The old ‘weight’ chestnut!

[Ming the Merciless]

call me a luddite but I reckon it's all you need for the majority of cycling - not racing. All very bodgeable as well particularly if using flatbars.

Nothing Luddite about it, the assumption is that something that was first produced later is better, but not always the case.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

In the end this is personal preference and whilst arguments might be put up as to why, it’s still preference.

 

[chriswoody]

And yet other Shimano triple cranksets are 650-670g which just shows how variable this is. The vast majority of weight of a crank is the spider and arms. The middle and granny rings comes to 70g which is nothing.

Which ones are that light though? I had a quick peruse of Shimano triples and couldn't find any below a stated weight of 1000g?

I deliberately haven't been including top end stuff or fancy materials though, just bog standard Sora or similar, triple cranksets, that would normally be found on mid range bikes. Whilst I agree that the weight of the arms and spider is the biggest weight factor, there is much more of it on a triple chainset and the weight of the bolts also add up. My Race Face crank has no bolts, just a small lockring on the rear, the same as the lockring on a cassette.

I'm not trying to be argumentative though, just a genuine curiosity.

Edited to add. All my figures to come from a direct comparison of two drivetrains that I have on bikes currently sat in my cellar, so in my case it is a genuine transmission weight saving of 700 grams between bikes.

If we want to go down the line of saying there are lighter Shimano triples out there, well there are also much lighter 1 x systems out there as well, the bottom line is, the difference in weight saving adds up to more than just the weight of a front derailleur.

As to which system is best, well yes, that is entirely down to personal preference and riding.

 

[All uphill]

call me a luddite but I reckon it's all you need for the majority of cycling - not racing. All very bodgeable as well particularly if using flatbars.

Last year I talked through the specification of my new tourer with the people at Spa.

Answering their questions and stating my needs and preferences we came up with a 2 x 9 set up that suits me perfectly. 46/30 and 11-40 cassette.

If I was racing on flat roads I might want smaller gaps between gears, but for the riding I do the gaps are fine.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Which ones are that light though? I had a quick peruse of Shimano triples and couldn't find any below a stated weight of 1000g?

9 speed XT

 

[Ming the Merciless]

and the weight of the bolts also add up.

You have 4 more bolts on a triple than a single chain ring crank.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

All these weight differences are lost as minor noise, when compared to bike plus rider plus gear weights.

 

[Sallar55]

A few grams here and there don't amount to much if touring on this. He is going round France on the EVs 3000 kms + to date. 60kilos +rider.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

So whilst the wife is out and I can put oily parts on the kitchen scales without getting caught, in the name of science and morbid curiosity lets get weighing!

Thanks for that!
I hope you cleared up all the evidence!

I must admit I was really surprised how little difference there was between my cassette weight and the 9 speed cassette.

That really surprises me too? I've seen some huge cassettes (which I assume are for 1x systems)

As stated above though, for me the attraction of 1x doesn't lie in the weight differences,

Understood.
There was a post in Feckbook from someone looking for opinions on a couple of bikes, both ,1x. The poster was very specific that he wanted 1x because it was lighter. It struck me as odd, as if weight was the most important thing. Choosing a bike, especially for touring, should factor in a lot of points not just weight in my opinion.

Thanks for risking life and limb

 

[HobbesOnTour]

If you’re sticking with 3 x 9, it’s a lot cheaper

Or 3 X 7