What does a very light bike feel like?

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by vincenz

.... a light bike would still give that sprightly “performance” feel that is missing in a heavier bike.

.

So many generalizations in this thread and assumptions that lighter must be better and is more fun in all cases, which is like saying that an early Vitus aluminum frame or Teledyne Titan were better race bikes that a Merckx MXL.

I'd challenge anyone to bring a 14 pound bike and ride at speed some of the rooty single track trails my (former) 21+ lb Kirk Cross powers down without missing a step and tell me which performs better and is more fun in that context. You might have to pick yourself out of the bushes first though.

Horses for courses, and horses for riders and the performance measures the rider is looking for. Lighter isn't "better" its just lighter. And vice versa.

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by jtbadge

Weight weenieism is so weird.

OTOH my aluminum frame/carbon fork Rock Lobster rides just as nicely as either of the MX Leaders I used to own, and equipped with the same components/wheels, weighs 2-3 pounds less. So much more enjoyable for a climb.

There's certainly a reasonable line to be drawn.

that's because mxleaders ride like donkey ****.

just like dario always said, the BLE was utter overkill.

#shotsfired

[vincenz]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

So many generalizations in this thread and assumptions that lighter must be better and is more fun in all cases, which is like saying that an early Vitus aluminum frame or Teledyne Titan were better race bikes that a Merckx MXL.

I'd challenge anyone to bring a 14 pound bike and ride at speed some of the rooty single track trails my (former) 21+ lb Kirk Cross powers down without missing a step and tell me which performs better and is more fun in that context. You might have to pick yourself out of the bushes first though.

Horses for courses, and horses for riders and the performance measures the rider is looking for. Lighter isn't "better" its just lighter. And vice versa.

Was talking about for road, not single track trails. It could be argued a heavier bike would be better for descending on road, nevermind single track...

But yes, a lighter bike is "better" in some cases, especially if talking about going uphill or being able to chuck it around. Have you ridden a 15 lb bike before or no?

[R3awak3n]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

So many generalizations in this thread and assumptions that lighter must be better and is more fun in all cases, which is like saying that an early Vitus aluminum frame or Teledyne Titan were better race bikes that a Merckx MXL.

I'd challenge anyone to bring a 14 pound bike and ride at speed some of the rooty single track trails my (former) 21+ lb Kirk Cross powers down without missing a step and tell me which performs better and is more fun in that context. You might have to pick yourself out of the bushes first though.

Horses for courses, and horses for riders and the performance measures the rider is looking for. Lighter isn't "better" its just lighter. And vice versa.

But that we would pick that 21+ lbs kirk over a light bike would also be an assumption. I would probably pick my 17lb OPEN over that kirk, but I really don't know how that kirk rides but the OPEN does not miss a step and its light and fun. I do agree that light does not mean good or better as I have bikes as heavy as 21lbs that are amazing. I do have to say that I have never ridden a terrible light bike (lightest bike I have been on is 15lbs though) but I have ridden many not great heavy bikes so ymmv.

[CAAD]

I had my Cannonade SS EVO HM down to around 11.8lbs with pedals. It was my go to road bike putting 170-200+ miles a week on it. No issues or parts on it I felt I sacrificed something for light weight. The bike was super responsive and I love that feeling a light bike gives. My only complaint was the frame itself was just harsh and chattery. So I swapped some parts to a new English frame/fork. It built up to 13.8lbs I can't tell that it's up 2lbs but the ride is night and day compared to the Cannonade. 17+lbs for a road bike is porky. Gravel bike depending on the tire 17lbs is acceptable. You don't have to spend a ton of money to accomplish that either.

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by vincenz

Was talking about for road, not single track trails. It could be argued a heavier bike would be better for descending on road, nevermind single track...

But yes, a lighter bike is "better" in some cases, especially if talking about going uphill or being able to chuck it around. Have you ridden a 15 lb bike before or no?

I can get my Hampsten carbon close to 15 when I put hyperon ultras on it so yeah. Again, horses for courses. I wouldn't take my former Kirk to ride up Ventoux (although at the speed I went up Ventoux the only thing that would help me is an ebike).

Nothing against light bikes I just think after a point weight is simply one of the most overhyped marketing aspects of road bikes. Particulalry for someone like me. Even if I could get down to my heavyweight crew weight of 195 (which I'd be happy to be within 10 pounds of on a consistent basis) the difference between 16 pound bike, i.e not bad but not "light" by today's standards and a 14 pound bike would be a less than 1 percent reduction in my total mass going up that mountain or sprinting for a stop sign. My Peg Marcelo was about a pound or two heavier than my Hampsten. It arguably had more of that instantaneous liveliness that folks are going on about. My Sachs is a pound or two more than the Marcelo. Plenty sprightly, lively and uber smooth. A couple pounds in not making or breaking anything about these bikes and I think this is a fairer comparison than say comparing a 14 pound bike to a 26 pound commuter where yeah, duh.

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by CAAD

I had my Cannonade SS EVO HM down to around 11.8lbs with pedals. It was my go to road bike putting 170-200+ miles a week on it. No issues or parts on it I felt I sacrificed something for light weight. The bike was super responsive and I love that feeling a light bike gives. My only complaint was the frame itself was just harsh and chattery. So I swapped some parts to a new English frame/fork. It built up to 13.8lbs I can't tell that it's up 2lbs but the ride is night and day compared to the Cannonade. 17+lbs for a road bike is porky. Gravel bike depending on the tire 17lbs is acceptable. You don't have to spend a ton of money to accomplish that either.

full m'llenniahl:

lol k how big u? compare resumes?

also bull****. those numbers are uh, stupid, unless you're smll.

[thegunner]

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

full m'llenniahl:

lol k how big u? compare resumes?

also bull****. those numbers are uh, stupid, unless you're smll.

i dunno, there's plenty of 5 kg evos on weightweenies. those frames are light as hell even in 56's.

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by CAAD

17+lbs for a road bike is porky. Gravel bike depending on the tire 17lbs is acceptable. You don't have to spend a ton of money to accomplish that either.

In my experience, its not that easy to get a large bike - 62-64cm frame if I was buying stock - below 17 lb pounds without spending some bucks, particularly if you are looking for something other than a mass produced top end carbon frame where the manufacturers are playing the weight game or a pricey custom like an English, even with things like Record, Dura Ace, Red components and 1400 grams wheels. Going sub 17 for me, for a bike I want to ride, costs bucks. Now if you measure bike weight as a percentage of bike + rider weight then us bigger guys fare a bit better; all my bikes are quite light by this measure

[pdmtong]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

In my experience, its not that easy to get a large bike - 62-64cm frame if I was buying stock - below 17 lb pounds without spending some bucks, particularly if you are looking for something other than a mass produced top end carbon frame where the manufacturers are playing the weight game or a pricey custom like an English, even with things like Record, Dura Ace, Red components and 1400 grams wheels. Going sub 17 for me, for a bike I want to ride, costs bucks. Now if you measure bike weight as a percentage of bike + rider weight then us bigger guys fare a bit better; all my bikes are quite light by this measure

IMHO this is one of the worse ways to view both bike and rider weight because it assumes the relevant range is the full weight all the way down to zero which we know is impossible. Alternatively if you view rider+bike weight for a given size vs. common human weight range for that size the percentage of bike+rider weight variance is pretty tiny.

alternatively, 2#s on 17#s is major.

lighter bikes feel better. but down in the sub-15 range there are performance trade-offs ...

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by pdmtong

lighter bikes feel better. but down in the sub-15 range there are performance trade-offs ...

to each their own. Lighter bikes to me don't necessarily feel better. At a certain weight differential they feel different, and the difference may be better, worse or immaterial, and then what else is going into that feeling?

If every ride is a hilly road race then maybe lighter feels better. If you are in the mood to just go out and pound away, fly up mountains, then that day lighter may well feel better. Or maybe that old Colnago C40 or 50 which gives up a pound or two to the latest and greatest out of an Asian factory mold "feels" better despite its weight. If its a Sunday ride in the country when nothing is on the line, and you just want to sit up and coast down a hill with your hands intertwined behind your head ... those days a sweet steel bike like a Sachs or a Kirk may be just the bike, and the feeling you're looking for that ride; a feeling that a 3 pound uber stiff carbon rocket may not provide. To me "different" is somewhat quantifiable or capable of describing. Better? Different day, different bike, different answer. We are blessed with choices and different experiences are available at relatively modest investments. To me, diversity is good.

[jtakeda]

Originally Posted by CAAD

I had my Cannonade SS EVO HM down to around 11.8lbs with pedals. It was my go to road bike putting 170-200+ miles a week on it. No issues or parts on it I felt I sacrificed something for light weight. The bike was super responsive and I love that feeling a light bike gives. My only complaint was the frame itself was just harsh and chattery. So I swapped some parts to a new English frame/fork. It built up to 13.8lbs I can't tell that it's up 2lbs but the ride is night and day compared to the Cannonade. 17+lbs for a road bike is porky. Gravel bike depending on the tire 17lbs is acceptable. You don't have to spend a ton of money to accomplish that either.

Define “a ton of money” because you’re saying that in the same sentence as saying you bought a brand new English frame/fork lol.

I think our rounding errors are probably on different powers of 10

[Clean39T]

This bike was 5.8kg (12.75-lbs) as shown in size 62 and with no compromising parts other than the very svelte, though durable, wheels..



It rode well and felt light as could be climbing up steep pitches, but overall, I didn't love it - and hence no longer have it.

I've had a Focus Izalco Max that was within spitting distance of that bike, and have put miles on at least a half-dozen others that most would consider to be "light bikes" - call it sub-15 lbs. or so. And not one of them would I trade anything in my garage for at this point.

Can a bike be too heavy? Sure. But somewhere in that 16-19 lb range, there's a sweet-spot where the bike feels planted, but nimble. Neither too light and jittery, nor too heavy and dead/sluggish.

Like others, I tend to notice the weight of a bike more when getting ready for the ride than when actually riding it.

But I also don't wear a skin-suit or have a follow-car. And I'm not racing or trying to win at Strava. I just enjoy riding bikes.

So give me good hubs that last, a frame that has a nice lively feel to it, and some supple tires - and I'm set. Oh, and the most important characteristic for me of a climbing bike? .........NO CREAKING! Nothing ruins a climb like a noisy BB..

I'll also note that I've been a low of around 170-ish lbs and a current high of 190-ish lbs over the past few years. I enjoy climbing no less at my currently more robust weight than I did when leaner and meaner......just tend to be not as fast over the longer distance climbs (<10-15min).....though over shorter and punchier stuff, I'm right up there with where I was....maybe a bit faster.. We'll see if I can successfully lose some mass in the off-season without dropping my short-distance oomph. Over 40 now, so it's not a done deal by any means.

[mdeth1313]

I have two sub 13 lb bikes. A wilier zero.6 at 12.25 lbs and a focus izalco max at 12.75 lbs. I've been riding WW bikes since about 2007 when I was bitten by the WW bug.

I've tried heavier bikes. I don't get used to them and I've always gone back to lighter bikes. At one point I had a scott addict slr (2009) I had down to 11.25 lbs. I could easily get the Wilier closer to (if not under) 10 if I went back to tubulars and ditched etap, but I seem to have found my sweet spot for ride comfort, performance (shifting, ease of tire change) and durability and I'd much rather have that for the long rides I do.

I've also had a few winter/rain bikes and I've finally settled with a focus paralane (etap) that comes in around 16-17 lbs with its own fender system. I really enjoy that bike as it's light (enough) for what it does, including gravel riding (w/ 700 x 35 tires). After riding that one for a bit, I really enjoy going back to my other two bikes.

[colker]

Titanium frame, carbon fork, record group, bora wheels and rim brakes. Whatever it weighs is the right lightweight.