How important is bicycle weight? I am looking at getting a hybrid

The gearing matters a lot
The tires matter a lot
The total weight of everything (including you) matters somewhat
The weight distribution (especially heavy ass wheels) matters somewhat less
The actual weight of the frame matters very little

>>1076943
You're not racing, so no, it really doesn't matter that much. Even if your commute route is hilly in both directions it only matters a tiny bit because you don't really care if it takes you an extra minute or two. Besides which if you're commuting you're likely to be carrying a bunch of stuff with you and that'll weigh you down even more. Don't bother paying for light weight, pay for sturdiness and the ability to carry all the shit you're going to carry with you.
>hyrbid
DON'T BUY A 'HYBRID'.

>>1076943
Riding a hybrid bike isn't fun at all.

Don't believe me?

Go to Ikea, they have a 365 day satisfaction guarantee

If you ride that bike more than 45 miles I'd be surprised it's the least interesting shit ever

>>1076960
>nothing matters because you're "just commuting"
>don't buy a hybrid!!
But I thought nothing matters

Make up your mind, memesters. Yak butter or full hydro disks? Weight weenie or boat anchor?

>>1076943
>is a few pounds here or there really going to make much difference outside of racing?
It doesn't make much difference _inside_ racing. If you count speed and time. What it does affect and affect greatly is feel and handling. It feels more lively, engaging and """fast""" to ride a light bike, even if it's only seconds in clocked result. And that's what it's all about.

not really for your purposes

don't buy a hybrid though

>>1076971
>>1076943


Is your commute 5km on russian "roads" in the city? Hybrid is ok, better yet a MTB.

Is it 30km on rural swiss roads? Get a road bike.

Weight makes a difference in acceleration and hill climbing.

Wheel weight matters the most, but probably not enough for you to care about for an entry level casual rider.

There will be no significant difference in any new frame at the entry level, unless you get a suspension fork, or a BSO. You don't want either one on a hybrid, and you don't want a BSO ever.

Hiten steel gaspipe vs buted chromolly? That's enough difference to care about.

>>1076943

Bike weight is ***NOT IMPORTANT*** unless:

1. You are racing
2. You are stopping and starting a lot
3. You are hitting lots of hills

The problem with a heavy bike is accelerating it. A heavy frame will take longer to get up to speed.

If there are cars around you this is potentially dangerous. First because you are slow to start, and second because it's little harder to stop the extra weight (not really a big deal, though).

Last weekend I was testing out a child trailer and loaded it with 90 lbs of tools. Accelerating wasn't really that hard. Once it was up to speed, I didn't notice the weight at all.

On hills I did notice it, but not as much as you'd think.

Muh grams

>>1076943
Are you in the lower end of the BMI range for your height?
If not, don't even bother worrying about it, it's not gonna be a limiting factor for you.

I love how light my bike is because I often have to carry it up stairs, into elevators etc. it's lovely.

>>1077879
Can you tell when riding it?

>>1077969
I mean, it does feel a lot better than the ancient steel framed shitbikes than I grew up with. but like most people say in the thread, you're not going to get much more performance after a certain point. diminishing returns and all that. aluminum frame and carbon forks and you're g2g.

>How important is bicycle weight?
Your own weight is more important.

Bike weight only important if you are constantly climbing or hitting steep climbs.
If you have to constantly brake too.

Gearing is important, being able to constantly spin at your preferred cadence is very nice.

Also get tires that roll really well.

But by far the most important and best way to get fast is geometry.
A more aggressive posture will make the biggest difference on flats, can easily be the difference between 20km/h and 25 km/h

>>1077970
Probably helps that ancient steel shitbikes are actually noticeably heavier, too. I weighed an old steel BSO today and it came in at 17! kg for a "road" bike. Egh!


>>1076943

Don't get a hybrid unless you're riding on absolute shit surfaces. Just get a decent bike with drops and no suspension that you can bolt racks on to, and chuck Schwalbe marathons on it.

>>1077975
>Don't get a hybrid unless you're riding on absolute shit surfaces.
Alternatively a cyclocross.

It's mostly just a road bike, either with v-brakes or disc brakes but it certainly has enough space for thick tires.

Schwalbe G-one 30mm tires roll super fast. (liteskins roll as fast as almost any road tire)

Vittoria Rubino Pro III tires (or whatever they're called right now) are also fast for cheap.

>>1076943
>for commuting

After shaving off every gram, don't forget to add in a 10 lb lock and chain. So it's still there after work.

>>1077998
You take the bike inside. Inside you have a second lock that you always leave at work.
>wa la

>>1078003
But then you can only use the bike to commute to work, or plan in advance if you want/need to stop elsewhere to carry or not the lock... I use my commuting bike to go to many places (today i went to the dentist and to a mall to buy stuff), so i carry the lock&chain.

>>1078024
Do they make ultra light bike chains?

>>1078024
Carry a lock when not going to work, and take the work lock with you if you need to carry out unplanned after work errands. Do you dress yourself in the morning or do you still need help planning that too?

>>1078025
ultra-weak*

>>1076943
Not really. Proper tire pressure, a silent, well-maintained drivetrain and wheels that roll straight are more important.

>>1078185
Locks are to keep honest people from stealing your bike

>>1077969
Not that anon neither am i saying weight isn't a factor but balance of weight and geometry is more important to feel imo

So lets say you are not trying to go fast, just cover distance and some hills for your commute.
Does weight matter for this?

>>1078282
Weight almost always matters. There are three kinds of tards who will claim otherwise:

1. 2hard4u internet tough guys who think riding an overweight bike makes you cool. These people are also invariably poor

2. Elitist faggots who think they could probably qualify for Team Sky but "I'm just too lazy to apply myself" or some shit, and think that shitting on people who are less elitist makes them more elite

3. People who just straight up don't like bikes, think "cyclist" is an insult, and think all bikes should look like whatever they probably ride in Holland, I bet they totally ride bikes in Holland and they know better than you, right?

You should buy the lightest bike within your budget that fits your requirements. If you can stretch the budget to go lighter, by all means, do it. No one regrets getting a lighter bike. Bike weight is not everything, but don't confuse this for meaning that bike weight means nothing. It absolutely matters.

File: 1449275022538.gif (27KB, 467x300px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 467x300px

>>1078313
>No one regrets getting a lighter bike
Not to be a dick but I spent way too much money on a bike last year because I got a great speech from a salesman.
For my riding habits I should have spent less than half and got a heavier but much cheaper bike.

>>1076959
i fucking love it when:
guy pays a kings ransom for the lightest frame possible. packs 2 large bottles full of water on it, some tool bags and various lights and pumps and big ass flat pedals that weight a pound each some horns/bar ends, a bag on the bar too for good measure and of course fenders a big ass chain lock for the bike. he ends up with a 16-18kg bike when most budget frame bikes come out around 13kg without all the crap.

>>1078352
You seem upset but why? You can take the bags off and then you have a light bike.

>>1076943
5 or 10 pounds of weight won't matter when you lug a bag around and have heavy clothes on. Just gives you more exercise than saving 5 minutes getting somewhere. I don't really cycle fast on a commute anyways because of cars and pedestrians are unpredictable. That being said, a heavier bike will handle a crash a lot better than carbon. What really matters is wheels and tyres and good brakes.

>>1078358
Do you not see his point ?
They never take all that stuff off and ride around on a light bike.
They paid all that moneys for nothing.
Its the american way

>>1078363
>"They"
Oh, so we're just inventing whatever details we require about a person in order to make assumptions about them. Cool.

Yesterday on my commute I passed a guy on a crabon bike. I have no idea how long he had been riding for, what his physical condition was, or whether it was a recovery ride or what. But I passed him. From this fact, we can safely conclude that he is a fucking shit head dentist who bought a bike WAY beyond his abilities, and I can assure you with 100% confidence that he regrets his decision and hates that thing. He should have gotten a beach cruiser with a suspension seat post. Stupid freds LOL what a loser.

>>1078364
What you are doing is just as bad as what you are mocking.
You too are making assumptions

>>1078369
You're are a retard

t.not the one you are referring to

File: thatsthejoke.gif (3MB, 448x291px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 448x291px

>>1078369

>>1078378
I get the sarcasm , he is still making assumptions , still no better than the other anon.

>>1078352
And if they added all those things to their 13 kg bikes they would end up riding on +20 kg bikes. And the vast majority of high end road bikes I see don't have any excess shit strapped to them. It's 2 water bottles and a small saddle bag for tubes and tools. And the high end bikes loaded with gear usually look like they're being used for a tour.

>talking shit about having 2 water bottles, even if they're large
Yeah some people do long unsupported rides where they don't have an endless supply of small water bottles and a mechanic in a support car following them. Having 2 large bottles, and some tools with you makes life easier in that case.

>>1078352
>packs 2 large bottles full of water on it
There is nothing wrong with this until someone invents lightweight water. This is like complaining that people with light bikes dare run tires or a set because they could just ride on their rims while standing.

>>1078352
>>1078451
>one bottle
This is how you tell someone doesn't even ride.

File: 132812859087.png (32KB, 160x154px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 160x154px

>>1078393
That's because he is making fun of the other anon

The assumptions are there only to mock him

>>1078393
>>1078369
Weapons-grade autism

>>1078566
Yes ,I get that. And in mocking him, he is making unwritten assumptions.

File: 132715469351.jpg (52KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 375x500px

>>1078645
>he is making unwritten assumptions

You are the one making assumptions now anon

>>1078820
>You are the one making assumptions now anon
I never denied that but now you are making assumptions about my assumptions
this makes you the grand assumer here not me

File: BxwgnpNIMAEb5q5.jpg (30KB, 576x576px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 576x576px

>>1078820
>>1078864
>/n/ gets meta.

File: 132812855598.png (4KB, 300x163px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x163px

>>1078864
Not only did you assume the the anons gender, but you also assumed that they made some
>unwritten assumptions
and now you assume that I'm making assumptions about your assumptions even though your assumptions are on plain sight?

I'm assuming that you are assuming that I too made some
>unwritten assumptions
which are assumptions based solely on your own assumptions

Who is the real assumption king here?

>assuming assumptions

File: 0d80fab7d02fda5a8b2213b8f074f828.jpg (87KB, 736x536px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 736x536px

You guys are making an ass of you and also of me

File: greentext.jpg (8KB, 239x241px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 239x241px

>>1079105
>>1079105

>>1076943
Don't listen to these retards here OP. They are autists. They make hybrid bikes out of road racing bikes and think that that's better than a proper hybrid. A look at an average pyb thread will tell you most are retaded as fuck. DO get a hybrid. A racing bike is for racing and very unpractible and uncomfortable. Hybrids are fun to ride and comfy.
Heavier bikes do have advantages. Faster downhill, can handle more weight(for trekking or groceries) less interference from wind and more.

>>1079340
>a heavier object goes down faster
Newton would like to have a word with you

>>1079340
>unpractible
Your b8 was gr8 until this point, m8, 4/8

File: newton.jpg (101KB, 622x415px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 622x415px

>>1079417
>you have angered newton, prepare to get schooled
Free fall exhibit different characteristics to a declined roll. Mass has a factor in fighting resistance. In a declined roll, a more massive object will reach the bottom of a slope before a lighter object. Completely different characteristics to a free fall.

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/RotMechanics/fall_slide_roll.htm

File: 1d92f6_139c131507b186fa32e4fcc31294a3a0.gif (481KB, 441x425px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 441x425px

>>1079436
a more massive object will exhibit more rotational inertia causing more inertia down a slope

>>1079436
Except that you still have to pedal and brake for corners

Your pedaling strength will be annihilated by the initial climb and your braking will be compromised by the weight

Both of these will more than outweigh any slight rolling advantages

File: badgers-moving-goalposts.jpg (81KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x375px

>>1079453
but the argument was strictly related to downhill and not about rounded performance metrics which would be stating the obvious that more weight = not gud

>>1079453
>your braking will be compromised by the weight
If you are crazy then extra weight has no influence on the braking distance.

But that's only if you're doing sick back and front wheel skids.

>>1079440
But Newtons bike was light as fuck

File: monocycle.jpg (39KB, 468x351px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 468x351px

>>1079609
Newton rode one of these pimp daddys

You want a clean BB, crankset, rubber, aligned wheels, and a frame that absorbs the road.

Anything else is arbitrary. A full-aero world record bike is useless in a sidewind, just as a double crown is a clown car on anything but clown courses.

>>1077805
If he's a skinny fuck he shouldn't be muscling around more than he needs to.

Then again, maybe he'll grow into it. But that's only going to happen if he trains or commutes.

>>1079651
I'm a spooky skeleton(160lbs/6'9") and ride a 40lbs boat anchor BSO. The weight really isn't a problem for commuting or "recreational" riding, and hills are manageable, albeit a little slower than they should be, with low gears.

>>1077974
>>1079649

make the important points. Having the components on your bike in tip-top condition, and having a proper fit/geometry will be far more important than shedding a few pounds from your setup.

>>1078363
>They paid all that moneys for nothing.

What?

They bought a light bike, which allowed them to carry more stuff for less weight. The same stuff on a heavier bike would be...heavier.

How is this so confusing to you ?

File: accreteChevyAWDcurrent.jpg (154KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x800px

>>1079663
>160lbs/6'9")
Good god.
Not happy as a manlet but that would be worse i think.
You must look a lot like steve merchant whom i adore

>>1079671
he's still trying to work out when the wealth will trickle down like he was told

>>1079610
How does that even

File: 6c2883f50569ccdd0ebb9424a5c2f743e2192750a0737f1d1c4be77f7f9d4c20.jpg (73KB, 625x418px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 625x418px

>>1079972

>>1076943
No. I lost 65 lbs riding in one summer and the difference in speed wasn't that noticeable. My endurance was, but that's more attributable to my improvements in cardio fitness. The bike itself does make a difference in the handling, etc., but is largely insignificant compared to the weight of the rider. In a competitive setting the riders are very fit and the weight of the bike matters far more.

>>1081847
>I lost 65 lbs riding in one summer and the difference in speed wasn't that noticeable
I bet it was going downhill

My cheap trek 7.2 is ~14kg with rear rack attached. I carry it up and down my apt stairs every day, I do wish it was lighter for that but otherwise it's fine.

OTOH the chain is perpetually noisy, gotta figure that out.

>>1082025
Those 7.2FXs have a 1020 steel fork, AFAIK. Might shed some weight by switching to chrome-moly or even carbon fiber

>>1077970
Most people make do with just one fork.

>>1078452
>He doesn't know light water exists, much less fill his bottles with it!
psshh… see you at the top… if you make it…

>>1078313
This this this.
>You should buy the lightest bike within your budget that fits your requirements.
This this this. Only thing to remember is very light carbon can't take a lot of weight so if you plan to be running to the hardware store with it, keep that in mind as part of your requirements

File: $_57.jpg (326KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1600x1200px

>>1082025
Same here.
Carrying my bike is the only time I consider the weight in any way

>>1084379
Looks rare

>>1084381
But is it collectable? That is the question…

>>1084731
>>1084731
>>1084731
In my opinion, for something to be collectible , you have to be able to buy it.
Since there seem to be exactly zero for sale on the planet, I would have to say that they are uncollectable

>>1076943
litterally zero. as you and your fat ass have 5 times the surface area as your bike