• This topic has 198 replies, 60 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by br.
Viewing 39 posts - 161 through 199 (of 199 total)
  • are we obsessing over bike weights (again)?
  • njee20
    Free Member

    Considering my Fuel is 21lbs, your scales certainly don't over weigh, or if they do, mine do so even more 😉

    simonfbarnes
    Free Member

    and if it feels really nice to ride a light bike (for whatever reason) then surely that's ok?

    I never said it wasn't OK 🙂

    solarider
    Free Member

    I have a few road bikes. The lightest is under 14lbs, and the heaviest about 19lbs, but the heavier one is far more reassuring to ride.

    I have a few mountain bikes. The lightest hardtail is about 21lbs, and the heaviest 7 inch full susser is about 33lbs. They each have their uses, but for sheer fun and smiles, the 33lb full susser does it for me every time. Having said that, they are all built up with some of the lightest parts possible for their build, so as much as weight doesn't matter in terms of a 'horses for courses' bike, within a certain type, lower weight is usually an advantage if it does't compromise handling, robustness, safety or fun.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    br
    Free Member

    I use to have a 23lb carbon HT, a friend borrowed it. And from been at the back on his ancient heavy thing, he was suddenly mid-pack. And enthusing about how well it rode, and how easy it was to pedal up hills.

    He then bought himself a s/h Boardman HT, mainly due to the (lack of) weight per £.

    Some will say its the Placebo effect, but even my limited understanding of gravity/force/effort tells me otherwise.

    chakaping
    Free Member

    Some will say its the Placebo effect, but even my limited understanding of gravity/force/effort tells me otherwise.

    I think most of us have reached a similar conclusion, but arguing with some people seems a bit like banging your head against a brick wall.

    But without the excitement.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    They each have their uses, but for sheer fun and smiles, the 33lb full susser does it for me every time

    Yep.. I never race on my Patriot, but I rarely take my race bike out to the hills.

    ooOOoo
    Free Member

    Well at least the designers are obsessing over bike weights. So all middle aged men have to do themselves is just splash the cash.

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    I have to say the general rule of weight saving so far as I’m concerned has always been wheels before anything else, specifically the outer circumference; the Rims, Tyres and Tubes (if you use them) and this will have the greatest effect on handling and acceleration, look at it this way you have a 2 wheeled vehicle with 26” (or 29”) control and drive wheels, both of which are generating significant gyroscopic forces and both of which need to be spun up to speed and decelerated by the puny Biped in the saddle, the lighter they are the easier they are to accelerate, decelerate and turn, we live in the age of the sensibly Strong & Light Rim and reasonable weight Kevlar tyres, I think if anyone asked me what is the best way to spend ~£100 “lightening” a bike, my suggestion would always be look at rims and tyres first, obviously this takes total weight down a notch but effect of saving 1Lb on a wheelset is more marked than saving 1Lb of drivetrain, frame, fork, or finishing kit…

    Overall weight of the machine is of course academic, because the heffalump sat on top will always be the heaviest component and the best thing to try and reduce the weight of…
    Plus I think it’s worth considering the actual need for 5 litres of water, six mars bars, a full servicing tool kit, a Gortex jacket and liner and a sodding great pump when you’re only trundling round swinley for 2.5 Hrs on a sunny Sunday morning, the Camelbak has probably added more weight to most mountain bikers expeditions than their bike ever will, “compact and efficient” seems to be an alien concept to many these days.

    As so many people frequently point out the fit of a bike is the most important thing, why you would compromise fit for marginal weight saving is beyond me, a badly fitting bike will fatigue you far quicker than a well fitted bike which is a couple of pounds heavier…

    I won’t deny total weight can have a bearing on performance but it’s way down the list (whether on a flat out XC race machine or a 6” bouncy trail bike) above it you will find rider position, Wheel and Tyre choice, suitable equipment for the ride/race you’re doing and all of these allow more efficient use of the energy a rider has, a light bike so long as it ticks all of the other boxes will be a “better” more efficient machine but the cost of building a sub 22Lbs bike is relatively high, I can’t imagine anyone other than a “Very Serious” racer would require such a machine, and certainly not the average trail centre pootler…

    molgrips
    Free Member

    the lighter they are the easier they are to accelerate, decelerate and turn

    And the smaller they are.. 26ers are more manoevrable than 29ers. Not I do not say 'faster'… Moment of inertia is dependent on the fourth power of the distance from the centre of rotation (iirc) as well as mass.

    Overall weight of the machine is of course academic

    Only if you are slogging up a smooth fire-road or road climb. Not at all academic on singletrack.

    why you would compromise fit for marginal weight saving is beyond me

    I wouldn't.

    I can’t imagine anyone other than a “Very Serious” racer would require such a machine

    Require? We don't 'require' any of it.

    So to sum up – light weight is quicker, but not at the expense of to much comfort or control (note none of the contributors here have said anything like that).

    And who on this thread is an 'average trail centre pootler'?

    We on this thread clearly care about our bikes in specific ways.. so I would assume we want more out of them than something to trundle about Afan on.

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    And who on this thread is an 'average trail centre pootler'?

    Moi, when I’m at one, ‘a’ trudlin…

    I think you’ve chosen to take umbrage at my post which was really just stating a few general rules (of my own concoction) essentially stating that total bike weight is not the primary key to “better performance” and reduced rider fatigue, it’s merely a contributor and comes in 4th or 5th place behind some other concerns, I wasn’t talking specifically about flat backed XC racers but I guess some of what I typed applies, and Racers aren’t the only people who buy bikes/parts or use this bike forum… I wasn’t really disagreeing with anything you’d written (not that I can really be arsed to read all of the diatribes in this thread up to this point) but if I’ve offended you I promise it wasn’t intentional…

    Targeting any loss of weight at key areas and improving bike fit, yield more “Bang per Buck” (or GBP) than simply throwing £4.5K at Carbon and Ti and assuming the headline weight figure is all you need to worry about…

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Cookeaa, wasn't offended – didn't mean to sound narky.

    What you say is of course true and my aim is not to argue against it.

    Just take exception to others telling me I'm an easily led idiot…

    Light is good but not the only good thing.

    Scienceofficer
    Free Member

    I think the Camelback point is a good one.

    Its so easy to carry stuff without really feeling encumbered by it, so that temptation is to throw anything you fancy in there. I think the backpack contents thread was done a while ago, and it was quite and eye-opener!

    Ah! Here it is: http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/kitlists-and-multitools

    pypdjl
    Free Member

    Stuff in the camelbak is only wasted weight if you don't need it though. You could head out on every ride with no pump, no tubes, no tools and no water, would save alot of weight but wouldn't be a great idea!

    njee20
    Free Member

    I don't use a Camelbak…

    I also don't carry a tube.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I think the Camelback point is a good one.

    It's also why XC racers virtually never use them. I wouldn't if I could get someone to bottle me. I also wouldn't carry a tube since if you puncture, that's basically it. I used to take seal'n'flate, now I use tubeless.

    njee20
    Free Member

    Just ask randoms, there's always someone to bottle, the feed zone's full of them!

    pypdjl
    Free Member

    Presumably you carry what you generally need though? ie some water, some method of reinflating a tyre, a minitool, etc. (For a normal ride, not a race).

    njee20
    Free Member

    Yep, a water bottle (with a view to buying another bottle somewhere en route if appropriate), a multi tool with chain tool and a CO2 pump. Sorted!

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Just ask randoms, there's always someone to bottle, the feed zone's full of them!

    Mm, good idea. My wife did it once but didn't watch out for me coming, so I had to stop and look for her before taking the bottle. Ok so it was a 100km enduro but still 🙂

    I was thinking some kind of stand arrangement like how they used to collect mailbags on wild west trains…

    njee20
    Free Member

    Gee used to do that, he had a little table. I tried it on occasion, but found it really difficult to not send them all flying! You must know someone who has a wife/girlfriend/boyfriend etc that comes along!

    HoratioHufnagel
    Free Member

    doesn't this all depend on the terrain? i felt a light bike was most advantageous riding round thetford, which has no hills. It just *feels* so much nicer to whiz through the trees throwing the bike around when it doesn't weight very much.

    SpokesCycles
    Free Member

    I don't understand this "light kit must be fragile" nonsense either. I'm running a pair of 3 year old Stans Olympics and they're bang true running on 2.1" Schwalbes used for normal XC stuff- red routes, local trails, races, that sort of thing.

    In a real world application on beefier bikes, a 27-28lb 6" bike need not be silly. Just look at Lapierre bikes. Very tough, very fast, very light. And guaranteed to be more fun all round than some 33lb bumplehammer.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    What's your point Macavity?

    Want me to post pictures of all my non-broken carbon stuff? 🙂

    As for fragility – get the lightest kit you can be confident of not breaking. Surely this is obvious? Personally, I will run all but the very lightest of kit.

    chiefgrooveguru
    Full Member

    A typical thoroughbred horse weighs over 1000lbs but as little as 5lbs of handicapping makes a significant different to its position in a race!

    HTTP404
    Free Member

    Depends if the race is uphill or downhill and whether the jockey is wearing a camelbak. 🙂

    br
    Free Member

    Just put my lighter wheels on my 456Ti, now weighs 24lb with pedals and cruds.

    Not bad for a 20" frame running 140mm bolted forks, 183mm discs, 2.1 tyres, a wide riser bar and a triple chainset.

    poppa
    Free Member

    I go out for fast 2hr rides with a group each week, some of whom are incredibly fit (at least IMO). The fastest guy by a significant margin rides a heavy 120mm full sus!

    The bikes are a mix of alu, carbon and steel hardtails and alu full-sussers. There is no correlation to who is fastest and what bike they ride – the fastest guys are the fittest guys.

    Not sure what my point is. Maybe, get fit first and then worry about bike weight later.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    chiefgrooveguru, interesting point, I like that.

    adeward
    Free Member

    The bikes are a mix of alu, carbon and steel hardtails and alu full-sussers. There is no correlation to who is fastest and what bike they ride – the fastest guys are the fittest guys

    come on it's easy ,,, two indentical guys one on a 40lb bike and one on a 20lb bike climbing to the top of snowdon

    place your bets i know who i would put my hard earned cash on

    sockpuppet
    Full Member

    Weight saved by weight weenie-ness?

    say 4kg

    Total performance improvement?

    Not very much at all really….

    …over a 2km climb, losing 4kg makes you 8.06 seconds faster.

    If you climbed a 2km climb 3 times, I would guess that you wouldn't get times within 8 seconds of each other; so your presumed performance enhancement is lost in the noise…

    so you'll be strapping 4kg of lead* to your bike and claiming it makes you no slower?

    or, more importantly to many here i suspect, makes you have no less fun??

    *or 4kg feathers, or 4kg of whatever, yes i know.

    zaskar
    Free Member

    Weighed my new saddle today, 290grams off making my roadbike 7.5kg

    But if I bought new wheels, 500g off, new chainset 200g, 100g cassette and chain and a better finishing kit 150g easy…

    Hmm if I lost 20kg off my waistline and it's free/cheaper!

    steve_b77
    Free Member

    I must admit I've started on a bit of a mission to loose weight off my Nicolai as I've started entering more Enduros and the like.

    Swapped the coil U-turn Rev's for Dual Airs – about 700g's there (I think)

    Not spent much yet, but I've gone from 2.35" Maxpro HR's to 2.25" Nobby Nics and lost about 200g's of each tyre.

    Swapped my post from a pro-lite one to a Thomson and saved 100g's (primarily 'cos I liek how the Thomson looks)

    Swapped the bars from Sunline V2's to USE Atom Carbons – must be 150g's lighter.

    Also fitted new XT mechs & shifters – only because I wanted them for crimbo though 😆

    So for not a massive outlay I've saved about 500g's, which is nice, next step is a new set of wheels as DT5.1's on Pro II's are overkill for me now – they were on a 160mm travel FS and I did weigh 87kgs, now I'm a good 7kg's lighter so fancy some lighter wheels – should be a saving of around 300-500g's depending on what I get.

    So overall, with minimal outlay I've shed a good 1.2kg's and almost 0.5kg's of rotating mass – and I have noticed a difference – feels nicer. Being fitter probably helps too 😆

    juan
    Free Member

    In a real world application on beefier bikes, a 27-28lb 6" bike need not be silly. Just look at Lapierre bikes. Very tough, very fast, very light. And guaranteed to be more fun all round than some 33lb bumplehammer.

    Hummm funny you think they are fast… The only lapierre that gets on the podium of enduros series is nicola's one. I know several people who have tried one and they say it's a barge. If all goes well, I might be able to try one very soon right size for me and rider similar weight so I can have an opinion. ANd light kit IS fragile, there is no secret in the bike industrie. Alloy is alloy. So if you shed some weight out of a rim (fro example DT) it means less metal (in this case on the side of the rim) so they are more fragile (in this case they get dinged easily).

    juan
    Free Member

    I don't use a Camelbak…

    I also don't carry a tube.
    😯 😯 😯 😯
    Now you've said a lot of stuff making no sense… But this one is probably the best.
    How do you drink? Or do you stay on tarmac roads? What if you punctures? I can't really see myself walking 4 hours with the bike oon the back to go down to the car…

    Dickyboy
    Full Member

    Sorry for giving this thread a new lease of life, but just read up on some of the maths and the kinetic energy of a moving wheel is roughly equivalent to mass x velocity squared, whereas the kinetic energy of the non rotating parts of a bike is HALF mass x velocity squared – hence the preference to reduce weight of wheels tyres etc – 500g saved on the wheels is worth 1kg on the rest of the bike.
    However even if you have a 5% difference in potential energy & 5% difference in overall kinetic energy when comparing a 30lbs bike plus rider to a 20lbs bike plus rider – the rotating mass accounts for only about 1% of this difference.
    All these feable percentages got me wondering if the correlation is actually non linear, for example I can easily run a half marathon in 2hrs but if I added a 30lb pack on my back (15% of my body weight) I doubt that I'd be able to complete one in 2hrs 18mins – in fact I doubt that I'd even be able to run up some of the hills that I normally can at all – ie I'd be more than 15% slower – so can the reverse not also be true to some extent when climbing a hill on a bike?. Aside from all the obvious "not a good example you are carrying all the weight on your back" comments, what about other non linear effort gains such as increasing from fast walking pace of 4mph to running at 8mph (most reasonably fit people can achieve this with a bit of training) to then running at 12mph which is only the domain of top athletes at half marathon distances. ie there are huge leaps in fitness required to achieve only small improvements in performance at the top end of the scales.
    Just a few thoughts to ponder anyway & in answer to the OP's original question, well if nobody else is then I obviously am…. 😳
    .
    .
    . and I've already decided to swap my 570g all mountain rims for some 440g ones whatever anyone says

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Juan I think he meant he doesn't use a Camelbak during XC races.

    Dickyboy – good point. Most of the would-be physicists on this thread only talked about the effort required to gain potential energy during a climb. You put what I was trying to say a better way – on singletrack with braking and accelerating, most of your effort goes into the kinetic energy of the bike.

    And it definitely is non-linear. I can ride at 300W for half an hour, but not at 315W. But what they are saying is given a particular power, if you+bike weigh 5% more you'll only be 5% slower winching your way up a long climb. And I agree – IF it's a smooth road or fire-road climb. I think 5% less weight on the bike makes a significant difference to singletrack.

    njee20
    Free Member

    How do you drink? Or do you stay on tarmac roads? What if you punctures? I can't really see myself walking 4 hours with the bike oon the back to go down to the car…

    Sorry, our all-knowing French associate was demanding answers… Actually, whilst I own a few, I don't tend to use a Camelbak ever, they irritate me! I drink on climbs or bits of fireroad, even with a Camelbak I can't say I've ever decided to drink whilst descending! I take a bottle, or two sometimes, with a view to topping up en route, it's not really a hardship frankly!

    I don't carry a tube because in the 8 years I've been using tubeless I've never had to put one in. I've had very few punctures, those I've had the sealant has sealed, or in a couple of instances I've torn the tyre irrepairably, and a tube wouldn't help.

    I'm very happy to admit that my average ride (like many I imagine) is 3-4 hours. If I was doing the epic rides that you clearly are where I'm 350 miles for the nearest badger I would likely take a spare tube and stuff, but seeing as an average ride is 40 miles or so at most, and I'm rarely that far from home it's just not a huge issue for me. I usually pass several bike shops on a ride too, so if it was really necessary I could just buy a spare tube!

    Is this not a wonderful example of you being right, and everyone else being wrong, or is it just a chance to wave your c0ck about, because I'm struggling to see it from here…

    br
    Free Member

    or in a couple of instances I've torn the tyre irrepairably, and a tube wouldn't help.

    Course it would, as long as you carried a tyre 'boot' to fill in the gap.

    Did the very same on a recent ride with a fellow STW after flint ripped my tyre up.

Viewing 39 posts - 161 through 199 (of 199 total)

The topic ‘are we obsessing over bike weights (again)?’ is closed to new replies.