Why do people want lighter bikes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I commute on a relatively cheap and heavy Triban 500 (relative as other commuters think its light compared to their bikes). I wouldn't want to go for a heavier bike for my commute length I simply wouldn't have time and would take the bus and be less fit. A heavier bike would make me less fit. I'd probably want to ride a lighter bike so I could do my current commute faster/easier/go further/ make more enjoyable and get more fit (I used to commute to my old work on a lighter bike and saw all these things) but I wouldn't want a bike that so light its too expensive to lose to a thief just now as my current workplace is less secure.
 

12boy

Guru
Location
Casper WY USA
My 7 regular rides ( steamroller, 82 holdsworth, mini-velo, Xootr Swift, Brompton, centurion 1 speed winter beater bike, and 92 cannondale mtn bike are all 25 lbs or less and they are all good for different things. I enjoy riding them all. They are close in ave speed over the same route. But the 25 lb thing is only with street type tires. The 'dale with studded snows is probably 30 and the studded Schwalbes on the Centurion add a lot, probably 800 g over street tires. When those pounds are on the wheel is when I can feel them. Otherwise, I have traded lighter weight for low cost and durability and in the case of studded snow tires, safety. I do agree that a heavier bike over the same route will be more effort or time than a liighter one.
 

SkipdiverJohn

Deplorable Brexiteer
Location
London
Let's also at least put some ball park figures on light and heavy. My lightest is 23lb, my other two are both around 32lb. The heavier ones are way more fun for me, and MUCH more comfortable to ride.

Mine range between about 24 lbs (531 drop-bar Dawes) and around 36 lbs (gas pipe Puch 3-speed roadster). The lightest one is the fastest, not by a massive amount, but the handling does encourage more spirited riding given the opportunity, whereas the heavier ones also have longer wheelbases and less sporty geometry, so tend to favour being ridden in a more restrained manner. So, whilst lighter bikes may be a bit faster due to having less weight, some of the difference is usually down to the design of the bike and the kind of riding style it rewards. You don't tend to see huge amounts of effort put into reducing weight on utilitarian bikes, but you do on those with more sporting pretensions.
There's also the question of tyre fitment, my lightest bike runs 28mm Marathons, everything else runs various 1 3/8"/ 35mm/1 3/4" Delta Cruiser+ or 2" MTB knobblys. The rate of speed loss when coasting is noticeably different between my most draggy and least draggy tyres, which means a significant difference in rolling resistance which is not related to bike weight. It's over-simplistic to merely state that light bikes are fast and heavy bikes are slow; a gas pipe bike with sporty geometry and slicks would likely still be faster over relatively short distances than a very expensive lightweight machine designed for distance touring and fitted with M+ tyres.
 

Nebulous

Guru
Location
Aberdeen
I've a full carbon race bike at around 9kg, my audax bike at around 11 and commute on a Edinburgh Bike cyclocross which is over 15 with the racks and lights. In addition I can have 20kg in my pannier bags. I've a very short commute, but I've never liked the bike. It's a workhorse, does what I ask, I can coax it up to a reasonable speed over 25 miles or so if I'm working away and take it with me, but I've never really rated it. In contrast my previous work bike was an Edinburgh bike branded tourer, which I did like.

The carbon bike is fast, twitchy and definitely climbs better than any of the others. The audax bike is more comfortable, has wider tyres, eats miles and has hydraulic discs and thru-axles. Both of these features have been a revelation. It would be the one I would keep if I could only have one. So for me it isn't only about weight, but a combination of comfort, features, gears, ride quality plus the fact I got an amazing deal in buying it.
 
It's a strange thing but I prefer my heavy Xtracycle to my relatively light commuter.

Neither is super light because they're both steel framed but the Xtracycle is certainly a lump, but I find her a easier ride. Xtracycle marketed them as an "SUB" or Sports Utility Bike for a while, suggesting they were sporty and yet could be used for hauling stuff about, and I can see the logic: certainly I take corners faster on the longer Xtracycle.

The Bakfiets tips the scales at 35 kilogrammes. it's like driving a truck, or possibly a barge.
 

FishFright

More wheels than sense
Mixture. The hills are hard! but that's the point... you don't get fitter unless you get in the red zone. I'm willing to bet I am fitter and stronger than someone doing the same commute on a light bike.

Nope wrong again. Have you come to cycling from a weight lifting background ?
 

Cycleops

Legendary Member
Location
Accra, Ghana
Nope wrong again. Have you come to cycling from a weight lifting background ?
Maybe he has.

man-holding-a-racing-bike-above-his-head-into-the-air-kraftalm-alp-CXRFXG.jpg
 

EltonFrog

Legendary Member
Quite possibly the most pointless thread on cycling ever to be posted on the internet. Ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom