Built Mercury Weight Inquiry

[Danneaux]

Moronic,

I may have missed it, but still wish to ask:

Have you weighed your Mercury (dry) as it sits? I'd be curious to know what it weighs as configured.

Thanks!

Best,

Dan.

[Moronic]

Hi Dan,

Yes the Mercury weighed 13.8kg as set up, with rear rack in place but no front rack or bags.

I said when I quoted this figure above that my scale might be out. I've thought more about that and realise it gave the expected figure for the Trek, which I had weighed previously on a better scale. Nevertheless it's a cheap digital item designed for weighing suitcases and other luggage.

[PH]

Yes the Mercury weighed 13.8kg as set up, with rear rack in place but no front rack or bags.

That's pretty respectable for a bike of this type, there's not a huge choice of ways you could reduce it, not significantly or without compromise anyway. There's a need to be cautious when making comparisons, unless it's very specifically like for like it can lead to all sorts of incorrect assumptions!   Even then it's debatable how much difference there has to be before you notice, that's not to say it isn't good fun! Carrying less is for me the easier way to reduce overall weight.

[JohnR]

I recall my 56L Mercury (page 2 of http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf ) being about 12 kg out of the box (no rack or pedals) but can't find confirmation in my records. As supplied the bike had 50mm Schwalbe G-One Speed tubeless tyres with sealant.

I've just checked the bike in its current configuration (see photo) and it's 21.6kg! I had mentally assumed that my additions would have added 5kg, not 10kg. My additions / changes are:

- Pedals
- Rack (probably not the lightest but I was looking for something which could minimise conflict between saddle and rack bag)
- Rack bag with basic tools, spare tube and a waterproof top
- AHS handlebars
- 50mm Marathon Almotion tyres with inner tubes plus sealant
- Pump (a mini track pump given the size of the tyres)
- Three bottle cages (plus one bottle of water at time of weighing)
- A proper bell
- Reflectors
- Garmin radar mount (on the rack)
- Kickstand
- Hebie chainglider
- Steel chainring to suit chainglider
- Lights
- Tracker
- Frame lock
- Top tube bag with some emergency food supplies

Edit: - Also Aravis leather saddle instead of the Velo Deluxe Sport saddle

I could waste a few hours weighing all these bits to see if the whole matches the sum of the parts. I don't see a lot of potential for weight reduction. The frame lock is fairly heavy and has minimal usage. Perhaps one of the beam carriers that clamps to the seatpost would be adequate for my load and be slightly lighter than a normal rack (something to investigate). Reverting to tubeless tyres would make a significant difference and I'm planning to see if I can get the original tyres to reseat on the rims. However, when I tried to fit Panaracer GravelKing SK tyres last autumn for extra winter grip as tubeless I failed to get them to seat despite getting a track pump + air tank. My Almotions don't claim to be tubeless (the latest version is) but I wanted tyres that would get me through a LEJOG with minimal risk of puncture delays. Tubeless tyres are fine provided any punctures are small enough for the sealant to work but a bigger hole results in having to use an inner tube within a casing with low puncture resistance. Removing the kickstand would probably save 0.5kg (perhaps more) but is far too useful. I don't currently need the top tube bag + contents but I take the view that losing weight for shorter rides doesn't prepare me for more heavily loaded longer trips. Ultimately, what's a kilo or two a proportion of an all-up weight of 80kg?

[Moronic]

Mine is 2kg heavier than my Trek 7900 flat-bar 700c, which had a main triangle made from carbon tubes glued into aluminium lugs, an aluminium rear triangle, and a steel fork. And, that's not like for like: the Trek at 11.7kg had no rack (550g), clip-on plastic mudguards, no hub dynamo, and no lights, and a tiny frame with huge seatpost extension.

Yes I know you can get 7-something kg road bikes these days but my experience says Andy B is quite right: the weight matters when you're climbing, but even then not all that much.

The felt reality is I'm enjoying climbs way more on the Mercury than I ever did on the Trek. It might be the resilience of the frame, and it might be the abundance of low gears.

A contribution might have come from my having dropped 4kg off my own frame and counting since I reprioritised fitness and exercise. Which means that even with an Ortlieb trunk bag (800g) containing 1.2kg of stuff, I'm still hauling less up hills than I was in March on the unladen Trek.

I read a review not long ago of an American gravel bike with an 853 steel main triangle that also came in a carbon monocoque version. The reviewer said the bike was pretty porky but rode well on the flat. Unfortunately when he hit a slope it was like someone had slammed in the brakes.

He finished the review by revealing that he'd loved everything else about the bike so much that he'd gone out and bought the carbon version.

On this forum I doubt I need to make further comment. 

As I think I said earlier, if I wanted to drop weight from my Mercury I'd target pedals and cranks, which might save me 300g.

Another side of this: the Mercury is just more fun to pedal than the Trek ever was. There is definitely something in that resilience, and I think the drivetrain helps too. A 7kg bike is no easier to pedal on a flat road and into a headwind. And a dead feeling 7kg bike is harder to pedal. For all my criticism of the Trek, it had a lovely, lively feeling ride when you were cruising downhill. I just was never that happy when working it.

[Moronic]

I've just checked the bike in its current configuration (see photo) and it's 21.6kg! I had mentally assumed that my additions would have added 5kg, not 10kg.

Says it all, really. If weight mattered that much you'd have had the opposite experience: you'd have sworn you were carrying an extra 10kg, and then weighed it to find out it was 5.

Hmm 21.6 does sound like a lot, but then on my last trip out to the end of the bike trail I had the trunk bag and cockpit bag with a pullover and pump and multitool and phone and specs and rain jacket and the front rack and  ... it was probably past 16kg.

And I didn't notice.

Weight does matter, just not as much as we imagine.

I remember reading cycling books in my teens that emphasised the advantages of low weight. One was the Eugene Sloane omnibus Bicycling. Another was from a British ex-racer who advised that when researching a place to buy a bicycle, you wanted a shop that advertised "lightweight".

I'm developing the theory that readers of such books cultivated a culture in which lighter was better. When the authors' emphases on weight were really about care and design. The really good bikes of the day happened to be lighter. But they weren't  better just because they were lighter. For example, lighter always meant butted 531 or Columbus, which would have felt way better than mild steel alternatives even if they hadn't been lighter.

I've not been immune though. I obsessed for months over whether I might be crazy to look at spending Mercury sums on something heavier than the bike it would replace.

[Aleman]

Take a look at the WeightWeenies forum if you really want to get insane about dropping a couple of grams 

[JohnR]

The felt reality is I'm enjoying climbs way more on the Mercury than I ever did on the Trek. It might be the resilience of the frame, and it might be the abundance of low gears.

Weight does matter, just not as much as we imagine.

And if you want an even lower gear then it's a relatively cheap and simple change to either chainring and/or sprocket (the penalty is needing to spin faster after running out of gears at the top end).

The reward for getting any extra weight uphill is increased willingness of the bike to go downhill.

[Danneaux]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for the baseline weights, as I found it helpful. It seems there is a sort of convergence among my fleet where no matter how light the bike starts in bare form, it ends up much heavier when I adorn it with my preferred kit of mudguards, pump, bottles and cages, frame locks, dynamo lighting and racks. Though I long/lust for a true "go-fast" light bike, it seems they are all destined to be tourers of one sort or another and that requires tailoring them to the task.

My rando bikes all are in the neighborhood of 14.5kg, my enduro-allroad weighs in at 16.3 and my Nomad is squarely at 20kg. I have a lovely full Tange Champion No. 1 steel road bike -- sans lights, racks, bottles and mudguards -- that will soon go on the block because it lacks those things and therefore doesn't see much ride time. My fully equipped touring tandem at 20.8kg is actually my lightweight champ on a per-person basis.

One nice thing about riding a relatively heavy bike or carrying a hefty touring load is you can add the odd individual/luxury item and it really doesn't make much difference because it is a small percentage of the total. I remind myself of that when I take my folding camp chair on tours. 

Best,

Dan.

[PH]

Here's mine:
Rohloff Mercury 13.6kg
853 fork, ti rack, bagman support, R&K bar bracket, ti bottle holders, dynamo and F&R lights, plastic pedals, bell, lightweight tubes, 700c 35/40mm Supreme tyres, heavier rims than needed as they pre-date the bike
Alfine Mercury 13.2kg
ST touring fork. No guards, lights, dynamo or bagman.  Cheap alu rack and bottle holders, 40mm Almotion 700c tyres and light tubes.
Both have similar finishing kit - bars, grips, seatpost, saddle, BB & cranks. Both would have at least 2kg added before they went out the door, bags water, pump, tube and tools.

For comparison - My Rohloff Surly Ogre, is a tank at 18.5kg and my stripped down Hewitt tourer which I hardly ride is 11.8kg.
I've never had a bike under 10kg, but a couple of Audax bikes stayed under 11. 

I don't subscribe to the idea that weight doesn't matter, it isn't the first thing I consider when choosing any component, but it's never disregarded either.  I resent carrying a single gram that offers me no benefit, but will happily carry an extra kg or two if it does.

[martinf]

My two "lightweight" bikes are in the 13-14 kg range empty. That's with the saddlebag and spare tube that stay more or less permanently on the bike, but without the tools, pump, water bottles, small cable lock or other stuff I usually carry.

I do notice the difference compared to my utility bikes and the tourer, which add front and rear racks, frame lock and generally heavier build, so are about  5 or 6 kg heavier when empty. The lightweights have better acceleration and are easier on hills.

It is, however, relative, and partly in the mind. To push things to extremes, my rather heavy and definitely un-aerodynamic trailer only made about 10 to 15% difference to my speed over a 60-70 km route with a few moderate hills and a loaded trailer weight of 60 kg, so shaving a few hundred grams off  the weight of one of my bikes doesn't seem to matter.

Except for one : My lightest bike is a Brompton, currently at 11 Kg. Because I regularly carry the folded bike.

[mickeg]

All my bikes are heavier than they are supposed to be, but all of them have a Brooks saddle and all of them have a mounting for a handlebar bag, either with a second stem or with the 55mm Thorn Accessory T bar.

My lightest would be my road bike, a 2018 Raleigh Grand Prix (steel Ritchey Break Away frame) with a Campy compact double crank and Campy 10 speed drivetrain.    With Ritchey double sided SPD pedals, Brooks Pro, tube & patch Kit, Zefal Pump, no Bottles, 11.9kg.  No fenders or mudguards or racks.  No lighting other than one small AA powered taillight.  28mm tires.

Lightest for touring, Lynskey Backroad titanium frame with steel fork, plastic fenders or mudguards, triple crank and eight speed cassette.  With Shimano A530 Pedals, Lezyne pump, dyno powered lighting, Brooks Conquest, Tubus Tara & Racktime AddIt racks 15.8 kg.  37mm tires.

Heaviest for touring, Nomad Mk II, Rohloff.  With 57mm Schwalbe Extremes, Shimano M324 pedals, Brooks Conquest, dyno powered lighting, Tubus Logo and Axiom front rack, pump, 21.5 kg. 

Rando bike (32mm tires), folding bike, the weights are between the light touring bike and road bike.  Medium touring bike (Sherpa, 40 or 50mm tires) is in between the light touring bike and the Nomad Mk II.

I occasionally do an exercise ride that is about 100km.  I find that the road bike, the rando bike and the light touring bike are all about the same for moving time on that route.  The biggest difference I notice on that route is that my rando bike lowest gear is equivalent to my second lowest gear on my touring bike, my road bike lowest gear is equivalent to third gear on my touring bike.  Thus the most noticeable difference between the three bikes is the available gearing on the steeper uphills.  I do not think the gearing changed the time or speed much, but it was noticeable during the uphills on the ride.  But I am 67, if I was half that age the gearing might have mattered less.

[brummie]

Here's mine:
Rohloff Mercury 13.6kg
853 fork, ti rack, bagman support, R&K bar bracket, ti bottle holders, dynamo and F&R lights, plastic pedals, bell, lightweight tubes, 700c 35/40mm Supreme tyres, heavier rims than needed as they pre-date the bike

You running two tyre sizes? I'm guessing 35mm in the rear due to clearance with guards? ( Mk2 Merc ? ) How do the Supreme tyres measure as an actual width?