- Location
- the post-brexit wasteland
upto around the £1.5k mark, it costs about £250 per kilo of weight lost, based on the difference in weight between my two bikes…
How much can you do to offset the weight of a bike?
- Thread starter DCBassman
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
- Location
- the post-brexit wasteland
FTFYD'oh - I was trying to edit YOUR thread title, which obviously I can't do!You can edit your own, as I initially suggested ...
OP
OP
DCBassman
Guru
- Location
- The lumpy far South West
It needs a new BB too, and I just found the measurements. 68mm British threads, 124.5mm crank length.
ISO or JIS taper?
SkipdiverJohn
Deplorable Brexiteer
- Location
- London
The problem is you've got conflicting requirements, plus a limited budget so silly priced ultra lightweight stuff is out of the question. You need comfort, which means having wider tyres with plenty or air volume. Wide tyres are heavier than skinny ones, leaving rolling resistance aside. If you need wide tyres, you also need rims wide enough to mount them, which again are heavier than narrow ones. Unless you are prepared to compromise on comfort, the wheel and tyre weight is not avoidable. That leaves the frame, gears, and anything else fitted.
Ditching the gear mechanisms & multiple chainrings would be the obvious next choice, but since you have hills, single speed isn't an option. Running a fairly small single front ring and getting rid of a triple plus the front mech and changer etc would save a little, but I would only do that on a short-distance pub bike not anything I was going to clock up real mileage on.
There's nothing you can do about the frame, other than replace with a lighter one. Anything else can only really be lightened if you are starting out with steel bits and can replace them with alloy ones.
In conclusion? Personally I'd just keep what I already had, so long as no suspension fork was fitted, and try to minimise rolling resistance with good tyres rather than go on a weight reduction mission, which is realistically not going to achieve much unless you are willing to spend large. I don't actually consider 30 lb to be especially heavy for a bike anyway, and all my adult sized bikes, with the exception of my newly-acquired 531 Dawes, weigh 30 lbs or over. My 3 speed roadster is around 37 lbs and even at that weight I don't consider it a problem to propel around.
Ditching the gear mechanisms & multiple chainrings would be the obvious next choice, but since you have hills, single speed isn't an option. Running a fairly small single front ring and getting rid of a triple plus the front mech and changer etc would save a little, but I would only do that on a short-distance pub bike not anything I was going to clock up real mileage on.
There's nothing you can do about the frame, other than replace with a lighter one. Anything else can only really be lightened if you are starting out with steel bits and can replace them with alloy ones.
In conclusion? Personally I'd just keep what I already had, so long as no suspension fork was fitted, and try to minimise rolling resistance with good tyres rather than go on a weight reduction mission, which is realistically not going to achieve much unless you are willing to spend large. I don't actually consider 30 lb to be especially heavy for a bike anyway, and all my adult sized bikes, with the exception of my newly-acquired 531 Dawes, weigh 30 lbs or over. My 3 speed roadster is around 37 lbs and even at that weight I don't consider it a problem to propel around.
Last edited:
OP
OP
DCBassman
Guru
- Location
- The lumpy far South West
@SkipdiverJohn the plan is not weight reduction, excepting me! Lots of scope for that...
I suppose the question is can I have a slightly easier time it on a bike of that weight without spending too much?
The biggest dilemma is really deciding which bike to do. The Trek would be simple, but need new chainrings and BB as a minimum, the Norco needs new brakes and cabling, a front derailleur, and the chainrings. There's little in it cost-wise if you include a new rear wheel for the Trek. It is, if I'm honest, a bit of a sentimental thing even considering the Trek.
I suppose the question is can I have a slightly easier time it on a bike of that weight without spending too much?
The biggest dilemma is really deciding which bike to do. The Trek would be simple, but need new chainrings and BB as a minimum, the Norco needs new brakes and cabling, a front derailleur, and the chainrings. There's little in it cost-wise if you include a new rear wheel for the Trek. It is, if I'm honest, a bit of a sentimental thing even considering the Trek.
SkipdiverJohn
Deplorable Brexiteer
- Location
- London
OK, so which bike has the most comfortable frame geometry/most suitable fit, and has the tallest head tube that will facilitate a comfortable bar height? If you've got an injury you want the bike to fit you, rather than contort yourself to fit the bike.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Sort the tyres and tubes for some lighter ones. If the rest of the bike is worth the expense, then consider some lighter wheels. Every gram off the rotating mass is worth 3 off the rest of the bike in terms of effort and feel.
Remove and accessories you don't use. Beyond that, it's probably cheaper and easier to buy another bike.
Remove and accessories you don't use. Beyond that, it's probably cheaper and easier to buy another bike.
OP
OP
DCBassman
Guru
- Location
- The lumpy far South West
Don't forget, there's also the fun element of all this work!
OP
OP
DCBassman
Guru
- Location
- The lumpy far South West
No idea...Suntour crankset, so maybe JIS? But not really sure.
OP
OP
DCBassman
Guru
- Location
- The lumpy far South West
The Trek was bought new at the right size, the Norco is a bit larger. I'd get an even longer quill stem if I could locate one, ideally alloy.
OP
OP
DCBassman
Guru
- Location
- The lumpy far South West
OK, longer quill stem not an issue...the Trek edges ahead again!
Vantage
Carbon fibre... LMAO!!!
- Location
- Behind everyone else, Bolton
As mentioned already, the biggest difference in ride quality will be achieved through tyre choice.
I've just weighed my City Jet 1.5's and Kojak 1.35's and already forgotted the exact gram weights, buuuuuuuuuuut the Kojaks are about 0.6lb lighter per pair and are a fair bit more supple.
30lb isn't really a lot to lug around imo (mines 32lb minus the Pendle).
I've just weighed my City Jet 1.5's and Kojak 1.35's and already forgotted the exact gram weights, buuuuuuuuuuut the Kojaks are about 0.6lb lighter per pair and are a fair bit more supple.
30lb isn't really a lot to lug around imo (mines 32lb minus the Pendle).
OP
OP
DCBassman
Guru
- Location
- The lumpy far South West
Hmmm, Kojak 2.00s might be a nice compromise on tyres!
