[Closed] Are bikes generally getting heavier?

Maybe reviewers are now weighing the bikes for themselves and not depending on press handouts/STW forumites for weights?

I think the trend for bigger forks means a burlier bike. Maybe the CEN thing has had an effect too.

You can get 20lb full sussers now, so I'm not sure this is true. Maybe it's because bikes are getting more expensive, so for roughly the same money you're now ending up with a heavier bike? That combined with the fact that general trail riding is involving harder, more technical and more aggressive terrain, so travel is increasing and components are having to be beefed up to be able to withstand more punishment?

I'm riding a heavier bike than last year. Went from a 100mm light carbon hardtail (20lb) to a 100mm light FS (24lb) and now have a 28lb FS.

I'd take the 27lb bike over the other 2 for almost all the riding I do.

Hasn't the definition of "trail" changed? In 2004 Marin would still cite the number of Polaris events won on Mount Visions in their mainstream adverts. Today, "trail" riding implies you're nailing sick air and fighting off bears somewhere at least a mile from a carpark. As ashfanman says, the possibility of stupidly light bikes is there, but the mid-budget mainstream has got very interested in gnarl at gthe expense of weight.

I think that's right. The marketing has leant towards showing people riding more and more 'extreme' stuff and needing the bike to do that, however most people still just ride regular xc type off road trails and don't need that 6" travel 33lb mosnter they bought cos it was on special offer... 😳

When most trail centres are easily rideable on a hardtail, albeit with slacker angles than of old then we're really buying into an industry-led idea of 'need' rather than what we are really riding 90% of the time.

There's a lot of nonsense talked about weight.

My 27lb full susser is slower point to point than my 33lb full susser.

My 33lb bike is most definitely slower uphill than my 26lb bike, but whether that is to do with the weight, the geometry, the tyres or a combination is another matter. It's certainly faster downhill.

My gut is getting heavier, so I buy titanium earrings to offset the weight. It makes riding up hills easier and cooler.

No, I think it's just that you've bought a particularly heavy trail bike muddydwarf.

no my first mtb in 1989 weighed close to 40lbs. still the benchmark for weight, agree with the case of weight meaning little

I did, and it's great as a play bike and trail centre job, but i noticed that a lot of the bikes in the test were hovering around a similar weight. None were as light as 26lb (although mine is a small) so it does seem as though we are currently going through a fad for long-travel, extreme imagery burly bikes with the weight penalty that incurs.
In time i suspect we'll see a return to 100mm travel lightweight bikes being touted as the 'new' standard for off road riding!

Geometry and tyre choice also have a massive bearing. Let me illustrate the case in point. I have two full sussers, a 2004 Enduro and a 2009 Wolf Ridge with 160mm forks.

The Enduro is light on it's feet at 27lbs and sporting 2" fast rolling tyres all round. The Marin is built as a skills compensator and as such weighs 33lb ish.

On a 20+ mile ride, I am always less fatigued and faster on the Marin. The only time the Enduro will build an appreciable lead over the Marin is during long, technical climbs. The long top tube and better rear traction on the Enduro are a clear advantage here. However as soon as the trail levels out, the fact that the Marin is far less bob prone than the Enduro makes it a less tiring bet, despite carrying 6lb extra in weight.

They're not getting heavier.
This DH bike is under 30lb
[img] [/img]

+1 actuals and probably weighing a real sized one, rather than an XS

Same in the motorbike world too.

Each of my bikes have got lighter over the past few years. My 2006 race bike was an S-Works carbon hardtail which was 22.3lbs, now got a Top Fuel FS at 20.4lbs, generally with more durable parts too.

Riding and subsequent demands are changing, but bikes are getting lighter.

Yea, and MBR's trail bike of the year was always the s-works frame super bling bike. The token £2000 'sensible' choice was always 30-31lb. Look at the Pitch, thats the same weight, more travel, 'better', but despite inflation is only £1700 rather than £2k?

The trend has definately been away from XC bikes, probably because to get the most out of them you need to be super skileld and super fit, whereas any middle aged (which is where the money is) office worker can blunderbuss a Trek Remedy down the local Red trail center and spin up the other side, and the extra speed on the downs is interpreted as more fun.

Plus Shimano etc. prices have gone mental recently so bikes in WMTB price range that used to have XT (with maybe XTR mech) are now wearing SLX etc. and definitely chunkier tyres.

Market seems to be following most peoples experiences. First mtb was a bit chunky. They liked the biking so then tried to make things as light as possible. Which promptly broke so backed off a little. And the magazines said to be a proper trail bike it needed to be 6inch travel, bolt thrus, 2.4" tyres, big risers etc. and we all accepted that as gospel and ran out to buy our new Remedies.

And to be fair, manufacturers don't have to spend as much money with better materials/more research/machining etc. to get midweight stuff so maybe it's convenient they've all decided to make their bikes a little more lardy but still charge the same...