Does weight weenism annoy people?

[TiBikeNut]

My pernennial gripe with people who don't "get" lightweight bikes is how many of them simply don't seem to understand that while you can't notice a 50g weight saving, you can notice a 1.5kg or 2kg difference, but to achieve that you need to save 50g many times over. It just doesn't make sense to them why you would spend money to save 50g, because there is no immediate advantage in that alone.

They are looking for larger or obvious changes in weight savings.

They don’t understand the impact that just 50 grams weight savings can have on pedals that have to pushed even 60 times a minute for even an hour. They’ve also probably never experienced the enormous difference these tiny grams make when accelerating.

There loss!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[warthog101]

I wouldn't say it annoys me but I place little stock in it.
Unless you spend the bulk of your time on steep climbs I see aerodynamics as far more important.

[sevencyclist]

I think weight weenies is about weight saving, . (period) For me it is the joy of picking up a well functioning and solid bike that rides lovely and yet weighs very little. There are many things that can help with speed, but since I don't race and ride for joy, I don't care about speed as much as about the feeling of lightness.

[willdsouth]

Is there much out there on what sort of ballpark weight actually begins to have a material effect on performance?

[poulhansen]

I haven't really met people who were annoyed by my lightweight bike. Some admires it, others look away and talk about something else.

I come here to read about weightsaving and crazy projects. But after being away and coming back, I was a bit disappointed, by all the none WW stuff and the outdated lists

But I don't just want a WW bike, I want it all. I have built a 1910 TdF replica that weighs 14-15kg, An alu bike at 8.9kg, a steelbike at 10.2kg, a TT bike at 10 kg, a fatbike at 14kg?, a foldingbike I never weighed.

AND I'm contemplating a bike with electronic gears(but not TOO heavy)

I only do gentlemans races but still read about aero gains and rolling resistance , hehe

[Protsi]

I haven't really met people who were annoyed by my lightweight bike. Some admires it, others look away and talk about something else.

I come here to read about weightsaving and crazy projects. But after being away and coming back, I was a bit disappointed, by all the none WW stuff and the outdated lists

But I don't just want a WW bike, I want it all. I have built a 1910 TdF replica that weighs 14-15kg, An alu bike at 8.9kg, a steelbike at 10.2kg, a TT bike at 10 kg, a fatbike at 14kg?, a foldingbike I never weighed.

AND I'm contemplating a bike with electronic gears(but not TOO heavy)

I only do gentlemans races but still read about aero gains and rolling resistance , hehe

I’m not a WW by any means, but my hard tail comes a 8.kg and I’m very very please but for some people is not light enough, funny thing is I love the way look with his paint and everything is functional nothing compromised and is complete with bottle cage and pedal and when people see it they ask it is light and the answer is , I let them raise the rig and the only thing you hear is waooooo , why is aluminum and I see so many carbon way heavier, that means is light !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[manystyles]

Yes. If that’s the only goal/requirement above all else, safety, reliability, comfort, etc.

I’m sure this POV has already been mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[usr]

Aiming for low weight goes far back and in a way, riding a fully WWed carbon bike feels more true to that past than riding some retro lugged steel beauty because weight isn't that important.

[ghostinthemachine]

Is there much out there on what sort of ballpark weight actually begins to have a material effect on performance?

Depends if you mean performance on a calculator, performance against yourself or performance in a mass start race.

The only one where weight is absolutely critical and the overriding factor is the first case. you plug weight into your calculation and lower is better...

Racing against yourself (timed runs up a hill for instance) the other variables such as tiredness, your weight, wind speed and direction, humidity, temperature, traffic, tire pressure, shifting choices will all have some masking effects, many of which are massive compared to the effects of weight.

Same with racing, beacause firstly you have all the factors above to consider and then you add something as simple as following the wrong wheel (or not following a wheel!) or attacking at the wrong time/wrong place, being boxed in etc etc.

Not to say that the difference in weight doesn't matter, but there are many many other factors to performance, and winning. And FWIW, many many winners don't even know how heavy their bikes are, other than "over 6.8 kilos".

Hell, there are even other factors to making a fast bike. Ergonomics, power transfer, friction, aero, rolling resistance. TBH, that's the only thing about weigh weenism that does annoy me, people making bikes slower by reducing weight, saving a minimal amount of time on a theoretical climb somewhere by saving 100 grams (or 1000 grams) but the bike's slower everywhere else because the aero is terrible, the ergo is terrible, the superlight pedals use bushings instead of bearings to save 20 grams, the 99 gram tubulars tires have the rolling resistance of a CX tyre and so on...

[Singular]

Is there much out there on what sort of ballpark weight actually begins to have a material effect on performance?

Depends if you mean performance on a calculator, performance against yourself or performance in a mass start race.

The only one where weight is absolutely critical and the overriding factor is the first case. you plug weight into your calculation and lower is better...

Racing against yourself (timed runs up a hill for instance) the other variables such as tiredness, your weight, wind speed and direction, humidity, temperature, traffic, tire pressure, shifting choices will all have some masking effects, many of which are massive compared to the effects of weight.

Same with racing, beacause firstly you have all the factors above to consider and then you add something as simple as following the wrong wheel (or not following a wheel!) or attacking at the wrong time/wrong place, being boxed in etc etc.

Not to say that the difference in weight doesn't matter, but there are many many other factors to performance, and winning. And FWIW, many many winners don't even know how heavy their bikes are, other than "over 6.8 kilos".

Hell, there are even other factors to making a fast bike. Ergonomics, power transfer, friction, aero, rolling resistance. TBH, that's the only thing about weigh weenism that does annoy me, people making bikes slower by reducing weight, saving a minimal amount of time on a theoretical climb somewhere by saving 100 grams (or 1000 grams) but the bike's slower everywhere else because the aero is terrible, the ergo is terrible, the superlight pedals use bushings instead of bearings to save 20 grams, the 99 gram tubulars tires have the rolling resistance of a CX tyre and so on...

For those who are deep into WWism, it is no longer about outright performance - it is simply a game within the game, for the love of technology, modifying and tinkering (and it is all easily comparable and measurable, which can be very rewarding). Sure, for some veeery niche things (like the UK hillclimb scene), there might be a small advantage (but it is also a cultural and traditional thing), but for most the time and money spent on weenieism should not be considered a hobby or pleasure, as the outright time and money involved would yield a ton more if invested in training... (or in modern CdA- and Crr-weenieism)

Think of it as what those into cars and motos do as tuning and/or styling. Not many of those see a racetrack, but a ton of people still enjoy it.

[ghostinthemachine]

Think of it as what those into cars and motos do as tuning and/or styling. Not many of those see a racetrack, but a ton of people still enjoy it.

They might enjoy it, but a load of them should be crushed and never seen again!

[sin77]

Relax guys. Their interest is in having the lightest bike they can build so that they can show off lifting a bike with 1 finger. Nothing wrong actually, as long as they are happy. For many of us riding the road as a sport, our satisfaction is the balance between lightweight and real performance. To each his own.

[poulhansen]

Relax guys. Their interest is in having the lightest bike they can build so that they can show off lifting a bike with 1 finger. Nothing wrong actually, as long as they are happy. For many of us riding the road as a sport, our satisfaction is the balance between lightweight and real performance. To each his own.

You really don't have to choose either or other, just have them all
I have a folding bike in the car, a 8 kg alu roadbike, a 9.5 kg Pattani Bianchi, an 80s diver/dropdown TT bike, a 2014 full carbon TT bike, a 9.8 Colnago steelbike, a 1910 replica at 12 kg, a fatbike at 11 kg and a six13 bike at 5.5 kg

[wheelsONfire]

I would say the common joe are aware of WW:ism and kind of mostly ask, how much does it weigh and what does it cost.
No-one outside cycling cares one second for the aero bikes.
I think this is just cycling people. Want better speed, go for electric bikes.
If you told someone, i'm going to buy an aero bike at 12 000 Euro + and they ask, oh, is it fast?
Oh yeah, i might gain 40 seconds riding like a maniac for 2 hours. But i need an atomic clock and power meter to be sure.
They would say, man that guy is suffering from something.

Actually gravel is more known to folks here. What possibly annoys people is the cost involved and those have also mostly been around extremer light weight components.

[poulhansen]

If you make a non cycle nerd lift your lightweight bike, they show a bit of surprise and interest for 10 seconds, then they go on talking about anything else. They are not annoyed, only surprised especially if you tell them the ridiculous price it cost you.