I was riding the other day with the Retrobike crew and people were looking at my old Intense Uzzi SLX and saying how heavy it was!
Now I don't weigh anything that goes onto a bike. If it works and looks good (!) then it goes on.
I'm 15.5 stone so riding a light bike wouldn't make that much difference, would it? I know someone that spends a lot of money on his full susser because it makes it lighter. I think that is crazy, or is it just me?
What are the benefits of having a light bike, and what is a light bike? How much does the price go up to get the weight down?
Sorry for the questions. Just intrigued.

What are the benefits of having a light bike

When you sell it, it's cheaper to post?

i had a mount vision that weight just under 24lb climbed great but very sketchy on the way down

if your into marathons and stuff it makes loads in my view.
but if your choice of bike fits you riding style i wouldnt worry about it.

Its easier to pedal up hills and go faster on the flats, Nothing else too it. Light bikes ride nicer on most styles of terrain. Pure DH riding then maybe not. But who actually does full on DH in the real world. Even the DH riders these days have an eye on the weight of the bike. You would find the modern DH rider has a bike thats quite a bit lighter than say ten years ago.

People have heavy bikes because they can't afford a light one end of!

LOL at uplink 🙂

the cost of replacement parts is higher.

the ratio of cost increase/weight loss is not proportional.

You can kid yourself that because it feels faster (particularly uphill) that it really is to any significant extent. 😉

oh and you win the carpark cockfight 😉

here we go again.

It's safe to say this is rather an emotive subject

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/losing-weight-off-the-bike-what-next

It makes no difference if you live and ride on flat land.

Otherwise… 🙂

You need to try one, I love mine!

+ 1 for CG view. Try a real light 140mm bike then you will know 😉

epicyclo wrote, "It makes no difference if you live and ride on flat land."

And also, never accelerate or brake 😉

It's also much easier to get onto the roofrack or into a bike stand.

How much does your uzzi slx weigh? i think mine weighs around 32lb i have never really thought of it being heavy, just built to last.

Look, a 20lb hardtail is going to be pretty rubbish if you like to go downhill hard and fast on technical terrain. Conversely a 40lb freeride rig will be poo if you like to pedal on anything with an uphill gradient. However, if you're not sacrificing the ability of the bike by going lighter, then it is a no brainer: Lighter = better (but also more expensive)

Has anyone mentioned "light, cheap, strong; pick two" yet?

Evening Curly ;). The weight of the Intense was part of it IMHO. We where riding Thetford was the other problem. The Intense felt loverly and plush when i was bouncing around on it, fantastic for bombing down rocky decents or for scrabbling up dodgy climbs where it would carve traction but on the trails we have here it was just to much. Any climbs at Thetford are usually very smooth, 1 – 2 min at the most. You can either honk up them quickly or just spin up them smoothly. Now i weigh 2 stone less than you and even pedalling it around the car park i was getting a fair bit of bob on the beast. Does it have platform damping? also at Thetford due to the trees and some of the trails there can be a fair amount of accelarating out of the corners on twisty tracks, dragging the Intense back up to speed must of been tirring. Don't get me wrong i thought the Intense was a fantastic bike, would love to ride it in wales or the peaks, somewhere to really make use of it. But it's to much bike for Thetford as it is. Maybe stiffen the suspension up and fiddle with youre compression and rebound damping to tame some of the kangaroo antics and i reckon it would be alot easier to ride around there. Saying that it just means i expect to see you there again soon!

What difference does a light bike make? A bigger hole in your pocket!

I personally Buy good OS quality parts that last and wont break, well for the best part anyway! At over 200lb super light wheels, forks etc just don't last and yes I have tried them although it was a few years ago now. Not to mention that the parts flex like mad. Good if your a light weight but not worth looking at IMO if your on the heavier end. Even if your on a 22lb bike the person that weighs 10.5lb on the same weight bike is still going to whip you anyway on that long climb. But on a burlier bike you will have a bigger smile and be going faster on the decent!

in my experience ….. it throws you to the ground faster.

Diference is psychological, but not insignificant.

All IMO.

i did not go for light for 2 main reasons, i am heavy so the grammes i save with ££ are a fraction of what i'd save if i ride my bike more and drink less.. i can at least "ride more" the second option is not likely 😛 .

Secondly i am never going to be little and have a bad habit of breaking things no matter how hard i try not to so i buy bombproof and if its light its as an an afterthought.

So for me its Light, cheap, strong pick two – or just get bombproof. I think the lighter the better but its diminishing returns for your wonga and choice of bike gear depends as much on the riders conformation, riding style/skill and terrain. Bling/tarty bike/bragging rights also have major influences on this topic, its our hobby and our cash so fill ya boots and do what makes you happy. As long as your happy who cares 🙂

It's easier to lift over the car getting it out of the back garden.

That's all, I think?

I definitely think lighter is better, within reason, but I wont sacrifice strength and stiffness. Hence my xc/trail bike is Dialled Alpine. It is light where it can be, but I wouldn't change my lyriks for revs or even pikes and I'm keeping my gravity dropper thank you very much.

Rider weight is definitely a consideration.

Put 100g of stones in your saddlebag.
Can you tell the difference ?
Put 2kg in.
Now can you tell the difference ?
Would you pay an extra £20 for a pair of 'bars because they are
50g lighter ?
Would you pay an extra £200 for a crankset because it is 200g lighter ?
Keep messing with the weights and the prices and eventually you will reach a compromise between what you want and what you can afford.

When I raced XC I light bike made sense as it certainly helped when you were beasting up a hill. But now I dont sprint everywhere and am significantly heavier I prefer a bike that can take some abuse. I dont think weight is so much of an issue.

Extreme example…

My sons bike weighed 17.2kg when bought (Norco B-Line 24") and after much modification, handmedowns and new bits it weighs 13.5kg. So we saved 3.7kg. He only weighs 30kg…

The difference it makes for him is on a another planet – for one he can now pick it up!

And you can see the real difference, just following him.

Lighter is better, its just that to maintain strength requires cash.

Main advantage….

…you can wind up the 'you can't feel extra weight merchants' biffing along on their drain pipe specials 😉

Weight saving is incremental, lighter is always faster given the rider has sufficent skill/fitness to make that lightness pay…..

Even if your on a 22lb bike the person that weighs 10.5lb on the same weight bike is still going to whip you anyway on that long climb.

I think you're suggesting that someone 10.5lbs lighter, on the same bike is going to be faster? Or did you actually mean someone who weighs 10.5lbs!?

Either way, rider weight and speed aren't necessarily related!

A lighter bike is easier to pedal uphill. Full stop. It doesn't matter if you weight 200kg, it's still easier!

My point about light bikes is that the difference when climbing/accelerating and so on is very easy to measure/calculate – save 5lbs on a 25lbs bike and the bike itself will be 20% easier to get up hills. Add in a 170lb (just over 12 stone) rider and that drops to 2.6% – definitely easier but not all that significant compared to other factors (plus saving 5lbs isn't that easy/cheap!) which can have much greater effect and are well know to fluctuate by a fair amount day to day – eg hydration, rider weight, fatigue, nutrition, psychology etc.

Of course, if you had a 175b rider with a 25lb bike and then gave the rider lipo, taking out 10lbs of fat and then attached those 10lbs to the bike instead of the rider, the rider would complain that the bike felt heavy and slow despite the fact that he would almost certainly ride up the hill/accelerate and so on exactly the same as before – that's the psychological difference – light bikes DO feel nicer to ride even if they don't inherently make anywhere near the difference that the rider might feel they do.

There's also a lot of confusion about whether it's the light weight or the bike design that makes it feel good – bikes that are light tend to be designed to transfer power well/be efficient so it's easy to confuse reason the bike feels good when climbing/putting the power down, attributing it to a couple of lbs of weight saving rather than a stiff frame/wheels/etc with fast tyres and so on.

to everyone who says no diffeerence – your dumb. seriously dumb.

there are four elements to vehicle handling. improve them and vehicle gets faster.

acceleration; straight.
acceleration; cornering.
braking
handling.

reducing the weight is the only thing which increases all four.

Define a measurement for 'Handling'. I know people who reckon bikes handle better with heavier wheels but they're air-merchants so like the extra stability that gives them in the air…

Has anyone actually said that it makes NO difference? (Other than epicyclo and I think he was trolling…)

I had mine powder coated in white, I like lighter bikes.. 🙂

to everyone who says no diffeerence – your dumb. seriously dumb.

Brilliant BTW 🙂

Main difference for me is that a light bike gets up to speed quicker.

Don't worry about what the Retrobike people say though, you know how obsessed everyone was with weight back in the '90s.

there are four elements to vehicle handling. improve them and vehicle gets faster.

acceleration; straight.
acceleration; cornering.
braking
handling.

reducing the weight is the only thing which increases all four.

Handling is an element of vehicle handling? Reducing weight 'increases handling'?

to everyone who says no diffeerence – your dumb. seriously dumb.

Brilliant BTW

Even better 😉

Main difference for me is that a light bike gets up to speed quicker

Exactly… see my post re. 'rediscovering an old bike'… rode my old ASR last night for the first time in a year or so (been riding an Enduro SL mainly instead) and the difference in acceleration was ridiculous, along with the amount of effort needed to keep it at speed. Light is good, but I'm now trying to find a bike that melds the ASR & Enduro into one (light & fast but with planted 'bottomless' travel)…

In the race camp lightness is good.

Though riding a very light bike in the Peak was like going downhill on an empty tin can.

and the difference in acceleration was ridiculous, along with the amount of effort needed to keep it at speed.

Is it 20lbs lighter? or do you weigh about 2 stone?

If not then I stand by my points above – it's either psychological or the 'faster' bike is set up to be fast – eg faster tyres, better position, stiffer under power.

I remember reading a test in a US magazine where they took (road) bikes of decreasing weight and rode them up a long road climb at a constant power. The difference was significant, not the >2% figures being suggested ie your speed increased by a bigger proportion than the weight dropped.

I don't really care why, but it's not as simple as looking at combined rider/bike weight.