1. How Much Does A Schwinn Bike Weigh

Weighed in at 6.27kg, (13.8lb) but Trek’s Emonda SLR 9 lops almost a pound off that for a claimed 5.88kg (12.96lb). The frame is said to weigh just 690g. How did make the Scultura so light? It uses 400 prepreg pieces and alternative fibre materials to make each finished frame, putting the strength (and weight) only where it’s needed for performance. The wall thicknesses are as low as 0.4mm. Merida said the layup process was so complicated that it takes somewhere from 11 to 15 hours to produce each frame.The Scultura Superlite Ltd is built up with a SRAM Red 22 groupset while the handlebar, stem, saddle and seatpost all come from German lightweight specialist AX Lightness.

The frame is carbon fibre and weighs as little as 600g – that’s for the Di2 version of the small sized model. The proprietary THM Scapula CT-X fork adds just 265g. The bike uses coated CeramicSpeed bearings.The Vial Evo Ultra is fitted with ’ own U 24T wheels. Like the frame, these are handmade in Germany.Many of the other components are AX Lightness’ own too, including the Europa seatpost, the minimalist Leaf Plus saddle, along with the carbon stem, brakes and bottle cage.THM provides the cranks while the chainrings are Praxis Works.The AX Lightness Vial Evo Ultra has a price tag of €15,000. There’s no UK price set, but that converts to £13,140 at today’s exchange rate.That show bike was, as they often are, an exercise in just how light you can make a road bike by throwing money at it. But with SRAM Red E-Tap groupset including wireless shifters. The Izalco Max Disc is built around a 745g frame – just 10g heavier than Focus claims for the regular Izalco Max – and a 320g fork.The bike uses Shimano’s Flat Mount open disc brake calliper standard and Focus’s RAT quick-release thru axles at both the front and rear.The Focus Izalco Max Disc Red eTap, above, with SRAM's wireless electronic shifting is priced at £5,999.

If that's a bit spendy for you, the 'budget' model is the Izalco Max Disc Ultegra Di2, a snip at £4,299. Focus doesn’t yet produce a more affordable alternative, although we hope that the brand will offer lower specced options over time.It’s possible to build the Focus Izalco Max Disc frameset into a lighter bike if you wanted to. Focus showed us a frame decked out with a SRAM Red groupset and finished with some high-end carbon fibre components from the likes of Tune and Schmolke. That bike tipped the scales at just 6kg (13.23lb). Mat has worked for loads of bike magazines over 20+ years, and been editor of 220 Triathlon and Cycling Plus.

He's been road.cc technical editor for eight years, testing bikes, fettling the latest kit, and trying out the most up-to-the-minute clothing. We send him off around the world to get all the news from launches and shows too. He has won his category in Ironman UK 70.3 and finished on the podium in both marathons he has run. Mat is a Cambridge graduate who did a post-grad in magazine journalism, and he is a past winner of the Cycling Media Award for Specialist Online Writer. Given the recent article about weight not being that big a factor this is simply advertorial.I built a bike up from a 2013/14 KTM frame that was unused and direct from a continental pro team.All in with Gigantex 38mm plus DA9000, Ultegra chain/cassette/FSA carbon cranks but bearing in mind it's a 59cm (1085g incl headset) it comes in at 6.338kg sans pedals. It cost me £1550, the only non new items were the FSA K-force light cranks, Modolo Kurvissima bars and the wheels which were all mint/barely used.My Scott CR1 SL in a 61cm with exactly the same kit but with bora one 50mm tubs and a DA cassette is precisely 400g lighter. I could shave another 130g with my medium/low profile tubs and another 100g if I went with some narrower/lighter tubs than the 27/25mm fitted but even with the 50mm bora's that's still 5.9ish for a bloody big frame that costs less than half of the cheapest bike mentioned above (Izalco disc Max ultegra @£4k) with a massively better spec.

How do you weigh your bike? The inverse of how many bikes do you need! But apparently they do), bottle cage, computer and light brackets. It’s always disappointing.

How Much Does A Schwinn Bike Weigh

or to post comments. The real difference between a light bike and a superlight bike is not the 200ish grammes saved on the frame set but in the cost and practicality compromises in the third party kit that's titanium bolted to it. A high street frame like a Supersix evo can be got down to the 5-6kg region but to get lower than that it's sub kilo wheel sets and combined (un padded) carbon saddle and seat posts. So it's a bit rich Canyon or Trek or whoever boasting about the weight of 'their' bikes when really it's THM or Tune or Lightweight that enabled it.Personally I quite like having a padded saddle I can adjust, I find the ability to walk after riding my bike quite handy!. or to post comments. FishnChips wrote:I think most riders would benefit from a diet and reduce their waistlines - me included.Still some impressive tech.I always laugh when I seen someone on a super-light bike getting dropped up a hill by someone riding something more in the region of 10kg.Why?I'm a shade over 100kg, I'd expect to get dropped in a few seconds on any given climb by someone on a 10kg bike that is 25kg lighter.

Does that mean I'm not entitled to ride a bike that is £xxxx built up with expensive components and is as light as I wanted to build it?What if we go to the track, how will they fare in a 200m sprint against me, how about if I take said 75kg wafer thin to the gym, should I laugh in their face because they can't get close to pushing the same weights as me, or do I give encouragement so they can reach whatever their goal is?if they come onto the rugby field and I swat them over like a child do I laugh in their face or do i say well done for making the effort to tackle me? Would I expect them to laugh in my face because they ran around my effort to tackle them because they are quicker?people like you are so atypical of the newbie cyclist today, full of shit and can't get your head around the fact that if you're on a bike, that's it, end of story, we are equals.

Pompous asses poke fun, belittle anyone if they've got the wrong kit, don't have x fashion accessory, take the piss because someone got dropped, it's no wonder club cycling is such a fucking misery for newcomers these days. or to post comments. Jimnm wrote:The question I have is how do these bikes hold up if it's dropped. Are they strong enough to withstand a reasonable spill.Given the UCI have set the rules about the weight of a bike used in a race at 6.8kgs minimum.it must be to do with safety surely?As with many things with the UCI, times have moved on.

The rule was introduced on 2 fronts: Safety, back about?12? Years ago when commercially made bikes were at their limit at about 6.5 kg, and ostensibly, it was to help prevent some sort of arms race, where the biggest budgets simply won, and squeezedout the competetiveness of smaller teams. In retrospect they probably should have gone for a salary cap. or to post comments. HurdyGurdy wrote:True, but us fatties tend to accelerate way faster on the downhillAre you sure? Because me and my bike together come in around 70kg and drop down the hills like a brick in water.Primary School Physics tells you that all things of all weights drop at the same velocity. (Because gravity has the same force of 9.8 N/kg on everything be it a Tanker or a Toy boat)However, a 1g Feather will fall slower than a 1g dried pea because of the surface area presented during it's fall.therefore it's safe to say that a fatty on a road bike is not only slower on the uphills but I'm afraid to say that they will also be slower going down.

or to post comments. HurdyGurdy wrote:True, but us fatties tend to accelerate way faster on the downhillAre you sure? Because me and my bike together come in around 70kg and drop down the hills like a brick in water.Primary School Physics tells you that all things of all weights drop at the same velocity. (Because gravity has the same force of 9.8 N/kg on everything be it a Tanker or a Toy boat)However, a 1g Feather will fall slower than a 1g dried pea because of the surface area presented during it's fall. Therefore it's safe to say that a fatty on a road bike is not only slower on the uphills but I'm afraid to say that they will also be slower going down.Not totally true is it, loads of reasons why.

or to post comments. HurdyGurdy wrote:True, but us fatties tend to accelerate way faster on the downhillAre you sure? Because me and my bike together come in around 70kg and drop down the hills like a brick in water.Primary School Physics tells you that all things of all weights drop at the same velocity. (Because gravity has the same force of 9.8 N/kg on everything be it a Tanker or a Toy boat)However, a 1g Feather will fall slower than a 1g dried pea because of the surface area presented during it's fall.therefore it's safe to say that a fatty on a road bike is not only slower on the uphills but I'm afraid to say that they will also be slower going down.I think you've got your physics a little bit off. Things only really fall at the same speed in a vaccuum as air resistance comes into play, though if you're dropping things straight down (e.g. Eiffel Tower experiments) then it can be hard to tell the difference.When coasting down a slope, gravity is the force pulling downwards and is mainly opposed by the air resistance, with the forces becoming equal when you reach terminal velocity (NB. No terminal velocity in a vaccuum as there is no air resistance working against you although it becomes increasingly difficult to pedal in a vaccuum).

With riders of different weights, their aerodynamics can be roughly similar, but the force applied by gravity will be greater for the heavier rider. This will result in the heavier rider having a greater terminal velocity.If you'd like some graphs, there's some at this link:. or to post comments. HurdyGurdy wrote:True, but us fatties tend to accelerate way faster on the downhillAre you sure? Because me and my bike together come in around 70kg and drop down the hills like a brick in water.Primary School Physics tells you that all things of all weights drop at the same velocity.

(Because gravity has the same force of 9.8 N/kg on everything be it a Tanker or a Toy boat)However, a 1g Feather will fall slower than a 1g dried pea because of the surface area presented during it's fall.therefore it's safe to say that a fatty on a road bike is not only slower on the uphills but I'm afraid to say that they will also be slower going down.Following your logic, you kind of disprove your own argument. A 110kg ride /bike combo would fall faster than a 70kg rider/bike combo.Now if the whippet who spends more time on the bike has better handling skills, that evens the odds. or to post comments. Davel wrote:Following your logic, you kind of disprove your own argument. A 110kg ride /bike combo would fall faster than a 70kg rider/bike combo. Now if the whippet who spends more time on the bike has better handling skills, that evens the odds.No read it again, ALL objects accelerate at the same velocity no matter how much they weigh. Drop a Bowling ball and a tennis ball from a tower they will hit the ground at the same time.The air resistance is the only factor that can increase their acceleration, a roll of clingfilm will always fall at the same velocity as ten rolls of clingfilm taped together.

However, if you unravelled the the roll of clingfillm and dropped then obviously it would fall at a lower velocity than the on which is shaped like a tube.Obv's as you say descending is all about bike handling over anything else I was just pointing out the fact that objects with a greater mass do not fall faster than object with a lower mass. or to post comments.

I had watched a movie the previous night until the computer had hibernated when the battery was low. Turn on wifi dell laptop. Thinking maybe the battery had been used up. A couple of weeks ago I wake up. Press the power button on my Inspiron laptop and to my surprise it wouldn’t turn. I had been too lazy to charge it so I left it like that.

Hawkinspeter wrote:I think you've got your physics a little bit off. Things only really fall at the same speed in a vaccuum as air resistance comes into play, though if you're dropping things straight down (e.g. Eiffel Tower experiments) then it can be hard to tell the difference.When coasting down a slope, gravity is the force pulling downwards and is mainly opposed by the air resistance, with the forces becoming equal when you reach terminal velocity (NB. No terminal velocity in a vaccuum as there is no air resistance working against you although it becomes increasingly difficult to pedal in a vaccuum).

With riders of different weights, their aerodynamics can be roughly similar, but the force applied by gravity will be greater for the heavier rider. This will result in the heavier rider having a greater terminal velocity.If you'd like some graphs, there's some at this link:Much as I appreciated the graphs surely it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the aerodynamics will be so similar?A slimmer rider will present a smaller frontal surface area and should also achieve a far more effective tuck. or to post comments. Hawkinspeter wrote:I think you've got your physics a little bit off. Things only really fall at the same speed in a vaccuum as air resistance comes into play, though if you're dropping things straight down (e.g. Eiffel Tower experiments) then it can be hard to tell the difference.When coasting down a slope, gravity is the force pulling downwards and is mainly opposed by the air resistance, with the forces becoming equal when you reach terminal velocity (NB.

No terminal velocity in a vaccuum as there is no air resistance working against you although it becomes increasingly difficult to pedal in a vaccuum). With riders of different weights, their aerodynamics can be roughly similar, but the force applied by gravity will be greater for the heavier rider. This will result in the heavier rider having a greater terminal velocity.If you'd like some graphs, there's some at this link:Much as I appreciated the graphs surely it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the aerodynamics will be so similar? A slimmer rider will present a smaller frontal surface area and should also achieve a far more effective tuck.It's certainly an assumption, but I think the aero differences between riders has so many factors that can influence it that it's a reasonable assumption that riders have similar aerodynamic drag or that the aerodynamics have a much smaller effect than the component of gravity pulling them along.Does anyone have any comparative aero figures for the plus-size cyclists?. or to post comments. Davel wrote:Following your logic, you kind of disprove your own argument. A 110kg ride /bike combo would fall faster than a 70kg rider/bike combo.

Now if the whippet who spends more time on the bike has better handling skills, that evens the odds.No read it again, ALL objects accelerate at the same velocity no matter how much they weigh. Drop a Bowling ball and a tennis ball from a tower they will hit the ground at the same time.Indeed you did, and my attempt at tripping you up via being a smartarse failed due to me not having read your post properlySo to continue the debate, we have freefall nailed - but would greater mass have any additional difference either way on a rolly thing, say freewheeling, down a slope? Would guess not but it's beyond my understanding of friction. or to post commentsPages. 1.