light so to speak in terms of the frame weight itself. See my post tonight in the sub 17lb steel bike thread.

My new tigged Nobium Max tubing frame weighed in at just over 3.2 lbs with paint. Add an Enve2 fork and you have a frameset that weighs exactly what my buddies EM MX3 Carbon frame and fork weighed.

Other than some of the uber stiff Carbon frames, there is no downside to the new steel. It rides great, is plenty light and provides that magic carpet ride that most of us love.

By the way, I have couple Carbon bikes myself, I just know that when I am headed out for 60 miles plus, I almost always reach for steel...:)

Just my .02.

[EricEstlund]

Louis- I caught it. That was part of what I meant with the "build for ride quality" comment. In some cases that is very light. In some cases it's a little heavier. The "heft assessment" is rather low on my list, even if they generally come out pretty favorably.

[Louis]

The "heft assessment" is rather low on my list

Ditto, here.

I think weight's such a big deal for some in part because it's so easy to measure, which makes it easy to compare. Makes you wonder what things would be like if we all held our own bodies and waistlines to the same rigorous standards we apply to our bikes.

[FlashUNC]

Ditto, here.

I think weight's such a big deal for some in part because it's so easy to measure, which makes it easy to compare. Makes you wonder what things would be like if we all held our own bodies and waistlines to the same rigorous standards we apply to our bikes.

A big reason I stopped caring how much my bike weighs. The extra 10-15 lbs on my fat rump is a bigger concern than, say, an extra pound or two on the bike.

[oldpotatoe]

I'm starting to wonder if a 15 or even a 16-pound steel bike might simply take away from the characteristics of a steel bike, particularly the smoothness of the ride. While my Serotta is steel (with carbon fork and seat stays) and a little bit below 16.5 pounds, it certainly rides closer to my carbon bike than my old Colnago, though better than both in a performance/ride way. But there are days when I wonder if it's lost some of its inherent character only for the sake of trying to be in a similar weight class with carbon.

Does anyone feel the same?

'Ride' is subjective but

The Waterford R-33 with SuperRecord on my floor is 16 pounds with pedals, nothing exotic, rides like a nice steel bike. Carbon fork, DT rims, Record hubs, type thing.

AND weight is vastly overplayed in the bike 'world'. Inna bike shop, only 2 things you can measure, weight and price so weight plays a big part in marketing and sales.

We did the Waterford for the 'other' bike shops that can't spell steal, thinks it's old fashioned and hooked to an anchor chain on a boat.

I ride a 20 pound Merckx everyday. IF I was at the epitome of fitness(HA!!), then I may think about equipment but to spend $2000+(even at wholesale) to save 500 grams on a wheelset for this 100,000 gram package, seems silly.

[zap]

I'm starting to wonder if a 15 or even a 16-pound steel bike might simply take away from the characteristics of a steel bike, particularly the smoothness of the ride. While my Serotta is steel (with carbon fork and seat stays) and a little bit below 16.5 pounds, it certainly rides closer to my carbon bike than my old Colnago, though better than both in a performance/ride way. But there are days when I wonder if it's lost some of its inherent character only for the sake of trying to be in a similar weight class with carbon.

Does anyone feel the same?

I can't imagine how.

I have yet to ride a steel single that rode well. Mind you, its been a long time since I took a Serotta CSI out for a spin. It was heavy and had a ride that I disliked. Doubt much would change +- 1lb. Never did ride a steel/carbon hybrid.

My view is that anything over 15lbs (nah, make that 14lbs) for a road single (58-59 range) is too heavy ..............so that rules out a steel frame.....since reliability is important.

Time to ride. :banana:

[gemship]

I had one guy even tell me all DK and KB do is simply weld "pipes" together and call it a frame. :eek:

To that you should of spanked him hard with Paceline forum soliloquy.:p

[gemship]

The magic of steel in my opinion is the resiliency it provides. Certainly its heft and strength contribute. Steel is not as resilient as ti, but much more so than Carbon. Carbon feels dead. It soaks it all up...it takes all your energy and gives nothing back. A nice steel bike provides tactile feedback about the road surface, the shift of weight in a nice corner (thats why I prefer steel forks), a satisfaction that you get when hammering out of the saddle that carbon just does not provide.

I dont think you can get it too light so to speak in terms of the frame weight itself. See my post tonight in the sub 17lb steel bike thread.

My new tigged Nobium Max tubing frame weighed in at just over 3.2 lbs with paint. Add an Enve2 fork and you have a frameset that weighs exactly what my buddies EM MX3 Carbon frame and fork weighed.

Other than some of the uber stiff Carbon frames, there is no downside to the new steel. It rides great, is plenty light and provides that magic carpet ride that most of us love.

By the way, I have couple Carbon bikes myself, I just know that when I am headed out for 60 miles plus, I almost always reach for steel...:)

Just my .02.

and it's been argued over and over how there is no real conclusive evidence that a less stiff "noodle feeling bike" is any slower. So these people that require extra stiffness have to be the exception putting out high watts at competition or really big people or both. They feel they need stiffness, it gives them that edge.

[Chance]

True, but unless we specify what modes we’re talking about, it’s difficult to know how important these harmonics are. Are we talking about the bending modes of the tubes? Those would be felt as vibrations by the rider, but they can’t be that bad, since the CF frames that are notoriously “dead” probably have higher damping than say a lugged steel bike. If we’re talking about shell modes of the tubes, I agree, the mass of the material plays in important role, but so does the stiffness, and the ratio of E to density for steel is essentially constant, so it’s really the geometry that’s at play there. And even so, those modes will be at such high frequencies that I doubt the rider would be able to feel them. We certainly can’t be talking about overall modes of the frame-rider system, because the contribution of the mass of the frame to that is miniscule. The frame stiffness and rider mass are hugely important, but the frame mass has almost no effect at all.

When you talk about the structure’s mass moments, that is by definition affected by mass, but exactly how that comes into play isn’t obvious, other than in the tube bending modes.

When you talk about adding a 5 lb weight to the DT how much difference do you feel when you have two large full water-bottles on the bike vs no water-bottles at all? I don’t feel any difference at all, and that’s 25 oz each, so more than 3 pounds.

Personally, I think that the single most important factor in what people consider the proverbial “magic carpet ride” is stiffness, not the weight of the frame tubes. Caveat: I'm not a bike engineer at say, Trek, where I assume they understand these relationships much better than we do.

Here’s a thought experiment: Let’s say you have your favorite frame builder make you something using a classic steel, say, Reynolds 531, and you absolutely love that frame, best riding frame ever. Then someone magically develops a similar steel, call it Unobtanium XXX, that has the exact same properties as the 531, except that the density is 1/10 the density of the 531. You take that and have your frame builder build you frame #2. I bet that although there might be some very subtle differences in the way things feel, perhaps because the tube bending modes would now be at much higher frequencies, the “magic carpet ride” that you liked so much in Frame #1 would be 100% unaffected, even though Frame #2 is clearly way, way lighter.

All other things being the same, I really don’t think there is such a thing as a frame that’s too light.

Louis, have to agree with wallymann that the rider may very well feel a significant difference in frame mass/weight even when assuming everything else is very similar.

If we made two frames with identical moments of inertia for the main frame tubes, but one with small diameter tubes with thick walls (heavy by comparison) and the other with large diameter and thin walls (light by comparison), the overall bending stiffness of the frame could be made identical, but it’s natural resonance of vibration within the frame would be quite different. At some excitation frequency one frame may resonate while the other wouldn’t. So when riding on rough surface it’s very possible they would feel differently depending on bike speed.

Secondly, additional mass in the frame itself will help isolate vibration that starts at the tire contact patch before it reaches the rider. And Louis, as an engineer please don’t think of damping which is very frequently misused by people when talking about bikes. Damping has almost nothing to do with anything because it’s such a low number that it’s essentially irrelevant. If you think of the problem as multiple rigid (OK, semi-rigid) pieces moving independently with multiple degrees of freedom, then additional bike mass helps to reduce tire-patch forces (in form of vibration) from reaching the rider. In simplest form, if a frame’s mass was near infinity, variations in tire patch forces would not be felt at all by the rider. Whether that’s good or bad is a totally different question.

By the way, in my opinion chances are that “rigidly” clamping two 1.5-pound masses, one each on the down tube and seat tube would feel very different than putting a 24-ounce water bottle on each tube. All you have to do is watch how water moves around in a bottle to see that it doesn’t resist motion the same way a solid mass would if integral to the frame’s mass.

Having said all this, while my expectations are that a lighter frame would indeed feel different (even when assuming everything else was nearly equal), it’s not certain it would be a “better” different to me.

[slidey]

And I can guarantee that your experiment, besides smashing the downtube of the ill-fated carbon bike, will achieve nothing else. Guarantee.

build up 2 identical modern CF bikes (so they have identical stiffness/strength) but hang a 5lb weight on the down-tube of one of them to simulate the mass of a typical steel bike. then take 'em both down the roughest stretch of road you like...guarantee the ride will be quite different between the 2. guarantee.

[slidey]

Pfft...two or three years is nothing. There are some that take around 8 to 10 years...bloody hilarious! :rolleyes:

In any case, I couldn't care less if I tried.

You'll be gray and old before you get one, though. His wait time is two or three years.

[MadRocketSci]

i'm pretty sure the first lowest frequency longitudinal bending mode of the structure can be felt and will be affected by tube stiffness/mass ratio.

[Louis]

i'm pretty sure the first lowest frequency longitudinal bending mode of the structure can be felt and will be affected by tube stiffness/mass ratio.

We probably can only talk about individual tube modes, not modes of the whole structure, since that's way more complicated, and at that point involves the weight of the rider, so small weight differences in the tubes won't be as important. So, I assume you're talking about modes of the TT, DT and ST.

Your theory can be tested pretty easily, since additional mass in the middle of the tube will have a huge effect on the frequency. (the weight of a full bottle is well over the weight of the tube, so it will have a dramatic impact on many of the bending mode frequencies)

So, in deference to Chance's point, put two large water bottles in the freezer overnight. The next day strap them down with some extra string, so the cage holds them extra-tightly to the ST and DT. See if you can tell the difference between with and without the water. I bet the effect, as felt by the rider, will be essentially imperceptible. Ideally this would be a blind taste test, where the rider would not know if the bottles had water/ice in them or not, but that's starting to get closer and closer to real science, which may be beyond the scope of our humble forum.

[Louis]

All you have to do is watch how water moves around in a bottle to see that it doesn’t resist motion the same way a solid mass would if integral to the frame’s mass.

Just make sure the bottle is full and that solves that. :)

[d_douglas]

I owned a Crumpton and a Speedvagen at the same time. One had to go and without delay, it was the Crumpton. Mostly I was because I bought someone else's custom vs the fact that the Vagen was custom for me, so no rap on Crumpton itself. In fact, I dream of someday callin up nick for my own custom carbon bike.

That said, I cannot imagine a bike riding better than my Speedvagen right now. I still covet other bikes on this forum, but I imagine that none of them would ride any better; they'd only look different.

I have never weighed the bike once. It is nothing fancy (Chorus 11spd, King R45/HED wheels, Thomson, Fizik, continental, etc so I would guess 16-17lbs, but as many have said, I am way better off losing ten off of me than 1 from my fat bike ;)

I have never ridden one of those 12 lb scary light bikes - it might be fun.

[MadRocketSci]

We probably can only talk about individual tube modes, not modes of the whole structure, since that's way more complicated, and at that point involves the weight of the rider, so small weight differences in the tubes won't be as important. So, I assume you're talking about modes of the TT, DT and ST.



I'm a former GNC (guidance, nav, control) guy. Which means i'm no expert in structural dynamics, but i've seen the equations and methods those guys use to provide bending mode information to me (they destabilize control systems and must be filtered out). Basically, the elements in the FEM (finite element) analysis can be simplified as each tube in the structure. In all the elements there is a sqrt(K/m) (K = stiffness, m = mass) term. These all go into the FEM, which spits out frequency and displacement for each joint (weld/lug a bike), for each mode, of which there is one for each degree of freedom.

Each tube will vibrate near its own resonant frequency, yes, but the structure itself then takes on its own additional set of modes. Someone at specialized/trek who has done that FEM analysis probably knows the specifics well. What i know is that when the structural dynamics guys hands me the bending mode frequencies and displacements, either i can design around those and still meet requirements or i can't. If the bending mode frequency is too low (and displacements large), then we need to start discussing increasing the k/m term in the right places. Usually we talk about stiffening the appropriate elements rather than decreasing mass, since that's already been reduced as much as possible. The opposite of what we're talking about for bikes, where we probably want lower bending mode frequencies to give us a less "buzzy/harsh" feeling.

The bottom line is that I believe we can make a general statement that the stiffness and mass ratio of the main tubes will change the dynamics of the structure, and increasing masses or reducing stiffness in the elements will reduce structural bending mode frequencies.

[Louis]

The bottom line is that I believe we can make a general statement that the stiffness and mass ratio of the main tubes will change the dynamics of the structure, and increasing masses or reducing stiffness in the elements will reduce structural bending mode frequencies.

Agreed. The issue for me is how that will affect what the rider feels. Since I've never seen anything correlating the dynamic behavior of the tubes and the opinion of the rider, we can only speculate on what's going on there. As you mentioned, it's likely that the engineers at the big manufacturers have investigated this quite a bit, but it looks like we don't have anyone here who would be willing to share what they've found.

[tch]

...but I know that I actually like a little "heft" or "substance" in my bikes. I tried to like a Giant Defy -- probably 3+ lbs lighter than my Serotta. It just felt insubstantial under me. It wasn't a bad ride at all; it felt good over bad pavement, etc. I just know that in the end, I liked feeling something with a bit more substance, more life under me -- even though it might weigh more.

So, I guess my contribution is this: weight is secondary to some other less-measurable sensation.