hsea17

The stack on the Giant TCR comes out as 18mm lower and the reach 10mm longer.
hsea17

big john

Compared to a Domane? That is significant. I think Trek has some of the highest stack and headtube dimensions in endurance bike geometry. A TCR is certainly more race oriented than a Domane. A BMC Roadmachine has similar numbers as the Domane, iirc.

terrymorse 

I was just checking some of the published bike weights from Scott, once the leader in lightweight bikes.

Their top end tri bike: 9.62 kg
Their top end aero bike: 7.22 kg
Their top end lightweight bike: 6.7 kg

My 12 year old Scott (with some component swaps): 6.3 kg

JohnJ80

yeah, I know all of that. But it also says the OPs bike is in the range of a reasonable bike weight. Unless of course, he’s a world class triathlete or World Tour rider….

big john

He knows and several of us have said our bikes are close to the weight of his old bike or even heavier. The point is, for whatever reason, he wants a lighter bike. If that's what he wants, I'm fine with it.

hsea17

No, it's for my current bike. Trek Domane SL 6 has + 30mm stack and - 14mm reach vs Giant Tcr Adv.
Compare: 2022 Giant Bicycles TCR Advanced TCR Advanced 2 Pro Compact M vs 2021 Trek Bikes Domane SL 6 54 - Bike Insights

JohnJ80

Thank you for moderating the thread.. I'm sure he's thrilled that you're fine with it. Phew.

big john

Yes, it's what I said. The question is will it work for you?

big john

But are you fine with it?

JohnJ80

only because you are. you can't believe how much I value that affirmation.

big john

Funny guy.

JohnJ80

thank you. my wife tells me it's one of my most endearing qualities.

Breadfan

I just got back into biking (I'm 57) and I rebuilt a mid 90's Cannondale R300, 22lbs. Not the lightest, but very light to me. Night and day difference for what I used to ride. I'm in the market for a gravel bike now and I like steel, but I can't imagine anything heavier than what I have now! The Cannondale may be old but it is so smooth, agile, quick, and the gears are smooth too.

terrymorse 

A word of advice: don't limit yourself to bikes only made of steel. There are lots of amazing bikes available now, with frames made of steel, aluminum, or carbon composite.

irwin7638

If speed is the most important factor, then a lighter bike is important. If versatility and comfort are important weight is a secondary issue. I have 6 bikes, their weights range from 20-35 lbs, the ones I ride most often weight 25 and 30 lbs.

Marc

hsea17

Update. I decided to stick to what I believe in and have experience with when it comes to frame size and geometry so for now it won't be a new bike, but had decided to change the crank arms from 172.5 mm to 170 mm and in that regard got a good offer about changing the entire groupset from the bike dealer, so now I have a bike that weighs 8.90 kg with pedals attached. As for the 170mm crank arms, I feel the pedal revolutions are somewhat easier/lighter and my arthritic knee at least welcomed shorter crank arms, but a little early to say for sure as I need a few more bike rides first.
hsea17

AJW2W11E

Good advice.

indyfabz

Back in the late ‘80s I bought a used 660 built with 531. What a machine that was.

big john

My Trek 660 was made from True Temper and had full Shimano 600. I never weighed it but I'm sure it was over 20 pounds. It cracked around the bottom bracket.

indyfabz

Mine had a Campy Nuovo drivetrain and black Modolo brakes with aero levers. I had arrived as a real cyclist. I rode the crap out of that thing until it developed a crack in the head tube. Banished it to the trainer and used it to rehab from what is now my first valve replacement. Finally snapped the drive side chainstay.

big john

Mine only had about 15K miles on it when it cracked. Trek was good about it but they didn't have a steel road bike anymore and they offered me a 1400 or something and I didn't want it so they gave me store credit. The shop had a lightly used Landshark frame for sale and I got it out the door for $150, including transferring all the parts.

Hermes

Late to this party. I took my Cervelo R5 into a Specialized shop. Specialized sells premium bicycles that may be very light weight. When I picked up my Cervelo the salesperson lifted it and said, "OMG this bike is so light". It is about 15.5 pounds with 45 mm carbon clincher wheels. Also it has the SRAM red eTap electronic shifting and carbon handlebars and stem. Offsetting some that lighter stuff is an SRM power meter albeit with carbon cranks. The best part is that it is a fun bike to ride.

arex

First, some context. I'm 58, overweight, various physical difficulties. Very much an amateur, "not serious" bicyclist. I track my rides in Strava when I remember to turn it on, just to see how I'm doing. I try to do better, but I don't get competitive with myself or others.

I have a number of bikes that I've built, but none of them are what I'd consider to be truly light. All but one are at least 30 years old. All of them are steel of various types and qualities. When I built them, I tried to use the best components I could afford.

I can definitely feel a difference between the lighter bikes and the heavier ones. However, I don't think that the heavier bikes are any less pleasant to ride. I've only ever ridden my tandem solo, since my wife is afraid to ride...and in spite of its weight (a nice bike, but still pretty heavy), it's still very nice to ride, I just need to stay aware of its length. My commuter is a 32-year-old plain-gauge store-brand MTB that I put drop bars on, but it's a hoot to ride...I never feel like I need to baby it, it's dependable and nimble af.

I'm not saying that weight isn't important, but I guess it's not very important to me. I don't have stairs I need to hump them up and down, just a few steps on the front porch. I don't think I'd ever use a carbon frame or components...I value dependability, and I'm not inclined to risk catastrophic failure.

staehpj1

That might be worth addressing. It is hard for me to imagine what might be worth carrying for day rides to fix the bike that would add up to 3-4 pounds. I have generally carried about a pound of tools and spares on multi month tours and managed okay. Configured for daily riding near home I haven't weighed the little seat wedge, but it has less in it so it would certainly be lighter. Some of my kits are lighter. Each is tailored to a particular bike and stays on the bike. When I consider a pcking list I just count the little tool kit as part of the bike since it is always on the bike.

Granted weight will vary with the number and size of spare tubes if not using tubeless. So with a fat tire setup and multiple spare tubes for goat head thorn country I might carry as much as 2 pounds multi day ride, but, I would more likely be going tubeless for that and still only carrying one tube in case of a tubeless failure.

My first coast to coast tour I carried as much in tools and spares as you are carrying and possibly a bit more. I felt like it was worth it since I was looking out for my group. I carried lots of other questionable weight and regretted my packing choices every day. On hindsight I decided to never carry anything like that again. I have trimmed and trimmed the overall load (not just the tools and spares) every trip since then. The trips became more and more enjoyable as the weight went down.

rsbob 

Weight is an important factor but then you can make a significant gain in speed using low rolling resistance tires set at a pressure dictated by a good pressure calculator - like on the Silca site. If you ride with tubes, go with latex to remove unsprung weight as well. Another thing that really benefitted me for climbs was getting lower gears. They are fantastic compared to mashing my old ones and being exhausted at the end of long steep climbs. You don’t have to spend big money to get a good gain in speed, or distance or both with just those items.