Which bike?

[fastpedaller]

Use lighter tyres and stay with the guys - only downside is you may puncture, which will give you a break whilst the repairs happen

[PH]

Help! I am in my late 60’s and ride about 3-4000 miles a year, almost all on lanes, voie vertes in France, and similar. My main bike is a Thorn Mercury with a Rohloff hub - fabulous for French touring with a full load, but a bit slow and heavy (15kg) for the large part of the year when I am simply out for a ride.
Terry

That sound a bit porky, my Mercury in the largest size weighs in at 13.2 kg complete with rack and dynamo lights.
I'm not convinced shedding a kg or two will make much difference, but if you think it would, I'd spend the money on lightening the Mercury. If you have a steel rack just removing it when not in use loses you half a kg.
IMO for weight to make a difference it has to be substantial, and that's going to include some compromises, you'll decide for yourself if they're worth it, I've concluded for me they're not.

[PH]

IMO the problem with flat bars for speed is that there is no choice of positions, so you can go fully crouched

I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant "can't go fully crouched"
The majority of cyclists I see out and about would increase their aerodynamics if they bent their arms and tucked their elbows in, that applies to those riding all sorts of bars. For most of us it isn't bar shape that determines how low a position we can maintain, but body shape and general fitness. Personally, I prefer to do most of my riding in a position where I can easily look around and over the hedge, but when I do need to make time, or head into the wind, I can get as low on my flat bar bike with long bar ends as on my drop bar one.

[thelawnet]

IMO the problem with flat bars for speed is that there is no choice of positions, so you can go fully crouched

I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant "can't go fully crouched"
The majority of cyclists I see out and about would increase their aerodynamics if they bent their arms and tucked their elbows in, that applies to those riding all sorts of bars. For most of us it isn't bar shape that determines how low a position we can maintain, but body shape and general fitness. Personally, I prefer to do most of my riding in a position where I can easily look around and over the hedge, but when I do need to make time, or head into the wind, I can get as low on my flat bar bike with long bar ends as on my drop bar one.

No I mean that if you have a sit up and beg type bike then you are not going to be bent over into an aero position, whereas a 'fast hybrid' will have you more bent over than you might like (at least just with flat bars, not some extra bits)

As far as bending over on flat bars and keeping elbows in goes I find it sufficiently uncomfortable as to be distracting after a couple of minutes

[NetworkMan]

Help! I am in my late 60’s and ride about 3-4000 miles a year, almost all on lanes, voie vertes in France, and similar. My main bike is a Thorn Mercury with a Rohloff hub - fabulous for French touring with a full load, but a bit slow and heavy (15kg) for the large part of the year when I am simply out for a ride.
Terry

That sound a bit porky, my Mercury in the largest size weighs in at 13.2 kg complete with rack and dynamo lights.
I'm not convinced shedding a kg or two will make much difference, but if you think it would, I'd spend the money on lightening the Mercury. If you have a steel rack just removing it when not in use loses you half a kg.
IMO for weight to make a difference it has to be substantial, and that's going to include some compromises, you'll decide for yourself if they're worth it, I've concluded for me they're not.

I was just about to make the same point. The Mercury actually has a pretty sophisticated lightweight frame so it's unlikely that something like a Trek FX, when similarly kitted out with rack and 'guards, will produce a perceptible weight saving. IIRC, years ago, Thorn claimed that the Rohloff system weighed the same as a derallieur triple. I doubt that's true but I bet the difference is under 500g.

[PH]

IIRC, years ago, Thorn claimed that the Rohloff system weighed the same as a derallieur triple. I doubt that's true but I bet the difference is under 500g.

Last year I converted my folder from 3 X 9 flat bar with thumbies and decent equipment to a Rohloff, I weighed everything that came off and everything that went back on and also weighed the complete bikes before and after, the Rohloff added 420g or 480g depending on which scales I believe. So your estimate is pretty much spot on.

[thelawnet]

IIRC, years ago, Thorn claimed that the Rohloff system weighed the same as a derallieur triple. I doubt that's true but I bet the difference is under 500g.

Last year I converted my folder from 3 X 9 flat bar with thumbies and decent equipment to a Rohloff, I weighed everything that came off and everything that went back on and also weighed the complete bikes before and after, the Rohloff added 420g or 480g depending on which scales I believe. So your estimate is pretty much spot on.

There are some calculations here:

https://www.cyclingabout.com/weight-dif ... off-bikes/

~500 grams is correct

You can shave another 400 grams off that with some brittle, expensive SRAM 1x kit.

Nowhere near enough to make a difference.

[Vorpal]

Get your mates to slow down and enjoy the cake stops

[horizon]

Get your mates to slow down and enjoy the cake stops

To be fair to the OP and in the light of the fact that he shared some personal details in good humour, I refrained from questioning his basic premise. But now the cat is out of the bag, we can have two discussions: one, the choice of a new, lighter bike, and secondly the reasons for it.

I cannot believe the OP is the only one in his position: an absurd arms race to the top where cyclists leave others behind, some have to depend on electric bikes and others scrape around for an increase in speed in order to enjoy riding in a group. I am not referring directly to the OP's group but is this what cycling has become?

[PH]

I cannot believe the OP is the only one in his position: an absurd arms race to the top where cyclists leave others behind, some have to depend on electric bikes and others scrape around for an increase in speed in order to enjoy riding in a group. I am not referring directly to the OP's group but is this what cycling has become?

It’s what some groups have always been about, suggesting something is wrong with that is IMO no better than suggesting they all should be. If it’s what some riders enjoy and it’s clear what the group is about, what’s wrong with that?
My local CTC MG picks up a few riders who have found another local club too fast and we’ve probably had as many move the other way.