Discussion
Get Karter said:
Weighed my old steel race bike for the first time yesterday, and it came in at 9.4kg.
Is that still competitive in the modern era of carbon, alu and Ti?
That's about the same as my old Chas Roberts time trial/triathlon bike (inc tri bars). That bike cost £1300 in 1992 and is about 2kg heavier than my new titanium Van Nicholas road bike.Is that still competitive in the modern era of carbon, alu and Ti?
Randy Winkman said:
Get Karter said:
Weighed my old steel race bike for the first time yesterday, and it came in at 9.4kg.
Is that still competitive in the modern era of carbon, alu and Ti?
That's about the same as my old Chas Roberts time trial/triathlon bike (inc tri bars). That bike cost £1300 in 1992 and is about 2kg heavier than my new titanium Van Nicholas road bike.Is that still competitive in the modern era of carbon, alu and Ti?
So, how does the Van Nicholas feel in comparison?
Get Karter said:
Weighed my old steel race bike for the first time yesterday, and it came in at 9.4kg.
Is that still competitive in the modern era of carbon, alu and Ti?
Short answer? No.Is that still competitive in the modern era of carbon, alu and Ti?
Long answer? No. UCI weight limit is 6.8kg - but many modern bikes will be under this - lots(most) pros will have weights added to their bikes to get it over the weight limit. Even low/mid range bikes will be lighter than your 9.4kg bike.
Basically, there is your excuse (not that one is ever needed) to go out and treat yourself to a new bike
Parsnip said:
Get Karter said:
Weighed my old steel race bike for the first time yesterday, and it came in at 9.4kg.
Is that still competitive in the modern era of carbon, alu and Ti?
Short answer? No.Is that still competitive in the modern era of carbon, alu and Ti?
Long answer? No. UCI weight limit is 6.8kg - but many modern bikes will be under this - lots(most) pros will have weights added to their bikes to get it over the weight limit. Even low/mid range bikes will be lighter than your 9.4kg bike.
Basically, there is your excuse (not that one is ever needed) to go out and treat yourself to a new bike
Does 1kg on a bike hinder more than 1kg on the riders waistline?
A couple of water bottles full of SiS is going to add that sort of weight too. And I can't feel a difference when riding with full bottles versus empty ones.
Just want get an idea of how different a 1.5kg saving on a bike is going to feel???
Not wanting to start an arguement but I don't agree. 9.4 kg is still ok. Not great but ok.
What you will find is that many mainstream alu bikes up to £1000 will be anywhere from 8.5-10kg. For example a 2009 Bianchi Via Nirone with 105 group came in at about 9.3kg and cost about £1000. Of course a £1000 Boardman or Planet X may be less than 8kg but depends on whether you like the ride qualities of carbon or aluminium.
To get something below the UCI limit you'd have to spend a fair bit. I curently have a Bianchi 928 (full carbon) and for about £2.5k you're looking at 8kg so am guessing you'd have to buy something like a Planet X to get less than 7kg for cheap.
In truth bike weight is complete rubbish so don't worry about it. People make too much fuss about it when they could well lose 1kg in body fat and save a fortune instead
However, this is a totally different thing to buying an expensive bike just to enjoy a bit of bling. If that's what you want then you don't really need any excuse
What you will find is that many mainstream alu bikes up to £1000 will be anywhere from 8.5-10kg. For example a 2009 Bianchi Via Nirone with 105 group came in at about 9.3kg and cost about £1000. Of course a £1000 Boardman or Planet X may be less than 8kg but depends on whether you like the ride qualities of carbon or aluminium.
To get something below the UCI limit you'd have to spend a fair bit. I curently have a Bianchi 928 (full carbon) and for about £2.5k you're looking at 8kg so am guessing you'd have to buy something like a Planet X to get less than 7kg for cheap.
In truth bike weight is complete rubbish so don't worry about it. People make too much fuss about it when they could well lose 1kg in body fat and save a fortune instead
However, this is a totally different thing to buying an expensive bike just to enjoy a bit of bling. If that's what you want then you don't really need any excuse
The difference between my 8.5kg Scott S50 and my 7kg TCR C0 is night and day - granted, not all of it is weight - the TCR frame is stiff as hell and pisses off like a scalded cat when you put the power down, the S50 just feels sluggish in comparison.
It is hard to say what difference weight makes, as it depends where it is on the bike etc.
Did a few (very) rough calculations based on Lance's 2004 Ascent of Alpe d'Huez (because I am a sad engineer and I'm bored)
An extra 1.5kg of unsprung mass on a bike going up there is worth about 16500 Joules, or about 4 Calories.
He went up in ~38mins, so he would lose about 7W - which doesn't sound a lot when you are considering he was probably chucking out north of 400W going up there, but that 7W is being wasted carrying that extra 1.5kg up the hill.
Would he notice that extra 1.5kg? Hard to say really, but it would reflect in the performance, whatever way you look at it.
I don't know how old your old steelie is, but bike design has moved on so much in the last 10 years, I would be surprised if you didn't notice a difference - stiffer frames, STI shifters, outboard bottom brackets - the list goes on.
While not relevant to 99% of riders, the UCI weight limit is a bit of a joke really - On the flat, most pros will have a powermeter and stupid deep wheels on and still need to add ballast. The new Cervelo Prototype Project California frame builds up so light that it had 2 full chains down the seat tube and a load of ballast attached when they used it in the Tour of California to sneak it in under the weight limit.
It is hard to say what difference weight makes, as it depends where it is on the bike etc.
Did a few (very) rough calculations based on Lance's 2004 Ascent of Alpe d'Huez (because I am a sad engineer and I'm bored)
An extra 1.5kg of unsprung mass on a bike going up there is worth about 16500 Joules, or about 4 Calories.
He went up in ~38mins, so he would lose about 7W - which doesn't sound a lot when you are considering he was probably chucking out north of 400W going up there, but that 7W is being wasted carrying that extra 1.5kg up the hill.
Would he notice that extra 1.5kg? Hard to say really, but it would reflect in the performance, whatever way you look at it.
I don't know how old your old steelie is, but bike design has moved on so much in the last 10 years, I would be surprised if you didn't notice a difference - stiffer frames, STI shifters, outboard bottom brackets - the list goes on.
While not relevant to 99% of riders, the UCI weight limit is a bit of a joke really - On the flat, most pros will have a powermeter and stupid deep wheels on and still need to add ballast. The new Cervelo Prototype Project California frame builds up so light that it had 2 full chains down the seat tube and a load of ballast attached when they used it in the Tour of California to sneak it in under the weight limit.
Parsnip said:
The difference between my 8.5kg Scott S50 and my 7kg TCR C0 is night and day - granted, not all of it is weight - the TCR frame is stiff as hell and pisses off like a scalded cat when you put the power down, the S50 just feels sluggish in comparison.
It is hard to say what difference weight makes, as it depends where it is on the bike etc.
Well that's partly why I was asking, because I also have my old steel 'hack'/winter bike, and it is 10.5kg.It is hard to say what difference weight makes, as it depends where it is on the bike etc.
My 9.4kg bike feels so much lighter and quicker (not mereley 1.1kg). On terrain including moderate climbing, I average approx 2mph faster on the lighter bike for the same effort.
So what I am trying to get at is....would another 1.1kg off my race frame give me a similar benefit.
As you say, I suspect it is more to do with other factors.
9.4 kg is about 21lbs isn't it? not too bad all things considered, but it's not all about weight...modern shifting systems are so much better than the old ones, and brakes have improved, albeit not as much...
My singlespeed is about 19lbs ATM, and you can buy that for £500 (although it'll weigh more without the spanky CF bits I put on it...) just to put things into context.
You can buy a 16lb bike (with gears!) for about 2K these days.
My singlespeed is about 19lbs ATM, and you can buy that for £500 (although it'll weigh more without the spanky CF bits I put on it...) just to put things into context.
You can buy a 16lb bike (with gears!) for about 2K these days.
Fatman2 said:
Not wanting to start an arguement but I don't agree. 9.4 kg is still ok. Not great but ok.
What you will find is that many mainstream alu bikes up to £1000 will be anywhere from 8.5-10kg. For example a 2009 Bianchi Via Nirone with 105 group came in at about 9.3kg and cost about £1000. Of course a £1000 Boardman or Planet X may be less than 8kg but depends on whether you like the ride qualities of carbon or aluminium.
To get something below the UCI limit you'd have to spend a fair bit. I curently have a Bianchi 928 (full carbon) and for about £2.5k you're looking at 8kg so am guessing you'd have to buy something like a Planet X to get less than 7kg for cheap.
Don't get me wrong, weight isn't the be all and end all, but a 9kg+ steel bike is going to ride very differently to a 7kg carbon bike.What you will find is that many mainstream alu bikes up to £1000 will be anywhere from 8.5-10kg. For example a 2009 Bianchi Via Nirone with 105 group came in at about 9.3kg and cost about £1000. Of course a £1000 Boardman or Planet X may be less than 8kg but depends on whether you like the ride qualities of carbon or aluminium.
To get something below the UCI limit you'd have to spend a fair bit. I curently have a Bianchi 928 (full carbon) and for about £2.5k you're looking at 8kg so am guessing you'd have to buy something like a Planet X to get less than 7kg for cheap.
A lot of people probably could afford to lose the weight from the gut rather than their bike, but the point is that speed you can buy is a lot easier to get than speed you have to earn - you only need to do a TT on a road bike to work that one out
With planet X you can get UCI illegal very easily - http://www.planet-x-bikes.co.uk/i/q/CBPXNAREDLTD/n... - swap out the horrible wheels and tyres for pretty much anything else and viola, you have a UCI illegal bike for under £2000, like I said though, the UCI limit is an arbitrary and useless number - plenty of UK races will have guys on UCI illegal bikes, the only reason I brought it up was to give some sort of benchmark figure.
Fatman2 said:
Not wanting to start an arguement but I don't agree. 9.4 kg is still ok. Not great but ok.
What you will find is that many mainstream alu bikes up to £1000 will be anywhere from 8.5-10kg. For example a 2009 Bianchi Via Nirone with 105 group came in at about 9.3kg and cost about £1000. Of course a £1000 Boardman or Planet X may be less than 8kg but depends on whether you like the ride qualities of carbon or aluminium.
I've got a carbon boardman which was £999.99 and weighs just under 8kg, their 700-800 Alu bikes with carbon forks were 8.2KG, their cheapest all Alu road bike at £500 is 8.6kg. Even some of their Hybrids are under 9.5 kgs What you will find is that many mainstream alu bikes up to £1000 will be anywhere from 8.5-10kg. For example a 2009 Bianchi Via Nirone with 105 group came in at about 9.3kg and cost about £1000. Of course a £1000 Boardman or Planet X may be less than 8kg but depends on whether you like the ride qualities of carbon or aluminium.
Get Karter said:
Randy Winkman said:
Get Karter said:
Weighed my old steel race bike for the first time yesterday, and it came in at 9.4kg.
Is that still competitive in the modern era of carbon, alu and Ti?
That's about the same as my old Chas Roberts time trial/triathlon bike (inc tri bars). That bike cost £1300 in 1992 and is about 2kg heavier than my new titanium Van Nicholas road bike.Is that still competitive in the modern era of carbon, alu and Ti?
So, how does the Van Nicholas feel in comparison?
Here's the old thing arriving early for the party - the finish of Pedal for Scotland 2010.
You'll note I upgraded to hood shifters (about 10 years ago)
What I am fancying is a titanium bike that looks like a steely...like this one:-
http://www.enigmabikes.com/esprit.html
Enigma Esprit.
I think its the horizontal top tube that I like. Don't like the slopey look at all. But I am an old git!
You'll note I upgraded to hood shifters (about 10 years ago)
What I am fancying is a titanium bike that looks like a steely...like this one:-
http://www.enigmabikes.com/esprit.html
Enigma Esprit.
I think its the horizontal top tube that I like. Don't like the slopey look at all. But I am an old git!
Get Karter said:
What I am fancying is a titanium bike that looks like a steely...like this one:-
http://www.enigmabikes.com/esprit.html
Enigma Esprit.
I think its the horizontal top tube that I like. Don't like the slopey look at all. But I am an old git!
have a look at a Baum they are finished off very well and look greathttp://www.enigmabikes.com/esprit.html
Enigma Esprit.
I think its the horizontal top tube that I like. Don't like the slopey look at all. But I am an old git!
Parsnip said:
Fatman2 said:
Not wanting to start an arguement but I don't agree. 9.4 kg is still ok. Not great but ok.
What you will find is that many mainstream alu bikes up to £1000 will be anywhere from 8.5-10kg. For example a 2009 Bianchi Via Nirone with 105 group came in at about 9.3kg and cost about £1000. Of course a £1000 Boardman or Planet X may be less than 8kg but depends on whether you like the ride qualities of carbon or aluminium.
To get something below the UCI limit you'd have to spend a fair bit. I curently have a Bianchi 928 (full carbon) and for about £2.5k you're looking at 8kg so am guessing you'd have to buy something like a Planet X to get less than 7kg for cheap.
Don't get me wrong, weight isn't the be all and end all, but a 9kg+ steel bike is going to ride very differently to a 7kg carbon bike.What you will find is that many mainstream alu bikes up to £1000 will be anywhere from 8.5-10kg. For example a 2009 Bianchi Via Nirone with 105 group came in at about 9.3kg and cost about £1000. Of course a £1000 Boardman or Planet X may be less than 8kg but depends on whether you like the ride qualities of carbon or aluminium.
To get something below the UCI limit you'd have to spend a fair bit. I curently have a Bianchi 928 (full carbon) and for about £2.5k you're looking at 8kg so am guessing you'd have to buy something like a Planet X to get less than 7kg for cheap.
A lot of people probably could afford to lose the weight from the gut rather than their bike, but the point is that speed you can buy is a lot easier to get than speed you have to earn - you only need to do a TT on a road bike to work that one out
With planet X you can get UCI illegal very easily - http://www.planet-x-bikes.co.uk/i/q/CBPXNAREDLTD/n... - swap out the horrible wheels and tyres for pretty much anything else and viola, you have a UCI illegal bike for under £2000, like I said though, the UCI limit is an arbitrary and useless number - plenty of UK races will have guys on UCI illegal bikes, the only reason I brought it up was to give some sort of benchmark figure.
The change from my alu to carbon bike was massive but there were many other factors (other than outright weight) due to stiffness of materials, better quality group set, stiffer wheels etc. Mass is just a very small part of it.
As an engineer you've already worked out Lance's 7 Watts of additional power (relative to about 400W of regular output) and that really is a small drop in the ocean and even smaller for us regular folk. In simple terms a 1.5kg mass saving represents about 2% for the average (75kg) rider, which isn't really a great deal. Ultimately this 2% is really, really insignificant as it's the same as riding with 2 full/empty 750ml water bottles.
I guess the weight thing has been debated for years and I've found it really is down to belief rather than science. Take wheel mass for instance. People wax lyrical about it all the time but if you actually do the math i.e. torque = I x alpha, then the science says a 200g saving = 0.1% extra. However loads of riders will swear blind that they're 10% faster LOL.
Re the UCI thing I think you've echo'd what I already said in that you'd have to buy a Planet X/Boardman to buy something below UCI for cheap (although LOL at us talking about £2k being cheap
). But with respect to the OP he asked whether his bike was still competitive and I believe it's still ok.With exception of the cheaper Chinese sourced carbon frames like Boardman and Planet X, most of the mainstream manufacturers like Trek, Giant, Bianchi, Specialized etc. will not have entry level £500 bikes coming in that much below 9.4kg. These will primarily be alu frames/carbon fork affairs right up to about £1000, which is generally the starting point for an entry level full carbon ride. But these will still be about 8.5kg so still not far off for £1000.
okgo said:
I weighed myself on the scales, then again holding my bike, it was 16lbs different, this is obviously wrong but I
Can't work out why or how...
16Lbs is 7.3Kg. That's not unusual is it?Can't work out why or how...
You do know that most of the weights quoted in this thread (like the OPs 9.4 bike) are Kgs right?
I went from a cheap alloy frame to a high end Wilier carbon and couldnt tell one jot of difference except it looked nicer.When wheels had more than a few spokes 
going from 32 spoke to 28 felt massively different and only came out on race days,rotating mass is where you want to put your money if you are serious
going from 32 spoke to 28 felt massively different and only came out on race days,rotating mass is where you want to put your money if you are seriousGassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff