Kahsyrbag

My cruiser from sometime between 57-63 weighs 125lbs / 56.7kg and I have rides in my Strava of 17 miles / 27.4 kilometers with an average of 18.4mph / 29.6km/h, it is what you are use to that matters, not the weight.

USAZorro

... and Surly, and most purpose made touring bikes. As long as there are hills, lighter is better... but I agree with the sentiment here. I avoid 30 pound bikes as a rule, and try to come in under 25. I have Brooks saddles (or similar) on nearly all my bikes, so I'm not obsessed. Also, as I seldom ride faster than 22mph, I don't care about aero. It's all about a lively ride that isn't uncomfortable.

wingkeel

There is weight and there is weight. Hang a 1-pound weight from a string and you have one pound of weight. Start sling that same 1-pound weight through a arc and suddenly, you have a force to be reckoned with! Rolling/spinning weight is much more important that bike weight! The biggest bang for the buck in performance (other than experience and conditioning) is in upgrading anything that spins like tires/wheels. Next is aerodynamics. Knobbies will give you about the same performance handicap as adding 20-pounds of gear due to the added friction of spinning those sharp-edged knobs through air. At 10MPH, it is not a big deal! If you look at the performance curve of speed vs. air-friction, the curve goes exponential around 14MPH and begins to get steep between 16-18MPH. To go from 18-20MPH, you will need to almost double the amount of power it took to go from 16-18MPH due to the added friction of the air passing around you. What should yo learn from this? While weight is is important, form is eve more important! Learn to become one with your bike. Learn to minimize your wind-shadow by ridding efficiently! If you upgrade components, upgrade this components that will give you the biggest bang for your buck, wheels, tires and tubes. Use a power meter and then experiment to find the best form for your body. Watch the pros and figure out why they do the things they do.

smontanaro 

I know I'm not a very experienced wheel builder but I hope my wheels are better balanced than a one-pound weight swinging at the end of a string.

goldcoastjon

I agree. There is a certain "sauce" in a well-designed steel-framed bike that I missed when riding a top-notch alumiunum bike. (FYI, It was a TREK 2000, good enough in 1984 to win gold and silver in the first Women's Olympic Road Race.) Now that I am back rto riding steel, I am much happier. And what else matters more?

I love the rides of my Eisentraut Rainbow and my Windsor Profesional, and both fit me well. As I lose weight and gain strength, the disadvantage of my bike's "extra" weight compared to a later-model CF "brifter" bike might become mopre apparent but no CF bike will "ring" and resonate the way a steel-tubed frame will.
(In fact, I cannot stand the hollow-sounding "thwock" made by CF bikes when shifting or hitting bumps...)

I have to stay true to my roots and ride lugged steel...

canklecat

I crunched my Strava numbers into online bike computers that factor in wind and other stuff that Strava omits. Nerdy, yeah, but I've been stuck at home sick lately and had nothing better to do.

It revealed a few facts that contradict my preferred reality:

• Weight matters less than wind resistance. Bike weight, rider weight, don't really matter much.
• I'm putting out more power on climbs than I'd realized. I'd guesstimated my climbing at only 100 watts because I'm so slow. But the numbers say I'm averaging closer to 200 watts. That surprised me. I'd still want to see that verified by a bike mounted power meter, but I can't afford such doodads.
• I'm putting out less power on flats and downhills than I'd realized. Strava guesstimates over 300 watts, but when I factor in tailwinds it's usually below 200 watts.
• I loaf, a lot, between favorite Strava segments. My stamina still sucks since the thyroid problems last year and I can't sustain 200 watts for more than 30 minutes on my best day, or 150 watts for an entire ride.
• I have to ride large enough loops over a big swath of terrain to negate the effects of hills and wind in order for Strava power estimates to make any sense, because Strava doesn't factor in wind, only grades.

Short version: I could gain back the 50 lbs I've lost since 2004 (when I weighed 205 lbs), and ride my 40 lb comfort hybrid errand bike, on flat terrain with zero wind at 15 mph, and the power output would be the same as riding my Ironman at my current weight (155) into a 5 mph headwind. That's assuming the online calculators are reasonably correct regarding drag coefficients, rolling resistance, etc., but they seem to be pretty accurate.

I'm still weaker than I was this time last year -- it's taking longer than I'd expected to recover (injury and illness). Last year I was averaging 160 watts overall per ride. Nothing special, but not too bad for a 61 y/o. Which is why it's called "average." This year I'm struggling to maintain 130 watts most days. My one ride this year where I did approach last year's speed was the two weeks I tried the Scott aero bar @texaspandj sent me. I wasn't comfortable with them, but they did help a bit whenever I used them. So I'll be trying them again soon.

My overall speed seems to be pretty much the same, but I've made some drivetrain changes for efficiency (lower friction sealed bearing pulleys), more aero clothing, lower bar position, back to 700x23 tires instead of the 700x25 I used most of last year, etc.

The biggest difference this year has been the wind. We've have more windy days with rideable steady wind, not just erratic gusts. I've taken advantage of those conditions several times. Sure, my Strava data looks more impressive, including a couple of top tens. But they're heavily tailwind assisted and in most cases my power output was probably under 200 watts for the longer segments (2-6 miles) and under 300 watts for the short 60 second or 2 minute efforts. It just looks more impressive until I deduct the tailwind effect.

I improved on a favorite 11 mile loop, including by 3 seconds on a relatively straight 6 mile TT segment. Bumped me up from 7th to 6th overall on Strava. Same conditions as my best time last spring -- hefty tailwind. But last year I was overdressed, including a somewhat baggy jacket, oversized winter gloves, knee warmers, etc. This year I omitted the gloves and knee warmers, wore a base layer under my snuggest fitting summer jersey and arm warmers, and my helmet may be a bit more aero than the one I wore last year.

I'm definitely not stronger than I was last year. Last year I could stand to stomp the pedals up every short, steep climb on this undulating 6 mile roller coaster route to avoid losing momentum. I didn't have enough energy for that this year. Last year I was faster on the first half. This year I conserved energy on the first half, focusing on spinning and saving my energy for the tougher final 1 mile section. Last year I was pretty winded by the time I hit the final mile section of four short, steep rollers. This year I'd left enough in the tank to sprint up each climb while seated and improved my time on those splits.

Mostly I spent more time in the drops this year, and keeping my forearms parallel with the ground when I was on the hoods. I video'd both rides and could review my technique. Last year I was mostly on the hoods, rarely in the drops, and overall wasn't as careful about staying aerodynamic.

The bike weighs the same. I weigh 10 lbs less than this time last year. But I'm not stronger. This year I focused on staying aero.

Lots of little things may have helped a bit -- lighter, narrower tires, drivetrain tweaks, etc. But not enough to be a major factor.

So, yup, turns out wind is a more important factor than weight.

jimmuller 

Not a surprise when you consider the physics. It is good to see that empirical data supports the "obvious".

But after reading the title of this thread yet once again I finally understand what it is really asking. Is there a difference between vintage weight and new weight? I wouldn't know for certain. Every two months I replace the weight in my bikes with fresh weight while I'm replacing the air in the tires and lubing the chains. Once I skipped replacing the weight because I didn't have time, but I don't think I could feel any difference. Maybe if I Strava'ed it I could tell.

steelbikeguy

now there's an insightful question!!

the short answer is: yes.

the long answer is: yes, but not much. It turns out that the standard kilogram in Paris was slightly changing from the other kilograms that were created to be equal to the standard one. This was a concern, so scientists are developing a definition for the kilogram that doesn't depend on a physical object.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...-mass-matters/

Steve in Peoria
(still haven't decided how much a couple of pounds matters to me. It's not much, though)

jlaw

And don't forget - the next time you're replacing the old bike weight with new bike weight don't forget to drain the winter air from your tires and top-up with summer air - makes a significant difference - especially when climbing hills.

Winter air also leaks through your tubeless sidewalls easier than summer - less dense.

If you read it on the internet it must be true.