[velodog]

Exactly! Much less expensive to lose 6 lbs off the engine.

But it's easier to buy a weight reduction.

 

[PBL450]

Exactly! Much less expensive to lose 6 lbs off the engine.

Sorry, the total build on the video is 21.5 lbs. A UCI level bike is 15lbs.

 

[PBL450]

Exaggeration, don't you think? More like 2-3 lbs at most.

Exaggeration, don't you think? More like 2-3 lbs at most.

Oops, I quoted the wrong post initially. No exaggeration at all. The bike in the video is 21.5lbs. They talk about it. It’s comparable bike today is 15lbs. I’m no mathematician but 21.5-15 i= 6.5. That’s a significant difference. That is more than double what you predict.

 

[Lombard]

Sorry, the total build on the video is 21.5 lbs. A UCI level bike is 15lbs.

There are steel road bikes that weigh under 20 lbs. And how much would you have to spend to get a 15 lb bike? I know that both my carbon bikes weighed shy of 18 lbs stock.

I for one have no rabid preferrence for either material. I just think the argument that one frame material is so much better or weighs so much less is ludicrous.

Oops, I quoted the wrong post initially. No exaggeration at all. The bike in the video is 21.5lbs. They talk about it. It’s comparable bike today is 15lbs. I’m no mathematician but 21.5-15 i= 6.5. That’s a significant difference. That is more than double what you predict.

As @DaveG said, frame weight is less than half the equation. Wheels and components weigh more than the frame.

And obviously, the video cherry picked two particular bikes. You can make a light or a heavy bike out of any frame material.

 

[tlg]

There are steel road bikes that weigh under 20 lbs. And how much would you have to spend to get a 15 lb bike? I know that both my carbon bikes weighed shy of 18 lbs stock.

I for one have no rabid preferrence for either material. I just think the argument that one frame material is so much better or weighs so much less is ludicrous.



As @DaveG said, frame weight is less than half the equation. Wheels and components weigh more than the frame.

And obviously, the video cherry picked two particular bikes. You can make a light or a heavy bike out of any frame material.

The topic is Modern BIKE vs Retro BIKE. Not steel frame vs carbon frame. Not most expensive bike vs some other goal post.

PBL said "The steel bike also gives away 6.5 lbs to its CF competitor. "

 

[PBL450]

There are steel road bikes that weigh under 20 lbs. And how much would you have to spend to get a 15 lb bike? I know that both my carbon bikes weighed shy of 18 lbs stock.

I for one have no rabid preferrence for either material. I just think the argument that one frame material is so much better or weighs so much less is ludicrous.



As @DaveG said, frame weight is less than half the equation. Wheels and components weigh more than the frame.

And obviously, the video cherry picked two particular bikes. You can make a light or a heavy bike out of any frame material.

My steel bike weighs 17lbs. That has absolutely nothing to do with the the comment.
They built a bike as an exact replica of Merckx 1969 bike. It weighs 21.5lbs. They compared performance with a modern race bike which easily reach the UCI minimum weight of 14.99lbs. In the post you originally referenced you decided 6.5 lbs was too much of a difference, which is odd because that’s the difference +/- a few ounces either way. The comment was that the gearing was the most responsible part of the comparison in the performance difference. I added that the weight would also be a factor, that 6.5lbs is a big difference. They do a long climb in comparing performance.

 

[velodog]

Unless one is racing a bike for a living or is seriously competing it all just becomes a dick measuring contest, not much different than who has the biggest pick-up or fastest car.

 

[Lombard]

Unless one is racing a bike for a living or is seriously competing it all just becomes a dick measuring contest, not much different than who has the biggest pick-up or fastest car.

My d!ck is way lighter than your d!ck and still meets UCI limits! 🤣

 

[tlg]

My d!ck is way lighter than your d!ck and still meets UCI limits! 🤣

When bikes are under the UCI weight limit, they have to add metal slugs in the tubes.

Make sure you don't go under... or you'll have to add a metal slug to your... ummm .... tube.

 

[velodog]

When bikes are under the UCI weight limit, they have to add metal slugs in the tubes.

Make sure you don't go under... or you'll have to add a metal slug to your... ummm .... tube.

with the right slug it'd be almost like walkin' around in a constant state of arousal, like being 17 again.

 

[Lombard]

with the right slug it'd be almost like walkin' around in a constant state of arousal, like being 17 again.

Metal slugs never did it for me even when I was 17.

 

[velodog]

Metal slugs never did it for me even when I was 17.

At 17 a penile prosthesis implant wasn't needed.

 

[PBL450]

The factors responsible for the performance difference, IMO, in order, are:

Group. 52/42 5 speed.
Weight. 6.5lb advantage for modern CF bike with modern components.
Lack of gearing specific conditioning. (Yes, Dan Lloyd is a beast compared to us, but I mean specific to that gearing. In 1969 those guys were riding this all day every day. The were conditioned to it. I’m teetering on this being the number one reason for the performance gap?) The downtube shifters might cost you a tiny amount of time. Less aero maybe a wee bit?

Frame material would have no real impact I’d guess? If they replicated the test with my steel bike I’m pretty sure they’d find little to maybe even no real difference? Maybe I’m wrong....

But the bike they built!! It is gorgeous!