[Closed] Bike weights, comparing online

Just buy what you want and then lie about the weight on here. Everyone else does 😉

Partly because bike weight is somewhat meaningless and mostly because too many people would only buy the lightest bike they could find. The manufacturers want to sell you the "best" bike. Weight is rarely the defining factor.

Some bikes are heavy and ride amazingly. Some light bikes are dog awful. A few grams or even kills will make no difference to a frame that doesn't have the right geometry for what you want to do with it. Plus the componets will all alter the bike weight.

Because when you get your 22lb bike delivered, weigh it and find out it's 22lbs 2oz, you'll send it back saying not as described, threatening to go to the world court of human trading standards rights.

Not putting the weight on eliminates this risk.

check the technical data here - we try to weight bikes but not all get weighed.

http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/products/focus-cayo-evo-3-0-cp-14

hmmmm I hear a lot of reasons, but to me thats like a tv manufacturer not wanting to list the screen size, 'theres so many factors involved in your viewing pleasure sir'. It still seems crazy not to at least list frame weight...

anyway, grumble over.... 😉

Meh,

In the BMX industry every product is listed with weight.

People are aware weight isn't the defining factor of a frame, but it is still a factor.

Yeah for a few years people only bought the lightest products, and manufacturers made silly light products that broke easily. But after people got over that and started buying better built stuff it all levelled out in the end and now we have all the advances the weight-loss race brought with a greater choice of weight ranges for frames/components so you can match your build to your personal style and abilities.

I actually thought it was really strange that MTB weights aren't listed. I always thought it would be a bigger statistic than in BMX.

It is full of challenges. Accuracy is the main one - there is probably a lot of tollerance on components and will lead to quite a range of weights across the same model.

People cheat. Some weigh with pedals, some without. Also every bike would start coming with superlight tubes and rocket rons to cut down on weight without any thought to intended usage.

If you are looking at bikes a few hundred grams apart then I doubt it would mean anything. If you are comparing a few kg then you could say that one will be lighter than the other when you first get it.

Personally I would like to see the weights on most things as it factors into my buying decisions. It isn't the be all and end all but if I am looking for a seatpost then there are loads out there and they all do the same basic job and weight can be a differentiator.

FWIW I once sent a set of XC tyres back because they were too heavy. Within 7 days so my right to do it without reason but 800g for a non tubeless folding xc tyre was daft.

Also every bike would start coming with superlight tubes and rocket rons to cut down on weight without any thought to intended usage.

Virtually every high end bike does come with lightweight tubes!

Personally I would like to see the weights on most things as it factors into my buying decisions. It isn't the be all and end all but if I am looking for a seatpost then there are loads out there and they all do the same basic job and weight can be a differentiator.

And it is very rare you can't find the weights of individual parts such as seatposts, just not complete bikes. I agree it would be interesting to see, but totally understand why manufacturers don't.

Competitive Cyclist list weights for everything they sell, or certainly did.

People cheat. Some weigh with pedals, some without.

That's pretty commonplace as most bikes don't come with pedals, the really sneeky weigh them without tyres!

The one that really grates me is road bike frames, the quoted weights are often without paint! Which would be fine if they offered the frames in a polished/anodized finish, but they don't!

It's sensible though, the kind of person who's bothered by published weights is probably the kind of person who shouldn't be (newbie buying off spec). And the kind of person who needs a light bike (XC racer) probably buys the one they want then goes about making it lighter so the published weight is irelavent as they'll never ride it in that spec.

Found the santa cruz bike builder comes up well and the 2 built bikes from them have been close enough to be right (no pedals) and came with decent Maxxis rubber and tubeless. All weights are listed for medium I think. If a manufacturer doesn't list weights I'm suspicious they don't want to tell you. There is no reason for not quoting frame weight for comparison.

The one that really grates me is road bike frames, the quoted weights are often without paint! Which would be fine if they offered the frames in a polished/anodized finish, but they don't!

Certain manufacturers do offer a 'vapour coat' type paint though, which weighs very little. But yes, frame weights without mech hangers, seat clamps etc is slightly daft.

It's sensible though, the kind of person who's bothered by published weights is probably the kind of person who shouldn't be (newbie buying off spec). And the kind of person who needs a light bike (XC racer) probably buys the one they want then goes about making it lighter so the published weight is irelavent as they'll never ride it in that spec.

Agree with that, and what would be more interesting than a bike weight would be a breakdown of it - if you're looking at two comparable bikes does one have a very heavy frame and light forks etc. The frame on my Superfly is a comparatively heavy 1311g, but no one could tell me that until I bought it, the whole bike (as I've built it) is 19.2lbs, plenty of heavier bikes out there with lighter frames.

But that really would be open for massive errors with individual variances.

There is no reason for not quoting frame weight for comparison.

Bu if you know the cometitor is lying through their teeth, then you'd only be at a dissadvantage in being honest, unless you lie as well, then it's back to being pointless.

Competitive Cyclist list weights for everything they sell, or certainly did.

It would be great if CRC started doing that. I know there are more important things than weight but I still want to know.

thisisnotaspoon - Member

Bu if you know the cometitor is lying through their teeth, then you'd only be at a dissadvantage in being honest, unless you lie as well, then it's back to being pointless.

That's exactly how it works in the motorbike industry. I forget the details but one of the big manufacturers- Kawasaki I think- were benchmarking a new 600 against the competitors, and discovered it was heaviest in class by miles. So they weighed the competitors and discovered they were all lying... But weirdly all the lies were pretty much proportional so the order of weights was correct. So kwak had to work out the correct lie for theirs.

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=fullsuspensionframes&sortby=year
It's a shame this lot seem to have tailed off updating.

There are a few other sites who do reviews of groupsets etc with the scales so the lies do get out.

Because when you get your 22lb bike delivered, weigh it and find out it's 22lbs 2oz, you'll send it back saying not as described, threatening to go to the world court of human trading standards rights.

Not putting the weight on eliminates this risk.

Just pop an approx. in there.

Just pop an approx. in there.

Yeah, and you can even put a disclaimer.

either way, not stating weights in the MTB market stuck me as more bizzare than the fuss and hassle of adding weights warranted.... if that makes sense.

I guess theres the factor that if no one does it then no one needs to start. I would imagine that once one big manufacturer started giving out weights others would fall in line to prevent their product "looking heavier" online due to lack of a quoted weight.

Interestingly Canyon provide weights on their complete bikes already.

It's pretty understandable but it annoys me when a company call their product lightweight but don't provide a weight. I just assume it's actually not that lightweight at all.

Be nice if manufacturers took a leaf out of Rolls Royce's book when quoting BHP figures...

'Adequate'

Yeah - and wasn't the Bently something or other Turboo "adequate - plus a third".......

Be nice if manufacturers took a leaf out of Rolls Royce's book when quoting BHP figures...

'Adequate'

IIRC one of the big brands did this for a long while, allong the lines of "our bikes are as light as they need to be, we could either build more fragile bikes, or lie like everyone else, we don't want to do either so please just go into a shop and pick up the bike you like for youself to see how light it its, it'll be close enough to the competition".

Makes sense, you know how much a typical £1500 XC hardtail weighs, or a £2500 trail FS bike, whether it's a Giant, Spesh, Cannondale or Trek, they'll all be within half a lb of the average, if they're not then would you worry about the bheaviest one being heaviest, or the lighest one being spec'd with the wrong stuff? After all a set of a lot of XC components cost the same as their enduro or DH counterparts, if you picked the lightest bike then you'd probably get the one with the wrong spec (or buy an XC bike when you wanted a V10).

Bike weight doesn't make the difference you think it does, especialy small variations. The difference between a 24lb £5k trail bike and a 30lb £1500 trail bike may be significanlty down to the weight, especialy from the same brand, but a £1500 trek and £1500 spesh weighing within half a lb of each other will have much bigger variations in how they ride than the weight difference.

I've had a frame weigh 20% over mfrs listed weights.

Disappointing, Salsa.

And that's the crux of the problem. even if the actual number wasn't a disappointment, it's not what you were expecting.