Lightweight bikes...disadvantages?

[MontanaJustin]

Curious how people feel about lightweight bikes (specifically, titanium road bikes) and potential drawbacks. I'm just under 130 pounds, 28 years old, recreational rider....I don't ever see myself becoming a lot bigger (either huge amounts of muscle gain or middle-age spare-tire gain, due to genetics and veganism). So I'm assuming light-weight frames and components shouldn't be at too great a risk of breaking...

What about ride quality, durability, flat resistance, etc? Do people/companies generally have to cut a lot of corners to obtain super-light rigs?

What got me thinking about this were some of LOOK/Cervelo's offerings, or the Canadian Everti:

http://www.evertibikes.com/eagle.htm


Any thoughts/experiences appreciated :)

Justin

[fiamme red]

For one thing, the wind blows them over a lot easier. :)

[jvp]

yea, how come the less they weigh the more they cost? :rolleyes:

[1centaur]

As long as we are talking SUPER light rigs - those 11-12lb project bikes, I suspect frame flex under power would be a concern, as would be the relative lack of long-term real world experience of such projects under lots of riders and conditions. SUPER lightweight components are all about engineering and fabrication, one by one, so it will be hard to get a meaningful answer on the general concept of them. Firms with a bunch of lawyers don't seem to put out bikes that weigh that little, even though there would be demand based on that weight, which tells me something about what they saw in their testing phase. Does not mean that for the right rider a weightweenie project bike would not work fine. You should search the Web for comments on the Ghisallo that was super light - it probably was a lot like the Everti at the frame level.

[MontanaJustin]

Thanks, yes the Ghisallo seems pretty similar. And good point on lawyers/warranties.

Is wind a lot more noticeable on lighter frames? My only experience is on a 18-19 lb aluminum colnago...I knew that aero wheels would be caught by side winds a lot, but wasn't aware of overall weight changes and changes from wind...

(I have to admit that I hate strong side-winds and being blown all over the road...)

[giordana93]

biggest disadvantage: $$$$$

[fogrider]

there are always down sides to everything. first, as it has been stated, your wallet is lighter. but super light cogs will have a shorter life. lightweight brakes have a different feel, I actually like the zero gs, but I know some just like da. with ti, the weakness is the welding...a friend had a merlin for many years and it cracked at the downtube shifter bosses. this area doesn't get much stress, and the tubing was not butted but it still cracked and welding thin tubes of metal is not easy. I would say that every part of the bike is up for lightweight parts, but there limits...for me that limit is defined by comfort and durability.

[Kirk007]

For me the question would be what real world difference would a 12 lb bike vs a 15 lb bike make, even assuming everything else was equal (which it never is) particularly for recreational riding?

I've never ridden a bike remotely that light, but I have heard comments by others about "lighter" bikes feeling less stable yada yada, but who knows if that's a function of weight or something else.

Assuming their is some value in a bike that light to you (could be performance, or perception or bragging rights - its your money after all so who's to judge) then I would weigh that value vs durability, reliability etc. Me, I don't like worrying about something breaking while descending broken pavement at high speed.

[MontanaJustin]

Right - I guess that ultimately I'm more concerned with durability over super-light weight (probably like most people). But it seems like it would be great to have a 13-15 pound bike if it could be done without compromises to durability and ride quality, and being pretty light myself I was intrigued.

Thanks everyone for feedback so far :)

[dave thompson]

Can be big $$$$ to make a 13~15lb bike and it won't necessarily be durable. 16~17lb is far easier and far less expensive to achieve.

[rounder]

I went to a meet and greet with Ben Serotta at the Lutherville bike shop last week. All the bikes were on display, including a Meivici AE that was built up with fairly light Campy super record and neutron ultras and weighed 16 lbs (It looked like the anti-Pinarello Prince!!). He said that it is easy to build an ultra-light bike and other companes do that because weight is something that is easy to measure. He believed that it is better to build a bike that is durable and rides and handles well.

[maunahaole]

The biggest advantage that you can exploit at your weight is light wheels. I wouldn't go aero, I would go light. You could go with a low spoke count on a 24mm section rim and it would probably be great. The lower rim wont catch as much cross wind either. The aero stuff really does not give that much of an advantage unless you are riding at sustained speeds of 25+mph anyway. Considering that you live in Menlo Park, you probably want a nice set of climbing wheels anyway. That said, you can then go to the lighter end on your build, but the super light stuff need to be checked all the time regardless of who rides it AND it needs careful assembly as well.

[Ahneida Ride]

About the only thing I can add is just make sure the frame/components
can handle real world conditions. (assuming the bike is not a racing rig.)

In upstate NY, we have real roads with real potholes. ;)

[MontanaJustin]

Light wheels make sense, and yes, in Menlo Park/Redwood City area there are a lot of hills to ride. I think I'll keep trying to get a better sense of that fine line between "lighter end of durable stuff" vs. "super light but finicky with the increased probability of catastrophic failure". This would go for frame/fork, wheels, etc.

I hadn't thought as much about wheels specifically regarding weighing less myself, but it makes sense as one of the most obvious places I could enjoy some advantages.

[MontanaJustin]

HED Ardennes come to mind for (presumably) a very light yet very durable wheelset...

[Kirk007]

I think I'll keep trying to get a better sense of that fine line between "lighter end of durable stuff" vs. "super light but finicky with the increased probability of catastrophic failure". This would go for frame/fork, wheels, etc.


Search out Jack Brunk. I think he still posts here; if not then over at Velocipede Salon. He had built more cool light weight bikes than most of us can even dream of and he rides them in ultra distance events.

[1centaur]

Jack's bikes are regularly in the 14s, and I view that as a level at which durability should be acceptable. You can use a spreadsheet to go component by component and you'll see how easy it is (with a lot of cash) to get to 14 something with a normal/light frame and components that lots of people are riding without complaining that they are breaking.

You'll also see how hard it is to get to 11-12 pounds.

In both cases assume real world weights higher than manufacturers' listed weights.

I know if I wanted to get to 11-12 pounds I would have almost no choices: lightest frames, lightest wheels, lightest brakes, lightest cranks, AX lightness stuff, Ti bolts everywhere. I don't think I'd love the result.

I've been totally happy in the low 15s - feels like the high 16s except when climbing.

[Climb01742]

if you start with a light enough frame/fork, getting to sub-15 isn't that hard without even resorting to anything even remotely silly light for components. that said, i personally find bike at about 16-pounds to strike a great balance of zip and ride quality. once you get into the 14 neighborhood, ride quality can suffer a bit, at least for me. but then again, unlike jack, i've never owned or ridden super-lightweight wheels, which might make 14-pound bikes ride quite well.

[gemship]

I love my lightweight bike despite babying it and not riding it so much. For $5,200 the local bike shop built me up a new r3sl with ultegra sl, dura ace tubeless wheels with diamante clinchers, standard plastic rxs pedals, ritchey wcs bar and stem and a aliante ti rail seat. Really not a fancy build considering what's out there but wieghs in at 16 pounds about even and that's also with two zipp carbon cages and a sigma computer. This bike feels light and seems to strike a good balance between pro level,stiff, light weight and price point. It wouldn't take much to get to the 14 pound level except what I figure another
$3k. I talked to a cat 2 crit racer last Sept. and he said there was little difference between 14 and 16 in terms of feeling and I believe him.

[toaster]

Maybe the less power you make as a cyclist the more a low mass bicycle will benefit you, and the stronger you are (make more power) then a more aero bike and wheels will matter.

On hills, a lighter bike benefits all riders but helps larger (high mass) cyclists the least.

Therefore, in order for a light bicycle to help any rider on hills the rider has to be as light as possible even more so than the bicycle.

[toasttoast]

can't ride a cheap steel bike that weights 16 or 17, so i guess it's not for me :)

[Ray]

Big weight differences MIGHT matter, small weight differences don't unless you're an elite rider in a very hilly time trial or something similar. For real world recreational riding, anything around or under 20 pounds will feel great assuming it fits, etc, etc, etc. Wheels affect feel more than any other component, so put your money into those and go for very lightweight if you can afford it - hell, buy Lightweights if you can afford them. At the OP's stated weight, the penalties for going super light are probably less than for most of us, but stuff can still break. Having had one crank arm snap under load because it was under-designed (presumably to save weight), I can tell you I don't want THAT to ever happen again. So buy really lightweight stuff where failure won't be fatal, like derailures, bottom brackets, headsets, shift levers, etc. But go super light on frames, forks, bars, stems, cranks, and seatposts at your own risk.

And understand that the feel of a bike has a lot less to do with weight than other things. I had a 22 pound steel bike that FELT as light as any bike I've ever ridden, mostly because of its geometry and the way it handled. I'm sure there would have been a minute measurable difference in my times to the top of a given mountain with a lighter bike, but nothing that would change the experience at any meaningful level. And for most of us, that's what its about.

-Ray

[djg]

I guess I'd just ask what you consider light and what priorities you have? As others have pointed out, medium sized bikes (say, 54-56 cm) easily can be built at 16 - 17 pounds without searching out exotic, weight weenie components. That's not a budget bike -- according to the mags, the budget carbon bikes (1.5-2k) with budget wheels are coming in at more than 20 pounds. OTOH, That's a bike that can be had off the floor at any major bike shop -- stock model Treks, Giants, Specialized, etc. will meet the target. If you are talking smaller production made-to-order outfits like Serotta, or one-off shops like Spectrum, Kirk, DeSalvo, Bedford, Sachs, etc., then you can get a Ti or steel frame that is solid and dependable, good descending as well as climbing, and still get a 16-17 pound bike without exotic components. At your weight, you have an advantage in that a good set of wheels might be pretty darn light and yet still dependable on a daily basis.

If you want to go lighter, you can -- there's just the question how much you want to spend and how light you really want to go, and to what end? The everti came up before. It might be a terrific bike -- I have no idea -- and there's no reason why another person couldn't spend his or her hard earned money trying something new, but, for me, I face the question, why drop so much coin on an unknown? What would I be chasing? If you have one pal racing one and another riding one without racing, and you trust their input, that's a different story. My 54 cm Serotta HSG Ti is an excellent bike and it's about 17 pounds with a good build but no exotica whatsoever (maybe just a bit more with the current powertap wheel, but not much). With race day wheels, it's a little lighter. With a few swaps, it could be lighter still. I don't know how to move from 16 pounds to 12 without changing almost everything around and I do not care to. Remember, I cannot possibly save 3-4 pounds by getting a different frame, because my frame does not weigh 4 pounds (actually came in under 3, and the advertised average weight).

I'm not saying it's wrong or sketchy to build a lighter bike than the one I ride -- lots of people do it without chasing weight weenie dreams. But if you're asking what you MIGHT give up with any given choice governed by weight, well, you might give up a bike that behaves in hard cornering or on fast descents; you might give up dependability; you might give up comfort at the contact points (for example, is the lightest saddle the one you want to sit on? are the lightest bars both dependable and the shape, reach, and drop you want?)

[zap]

I still ride my 5 year old Klein that weighs 14.3-14.6lbs (no water bottles), depending on which carbon wheelset. Kit is campy record with phil square ti bb and the second gen. record carbon crank.

To get it under 14lb, all I would need to do is get the zipp crankset.

OK, the one item some folks think is nuts is the AX Lightness carbon saddle.

By the way, I'm over 6' and weight 167-175lb.

A good friend has a Cervelo with thm cranks, record and some tune/clinchers and his kit is under 14lbs. He weighs 140ish.

Light bikes are a blast. Light bikes handle and react a bit different but you get used to it fast and heavy bikes....well .......

All are super reliable and get used hard. Our roads in MD/VA are pretty good.

[Jack Brunk]

I still ride my 5 year old Klein that weighs 14.3-14.6lbs (no water bottles), depending on which carbon wheelset. Kit is campy record with phil square ti bb and the second gen. record carbon crank.

To get it under 14lb, all I would need to do is get the zipp crankset.

OK, the one item some folks think is nuts is the AX Lightness carbon saddle.

By the way, I'm over 6' and weight 167-175lb.

A good friend has a Cervelo with thm cranks, record and some tune/clinchers and his kit is under 14lbs. He weighs 140ish.

Light bikes are a blast. Light bikes handle and react a bit different but you get used to it fast and heavy bikes....well .......

All are super reliable and get used hard. Our roads in MD/VA are pretty good.

Zap is a 100% correct. A great set of wheels will make any bike seem lighter and faster.

[RPS]

Curious how people feel about lightweight bikes (specifically, titanium road bikes) and potential drawbacks. I'm just under 130 pounds, 28 years old, recreational rider....I don't ever see myself becoming a lot bigger (either huge amounts of muscle gain or middle-age spare-tire gain, due to genetics and veganism). So I'm assuming light-weight frames and components shouldn't be at too great a risk of breaking... Unfortunately for smaller riders bicycle weights are not proportional to rider weight. A 110 pound female can’t ride a bike half the weight of a 220 pound large man. IMHO this happens for two reasons: For components to remain functional cutting the weight often reduces strength by a greater amount, and loading from the rider is not proportional to rider size. I have a friend who at times weighs over 220 pounds and rides a 15 to 16 pound bike. My wife at half that weight can’t possibly ride an 8 pound bike, right? I'm just trying to say that I wouldn't put a lot of effort trying to make your bike proportional to your small size.

Besides, if for recreational use a pound or two will not make a great difference in performance but will make a difference in cost, durability, and reliability. And if for competition, the bike has to meet the minimum weight limit, so at your weight it shouldn’t be that difficult.

[MontanaJustin]

Thanks to everyone for so much helpful input - part of what makes this forum so awesome.

Justin

[40x14]

Wheels affect feel more than any other component, so put your money into those and go for very lightweight if you can afford it...I am sometimes surprised when I see a lightweight set of wheels paired with tires that are not.

Lightweight tires and tubes can typically account for 50-100 grams weight reduction per wheel at the place where it makes the biggest difference, on the outside of the rim.

For example, in clinchers, michelin pro race 3 tires weigh 200 grams in 700x23, that's about 30 to 80 grams less than other 700x23 tires. Veloflex tires are also exceptionally light.

Here are some other tire weights for comparison
230g - vittoria rubino pro
255g - vittoria zaffiro pro
230g - conti ultra gatorskin
288g - michelin speedium

Lightweight tubes (not paper ultralight, just regular ultralight) weigh about 20-25 grams less than regular tubes, and usually cost $2-$3 more than a regular tube.

Here are some inner tube weights and prices for comparison
continental race tube 96g $6
michelin airestop - 100g - $5
continental race lite tube - 76g $7
michelin aercomp - 75g - $7

Good tires and tubes are a (relatively) cheap, fast, and easy way to improve the handling and ride of any set of wheels.

[MontanaJustin]

Thanks - my current tires are getting close to finished, so might just start exploring some tire options on my current bike!

:)

[Ray]

I am sometimes surprised when I see a lightweight set of wheels paired with tires that are not.

Lightweight tires and tubes can typically account for 50-100 grams weight reduction per wheel at the place where it makes the biggest difference, on the outside of the rim.

For example, in clinchers, michelin pro race 3 tires weigh 200 grams in 700x23, that's about 30 to 80 grams less than other 700x23 tires. Veloflex tires are also exceptionally light.

I agree with this - running Lightweight carbon clinchers with 700x32 Top Touring tires and industrial strength tubes wouldn't make much sense. I'm using relatively heavy tires these days, at 300 grams per each, but since they don't use tubes at all, they're only slightly heavier than the lightest combos out there.

-Ray

[RPS]

I am sometimes surprised when I see a lightweight set of wheels paired with tires that are not.A while back when I cared more about weight I took the time to figure out the weight savings per unit cost and prioritized on that basis to get the most bang for the buck – assuming similar function of course. If the best buy ended up being heavy tires on light wheels or vice versa it made little difference. I let the numbers speak for themselves.

Assigning costs gets a little complicated when comparing items that wear or flat because you’ll go through many tires and tubes for each wheel, but with a little experience these can be estimated. In theory if a rider flatted constantly or wore his tires out quickly then maybe putting much more money into wheels versus tires may make sense.

Personally I found that placing a cost on weight avoided mixing vastly dissimilar components like heavy tires on more expensive wheels (not that I buy expensive wheels by this forum’s standard). It can get a little more subjective when comparing rotating mass to non-rotating mass but for me that was never an issue. Compared to other riders I put far more emphasis on total weight than on rotating weight (hence why I don’t own 1,000 gram wheelsets).

[40x14]

Personally I found that placing a cost on weight avoided mixing vastly dissimilar components like heavy tires on more expensive wheels...That's what I was saying. If someone's going to spend a lot of money on fine wheels, then fine tires ought to be the norm.

I'm adding that one can spend a little money on fine tires as a simple upgrade to any wheel set.

It's not just about rotating weight since some lightweight tires ride like bricks and others are supple.

As a rider, I notice a light snappy wheel much more than a pound (or three) on my bike.

[David Kirk]

As a rider, I notice a light snappy wheel much more than a pound (or three) on my bike.

I agree. Think of it this way. You are going out for a few hours on the bike so you have two full small bottles on the bike. You are carrying more than 2 1/2 lbs. of water. You've in effect added 2 1/2 lbs. to the frame weight. How does the bike feel on that first climb? Just fine I'll bet. The wheel weight is what you can really feel on the road. The ultralight headset and brake calipers don't contribute much to the feeling of "snap" that the best bikes have but the wheels certainly do.

Get light efficient wheels with supple tires and enjoy the ride.

dave

[Climb01742]

i sure don't know how to quantify this but... when i go from my 14-pound carbon bike to my 17-pound-ish alu bike the difference i feel most is one of solidness. it may be completely in my mind, but on our roads, the solidity of metal and a few more pounds has its attraction. this may be more about psyche than physics but i notice it, FWIW.

[1centaur]

Think of it this way. You are going out for a few hours on the bike so you have two full small bottles on the bike. You are carrying more than 2 1/2 lbs. of water. You've in effect added 2 1/2 lbs. to the frame weight. How does the bike feel on that first climb? Just fine I'll bet.

It feels fine on the first hill because my legs are fresh. It feels fine on the last hill, when the bottles are empty, because my bike weighs less. Nature's balance.

[David Kirk]

It feels fine on the first hill because my legs are fresh. It feels fine on the last hill, when the bottles are empty, because my bike weighs less. Nature's balance.

I think you are onto something here......... but wait a minute! You drank the water so it's now making you heavier. But then again you also sweat some of it. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Does this mean that riders that sweat a good bit are better climbers?


dave

[RPS]

Does this mean that riders that sweat a good bit are better climbers?


daveNo, just that better climbers sweat more.

[palincss]

You know, there is more than one way to get rid of water you've drunk.

[Joellogicman]

That's what I was saying. If someone's going to spend a lot of money on fine wheels, then fine tires ought to be the norm.

I have Schwalbe 29x2.3 Big Apples, among the heaviest tires available, on a wonderful - and expensive - pair of Mavic Open Pro wheels built around a Rohloff hub in back and Phil Wood up front.

Well worth it, in my opinion. I have gone on many a tour in my day. I cannot think of a better combination of comfort and rugged weight bearing ability.

[djg]

I agree. Think of it this way. You are going out for a few hours on the bike so you have two full small bottles on the bike. You are carrying more than 2 1/2 lbs. of water. You've in effect added 2 1/2 lbs. to the frame weight. How does the bike feel on that first climb? Just fine I'll bet. The wheel weight is what you can really feel on the road. The ultralight headset and brake calipers don't contribute much to the feeling of "snap" that the best bikes have but the wheels certainly do.

Get light efficient wheels with supple tires and enjoy the ride.

dave

Not only that, but if it's a long tough climb, you run into a true paradox of physics: start the climb with those heavy full water bottles, and the bike feels fine all the way up; start the climb with lightweight empty water bottles, and the bike feels terrible way before you reach the top.

And +1 on the wheels and tire stuff.

[RPS]

As a rider, I notice a light snappy wheel much more than a pound (or three) on my bike.How much lighter are your snappy wheels? Could they be 3 pounds lighter? Maybe your feelings are justified. ;)

[RPS]

i sure don't know how to quantify this but... when i go from my 14-pound carbon bike to my 17-pound-ish alu bike the difference i feel most is one of solidness. it may be completely in my mind, but on our roads, the solidity of metal and a few more pounds has its attraction. this may be more about psyche than physics but i notice it, FWIW.Weight and particularly rotating mass seem to be right up there with religion and politics when it comes to eliciting a firm response.

IMO its effect on performance (other than ride quality which is far more subjective) has been the most misunderstood, overrated, and exaggerated cycling phenomenon for decades – probably longer. Unfortunately much has been based on opinion and presented as fact which doesn’t help.

Objectively it’s easy to determine what weight – including rotating mass – can have on performance under various circumstances. However, many riders report “feeling” what is not physically possible, which doesn’t make it unreal. It’s real enough if we feel something; whether it should be felt or not is immaterial.

As an engineer it’s hard for me to allow my “feelings” to override my knowledge. On the other hand I understand the reality of feeling something that doesn’t make sense. As a personal example, I don’t like walking on a glass floor when hundreds of feet above the ground. I “KNOW” the glass is plenty strong and is not likely to break, and that heavier people have just stood on it and it didn’t break. It’s completely irrational. I feel something that shouldn’t be felt. My legs may even feel weak momentarily. And what’s the deal with that? I weigh the same, and the glass isn’t moving. There is absolutely no physical reason for me to feel this way.

Even when we know better our minds can play tricks on us. I blame it on being human.

[1centaur]

No, just that better climbers sweat more.

Maybe I'm a great climber then, because I always lose weight on rides on which I drank my bottles dry. 4 lbs in, 7 lbs out. ...and a bike that's as much as 2lbs lighter than a heavy bike at the end.

[palincss]

Weight and particularly rotating mass seem to be right up there with religion and politics when it comes to eliciting a firm response.

IMO its effect on performance (other than ride quality which is far more subjective) has been the most misunderstood, overrated, and exaggerated cycling phenomenon for decades – probably longer. Unfortunately much has been based on opinion and presented as fact which doesn’t help.

Objectively it’s easy to determine what weight – including rotating mass – can have on performance under various circumstances. However, many riders report “feeling” what is not physically possible, which doesn’t make it unreal. It’s real enough if we feel something; whether it should be felt or not is immaterial.

As an engineer it’s hard for me to allow my “feelings” to override my knowledge. On the other hand I understand the reality of feeling something that doesn’t make sense. As a personal example, I don’t like walking on a glass floor when hundreds of feet above the ground. I “KNOW” the glass is plenty strong and is not likely to break, and that heavier people have just stood on it and it didn’t break. It’s completely irrational. I feel something that shouldn’t be felt. My legs may even feel weak momentarily. And what’s the deal with that? I weigh the same, and the glass isn’t moving. There is absolutely no physical reason for me to feel this way.

Even when we know better our minds can play tricks on us. I blame it on being human.

You said: However, many riders report “feeling” what is not physically possible, which doesn’t make it unreal. It’s real enough if we feel something; whether it should be felt or not is immaterial. To which I say: the feelings may be real, but that doesn't make the alleged performance benefit real. It could be that the person reporting the "feeling" is mistaken and just plain wrong. Perception doesn't always make for good objective observation.

Your example of the transparent floor hundreds of feet up in the air is not germane. There are physical reasons why you get weak at the knees. If you were blindfolded, you wouldn't feel that way. And it's you, not the floor, that gets weak-feeling.

[Ray]

You said: However, many riders report “feeling” what is not physically possible, which doesn’t make it unreal. It’s real enough if we feel something; whether it should be felt or not is immaterial. To which I say: the feelings may be real, but that doesn't make the alleged performance benefit real. It could be that the person reporting the "feeling" is mistaken and just plain wrong. Perception doesn't always make for good objective observation.
True, but "good objective observation" isn't always all its cracked up to be either. If you're riding for "performance benefits" (alleged or real), then the numbers matter. If you're riding for the sensations of the ride, the subjective feelings are as, if not more, important. I objectively know that aero wheels would give even a slow guy like me more performance benefits than lighter wheels on all but the hilliest rides. I subjectively feel that lighter wheels are more sprightly and responsive and fun when doing a lot of undulating climbs (which is what we have lots of around here). Hence, I choose light wheels every time. I get no quantifiable performance benefit, but I enjoy 'em more. Unless I'm racing and time matters, I'll take the subjective benefit of enjoying them more every time.

-Ray

[MarinRider]

In my stable the ride I prefer the most just happens to be the heaviest: a Pegoretti Respo with a steel fork.

I prefer the least just happens to be the lightest: a Time VXRS.

Hmmm...

Put Campy Hyperon Tubies on a Cannondale CADD9 will make it ride like a dream.

[40x14]

I have Schwalbe 29x2.3 Big Apples, among the heaviest tires available, on a wonderful - and expensive - pair of Mavic Open Pro wheels built around a Rohloff hub in back and Phil Wood up front.

Well worth it, in my opinion. I have gone on many a tour in my day. I cannot think of a better combination of comfort and rugged weight bearing ability.Fine does not always mean light, that is why I chose that word instead of writing either 'light' or 'expensive'.

Since we're on the topic think about this for a moment: used tires should be lighter than new tires, since the tread is wearing down. Unfortunately I think they wear thinnest in the middle, and start to become 'squared' before this makes any significant difference.

[Tobias]

Your example of the transparent floor hundreds of feet up in the air is not germane. There are physical reasons why you get weak at the knees. If you were blindfolded, you wouldn't feel that way. And it's you, not the floor, that gets weak-feeling.Maybe a bad example, but the principle holds. Real “feelings” don’t have to be based on realistic science. Tests repeatedly show that people enjoy things more when they pay more for the same item. The same bottle of wine taste better when it’s 10 times more expensive. We can call it delusional or whatever, but it doesn’t change the perception. I’m sure to some degree the same applies to bicycles and their components. Our expectation of expensive items sways our objectivity. The same goes for lightness.

I think most of us agree on the science. The differences I read above are mostly limited to use of words like “real” to describe subjective feelings. Not being an English major I’m going to stick to the science.

[Tobias]

What I don’t get about this discussion, primarily when applied to wheels and tires, is that likely differences in weight is not all that great unless one compares stupidly light equipment to that which is too heavy for the intended use. From my experience it’s hard to save a bunch of weight by substituting between relatively sturdy rims, tires and tubes and their relatively fragile counterparts.

Save 100 grams on each rim, plus
100 grams on each tire, plus
27 grams on each tube, and
you’ve saved a total of one pound

That’s a lot of real world compromise to save a meager pound. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but how much more than the above can be taken off a set of common and reliable Open Pros and Michelins? Maybe a little over 100 grams per rim compared to OPs but we’d be hard pressed to take 100 grams per tire off Michelins. Again, unless one is comparing wheels and tires that are totally different, a pound of weight savings is a lot. Personally I don’t see how anyone can get to two pounds of difference unless they are comparing apples and oranges.

[ty-ro]

My current bike started out at 15.9 lbs. After I changed to some real pedals, comfortable saddle, tires that wouldn't flat every other ride, and some wheels that are stiffer and more confidence inspiring, I'm up to 18.something lbs. Do I really care? No. Would I like a lighter bike for longer hillclimbs and such? Sure.

My plan is to leave this bike the way it is and build up another one that is lighter for those days. I like my current bike the way it is, though I do have a lighter set of wheels and tires that I put on it for race days. It makes a HUGE difference in feel.

[Charles M]

This (and lots of things) get back to Quasi-material Generalization crap...


Like, "light Bikes are ...." or Serotta are heavy...


The Meivici sits at 13 pounds, is exceptionally stable and honestly the smoothest bike I've even been on.

There's A Parlee a lot like it and a Lynskey that's also a lot like that (but a pound heavier and not as stiff as either the Meivici or Z1SL...



There's heavy Junk and light junk, metal junk and carbon junk. And great examples of all of it as well. None of the materials are lacking.

Probably the biggest lack is in broad enough relative experience.

[Ahneida Ride]

The Meivici sits at 13 pounds, is exceptionally stable and honestly the smoothest bike I've even been on.


I demoed a Meivici at the factory. Think it was was a 60. I need a 64/65.
So the fit was off. But I must say this .... Ride was amazing ... She had
painted lugs, like Pez's bike, I always thought I was on a steel machine ...

Not wishy washy at all. Never once really contemplated weight ...
the ride was that good. My Legend is a boat anchor and again I never
contemplate weight, the ride is that good. My "lead" Legend and the
Helium Meivici are both formidable climbing machines. The Meivici wins
but the Legend is no slouch. But then the Legend was designed to haul
my avoirdupois posterior around with a rack in the rear too.

If I had the frns .... I'd get a Meivici and Bedford steel custom.
No questions asked.

[Tobias]

Probably the biggest lack is in broad enough relative experience.Lack of relative experience? That’s a unique way of looking at things.

Do you mean lack of relative experience as in most of us haven’t ridden $20,000 13-pound bikes, or most of us haven’t had to demonstrate proficiency calculating the effect of weight, mass, and inertia on dynamic systems?

I don’t even know which is more important to cycling; although I know which experience I’d prefer if given a choice. Maybe really broad experience would include both. :beer: