Originally Posted by Dave Mayer

Bike weights no longer listed? They used to be for the described component configuration and frame size (usually a 52 or 53cm). It was a major selling point. Weights should be listed, as apart from fit, as it is the single most important determinant of bike performance. Heavy is cheap and slow, light is expensive and fast.


The reason why weights are no longer listed is obvious: disc brakes, and all of the associated extra ballast. Also, to a lesser extent, aero stuff including wheels. What used to be an elite-level bike circa 2015 with rim brakes (<15 lbs) is now unobtainable with discs at any price. A run of the mill $2,000 road bike in 2015 would come in at 17-18 pounds. Now, you'd have to pay 3 x that to get down to those weights with discs.


For similar reasons, the big vendors no longer offer organized "test ride days", where you could drop your credit card off at the tent and ride a few new bikes. For those of us with enough experience, and with a fleet of pre-pandemic bikes, the results of such a test on 2024 bikes would be both ride disappointment and major sticker shock.


The language on the vendor websites citing their 'inability' to list weights is due to legal butt covering and simple embarrassment as to how porky their current bikes are.

Originally Posted by CAT7RDR

Unless you are racing, what is the issue over weight?
I'm a bigger guy, I would want a heavier duty frame and wheelset that would weigh more.

Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets

I'm glad to see more manufacturers listing weights again.

Originally Posted by staehpj1

That is only any good if they all use exactly the same methods (what is/isn't included, what sized frame do they weigh, and so on) and are honest. Otherwise it just rewards the most biggest liar/most misleading brand.

Originally Posted by indyfabz

I think you misunderstood my point. I was pointing out the disclaimer in response to another post. They do what I expect, since the specs could change, for example, mid-year if things like tires change. Updating the website might cause inaccuracy because different speced models with different weights could be on retail floors.

Originally Posted by staehpj1

That is only any good if they all use exactly the same methods (what is/isn't included, what sized frame do they weigh, and so on) and are honest. Otherwise it just rewards the most biggest liar/most misleading brand.

Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets

One would hope the prospect of getting caught with way-off weights by a couple of bike review sites would limit posting way-off weights.

Even if a company lists way-off weights at least you still get an idea of how that company's models compare against each other

Originally Posted by Maelochs

But ... we were sold "Lighter is Better" and a lot of us bought it ... and now we compromise an the quality of our riding experiences to have bikes which look good on paper ..... Well, a Little less so now, but there was definitely a stretch of several years when people went crazy to shave grams without ever asking how much it mattered in the physical world ... they were happy to have the mental edge of having drilled holes in every component ....

Originally Posted by ScottCommutes

One of the reasons they don't post bike weights is that nobody rides a bone stock bike - you can't unless it at least comes with pedals.

Originally Posted by tcs

Constructively argue that weight isn't all that important all you want: cyclists have been voting - with their pocketbooks - for lighter weight for 145 years.

Originally Posted by terrymorse

The statement above includes the implied assertion that a light bike somehow reduces "the quality of our riding experiences". I reject that implication. I ride a sub-UCI limit bike, and I find no "ride quality" compromises were made for the sake of weight savings. I doubt Mark Cavendish found my bike model lacking, either, as he rode it to ten TdF stage wins.


Cavendish bike 2009-2010

Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee

That explanation makes no sense. Don't you want to know how much the stock bike weighs before you start changing things? Also- basically all bike parts have known, published weights. It makes no sense for bike makers to be coy about the weights.

Originally Posted by icemilkcoffee

That explanation makes no sense. Don't you want to know how much the stock bike weighs before you start changing things? Also- basically all bike parts have known, published weights. It makes no sense for bike makers to be coy about the weights.

Originally Posted by ScottCommutes

That encourages manufacturers to play games with the weights - just like car manufacturers and others do. Look for creative marketing to generate the weights. One manufacturer will weigh without pedals. The next will weigh without a saddle. The next will create an XXS. The next will offer unpainted. Another will offer "sample" tires made out of tissue paper. Forget the valve caps, the grease, the extra cable lengths. I could even imagine a large bike weighed with the seat post and cables from a small bike.

Originally Posted by terrymorse

The statement above includes the implied assertion that a light bike somehow reduces "the quality of our riding experiences". I reject that implication. I ride a sub-UCI limit bike, and I find no "ride quality" compromises were made for the sake of weight savings. I doubt Mark Cavendish found my bike model lacking, either, as he rode it to ten TdF stage wins.

Originally Posted by big john

Weight is important. The question is how much weight are we talking about?

Originally Posted by tcs

Aluminum:


Set of five saves 12g over steel, 4g over titanium.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

They all weigh without pedals (at least high end bikes) because they sell without pedals. I’ve never heard of any weighing without a saddle or quoting the weight for an XXS size, or any of your other imaginary scenarios. How about quoting an example of any of these things?

Originally Posted by PeteHski

They all weigh without pedals (at least high end bikes) because they sell without pedals. I’ve never heard of any weighing without a saddle or quoting the weight for an XXS size, or any of your other imaginary scenarios. How about quoting an example of any of these things?

Originally Posted by ScottCommutes

A 20v tool isn't 20 volts. A 34" waist isn't 34 inches. A size 10 dress is vanity sized from what it used to be. A 2x4 doesn't even measure 2, or 4. Ten million in the lottery isn't ten million. I could go on and on if you wanted to talk about bike light lumen output or other examples.

I don't even bother to think about published bike weights.

Originally Posted by base2

I'm not going to say it is impossible but I sure as heck tried with my Rodriguez. I used everything from Extralite, Ax-Lightness, Dario, THM, etc...I even built up a sub kilo wheel set. I came in at 16 pounds and like an ounce or so with Time carbon "Racer" pedals, bottle cages, and Garmin mount.

I ride a 7L and did not specify the "ultralight" option. Which in reality is different, lighter rear dropouts to accommodate flat-mount brakes and extra large holes inside the frame at the tubing joins. The total saving at $600 extra expense is about 2 ounces. (I have also learned that Dura-Ace shifters are heavy.)

I'm also 85 kilos and generally stronger than average. I have no doubt that there is an extra bit of material in the chain stays that a smaller, less powerful rider on a size 5S wouldn't need.

It does ride like a rocketship. But even at the bleeding edge, someone as big as me would need something in rim brakes to cross that 15lb threshold in steel. I have ridden their 13 pound display bike. It is possible, but I have my doubts about doing so in disc in "as ridden" form.