It wasn't long ago when 30lbs was considered to be about as heavy as you would want a trail bike to be, now it almost seems that 30lbs is light for a trail bike and its not unusual for bikes to be much heavier than this,there does seem to me to be too much of an emphasis on how fast a bike can be ridden downhill with too little consideration to how it rides the rest of the time
https://www.bikeperfect.com/features/bespoken-word-does-cycling-have-an-obesity-problem
Whats a lbs ? Is that like an old word for Kilo ?
how can they sell you next years "lightweight" version if they don't first have a porker?
like road, we had aero, now its aero + lightweight
Given that you can buy an off the peg Specialized race bike at under 19lbs then I'm going with no.
What has changed is where the priorities of mainstream MTBer lie, or where they're told that they should lie. The whole family of bikes from light to heavy is still available, your view appears to be coloured by something - either what your mates ride or what the press tells you you should like.
I ride an XC 100mm FS for my main bike. It's not slow on descents now it has a dropper and given that much of my riding is tight single-track rather than rocky blasts, I don't yearn for more travel for most of it. I would like a long travel trail bike but only as a third option.
Feel free to shop for a lighter bike - there are plenty out there.
I want to say yes but ..... I have a very light mtb, it feels like cheating when climbing, however it’s pants coming down. We have DH bikes in the house, great at coming down and never going to climb. I am amazed how capable a modern (not that light) enduro bike is at going up and down.
No - agree with molgrips
I’d change the question to… “are many people buying bikes that are too heavy for their needs?”
People are buying way more capable bikes than ever before… not everyone needs to be. Lighter bikes are still available. And most of us could easily just swap out to lighter faster tyres etc if we were prepared for them to be less robust and confidence inspiring.
Guy Kes wrote something on this, recently… I’ll dig it out…
I dont think they are. A 35lb enduro shred sled is fit for purpose at that weight. I do think though however that many peopme buy shred sleds for bimbling, and therefore think their bike is too heavy. lf ya catch my drift
My Hightower is a good 7lb heavier than the yeti asr5 it replaced with alike for like groupset . Had to get fitter for the climbs but it certainly feels more strong and stable on the descents. As Teresa may would say.
TBH I think there's just more range than there used to be, you can still buy a light trailbike. Though, bigger wheels have added weight to pretty much everything.
It's just that now there's a lot more heavier, more capable bikes in the weight class above than there used to be. Especially at the cheaper end of the market, budget big-hitters are much more common now.
Maybe the choice of light trailbikes has reduced as a result but there's still plenty out there. I do wonder though if maybe the "default" bike that people tend to choose has got chunkier than it needs to be? For me it's great that you can have a 160mm 29er that can genuinely do anything, but that doesn't make it the right choice for most people.
What Kelvin says for the most part, but agree that even the bikes that are arguably more suitable are a bit weighty these days. My T130C was over 30lb stock and it took a lot to get it under that. I do giggle at folks who will only ever ride trail centre reds who insist a 160mm enduro is a prerequisite for their riding, I’m quite happy with a 120mm bike with decent geometry that’s a good few lb lighter thanks!
Not for me. I think the extra weight is worth it.
Both fun- and speed-wise, I’ll take my enduro bike over my XC bike on anything that isn’t uphill or road.
And it’s so nice not having to fix punctures in the ice and snow.
Riding to and from the forest on a big bouncy bike because of Welsh lockdown rules is character-building but probably useful cross-training.
(It’s also pretty unusual as almost everyone else I know is still driving up and riding in groups.)
My enduro bike is 17kg, compared to its equivalent that I owned in 2014 that was 14.5kg.
Whats different? Bigger wheels, tougher tyres, much longer frame, stiffer forks, coil shock, bigger brakes.
I now enjoy no punctures thanks to dual ply tyres (compared to the old paper thin trail tyres back then), better geometry makes me faster up and down, suspension works better too and I can ride bigger, steeper terrain faster.
My viewpoint is that we're shaking off the outdated roadie mentality of "light is right" and looking to function, performance and reliability first, and weight is just a measure of the end product, rather than a target point.
Yes. Everything is bigger than it was. Bigger, wider rims to support bigger, wider, thicker tyres, which allow you to go downhill faster, which requires stiffer frames, forks and bigger brakes.
Frame materials can help keep this weight in check, but only at significant cost. 1*drivetrains which at the top end are lighter than the 2* they replaced, but for the entry level Group-set a are VERY heavy.
The shame of the extra weight is that a lot of it is in the wheels where you feel it most. This will only get worse for riders of traditional bikes as ebikes become more prevalent and weight matters less.
120mm is enough for me and I’ll be looking more toward 100-120mm and sub 12kg for my next ride.
The move to big wheels has added weight to everything.
15 years ago freeride bikes were going out the doors like hot cakes, they were mostly close to 40lbs.
it is an interesting question. i moved from a The Following to a Murmur and didn’t really notice the weight while riding. i did notice how much better the Murmur did everything, though.
then, i had a quick spin on a friend’s Pivot 429 Trail and could not believe how sprightly it felt.
in an ideal world i would have a 120 light travel bike (that new Transition looks ideal) to go along with my 140 bike, but i’d rather do all the riding that i do on my Murmur than on a lighter shorter travel bike.
I bought a 2016 anthem which weighed in at 28lb stock. The 2018 that replaced it was 30lb.
I have no idea why.
I think Kelvin is probably right and the question should have been “are many people buying bikes that are too heavy for their needs?” I was interested in peoples views after reading the Guy Kes article that Kelvin posted the link to
I reckon that dropper posts, especially the latest mentally long ones, account for 1lb of the difference alone.
Would I sacrifice one to save the weight though, no.
Edit. Just went and read the bike perfect article and clicked on one of the links. Funny that a week earlier Guy listed the Specialized Status as one of his picks of the year, saying the it rode great despite weighing 15kg!
I would have said yes 10 or even 5 years ago where a 30lb+ trail bike seemed insane.
Not anymore though, no idea what my Stage 5 weighs but it'll be 30lb+ easy but somehow rides better up, down or along better than any of my old MTB's. It may well be witchcraft but heavy bikes don't fell their weight like heavy bikes used to.
Totally agree with @andyrm
My current bike is edging towards 16kg, easily the heaviest that I've owned. That said, the only times I've ever really noticed the weight of a bike was when I tried an emtb and thought 'holy $hit, this is too heavy' and a friends' light xc bike, where I was worried about breaking it going off a curb.
I totally bought into that whole 'lightweight is better' cult back in the 90's til late 2000's.
Bikes are getting heavier but so are wheels and tyres.
I used to ride with 750g tyres now they are 1000g. My cassette is 526g rather than 350g. Brake discs are bigger as are forks. It all adds up 454g is a lb.
Yep - I think most people probably got the gist of the question being asked. Of course bikes at the extremes has always been available - it's what the modal average weight of the bikes being bought (or the mean average weight of the bikes in your average popular mtb car park) that's the question.
Wider tyres, larger diameter rims, wider rims, dropper posts. It all adds up even if it's like for like travel bikes. But I'd say the capability of bikes in terms of ability to take an average rider down hills swiftly has gone up massively too.
A strange phenomenon has happened over the last 10 years - to a significant chunk of the mtb market Mountain Mayhem or Sleepless in the Saddle (or a Polaris event) would be the highlight of their year or what they were getting fit to be able to do. Now, not so much - people drifted away for more gnar. At the same time gravel bikes have snuck along and become popular. You could argue a Gravel bike would have been perfect for a Polaris event.
If the market had been promoted differently and 100mm travel front and rear was still the default purchase (with an Orange 5 for the adventurous, and a Orange Alpine for your super rad mate with the skillz you only dreamt of off to do the Transalp) would gravel bikes have become a thing? Or did they need the centre of gravity of the mtb market to get a bit more beefy to allow the hole in the market to appear for them to slot into.
I prefer heavier more capable bikes by the way. And tyres. In the summer, if I want speed, I go for faster rolling and less grip, not flimsy sidewalls and bed. So just a touch lighter semi slick on the rear etc. 950g instead of 1050g. And you can take heavy dropper post out of my cold dead hands.
But I also think that short travel lighter builds will become more popular again soon enough.
Nah, I don’t think they are.
BITD, a lightish bike weighed 26lb or so, and would have been a rigid steel 26er.
You can get fs 29ers that are about that weight, and they’ll be far far more capable than my 30 yr old 26er was.
You can get even more capable bikes of course, which may not be that light, but I don’t think an average decent bike now is any heavier than back in the early 90s, despite being ‘better’ in almost every way.
There’s far too much sensible agreement and discussion in this thread!
To mix it up… people are currently buying gravel bikes rather than light mountain bikes (which is what they probably really need). Time for some renaming? Can we call light short travel mountain bikes with narrower rims and smaller faster rolling tyres something new…?
I have a 600m big hill out the back of my garden, 30min solid climb, sections of 20%+ grade before turning it around and booting on the downslopes. My extensive testing on different bikes over a long period has shown that for me anything over 28lbs sucks the pleasure out of climbing and is not for me, had a 26lb Full susser a decade ago that was a joy to climb on. I hold a mildly controversial opinion that modern trail bikes don't climb quite as well as the best Xc geometry bikes from the past (I have a 5010 that sucks compared to an old Ells Epiphany), and that combined with the excessive weight has legitimately pushed many people to E-Bikes to get there smiles back.
You’ve bought eBikes into it! That’s worse than my sin. Thread could go anywhere now…
My current bike weights 17kg (this before I slap a pair of DH tyres later this month). It climbs amazingly due to proper suspension kinematics and geometry, it's totally reliable, super durable and will do everything from trail riding to DH. It's a thing of wonder to be able to just pickup your bike and go for a 40 mile, 1500m elevation gain ride, or for a DH shuttle day knowing that the thing will perform and at the everything will be straight, tyres intact, etc.
Edit: I should add that there are a few places that could be considered weight "free lunches". I was recently choosing between XT and Saint SPD pedals, knowing that I don't care for the Saint pins (had a set some years ago) and that the XT are more than 100g lighter, I went for the XT.
Tyres are something I'm not willing to compromise anymore. I found out long ago that any time I save climbing on lighter tyres I then waste in DH performance, at the trailside repairing them and on my bank account by having to replace them every 2 months
Tyres are interesting. Like, not so long ago, I thought a 700g 2.35 tyre was totally reasonable, in fact I even did stuff like the first daft Kinlochleven enduro on a pair of singleply nevegals. It was just kind of how we rolled. Then I went to the original Butcher Controls (and Butcher SXs for downhill) and that was fine too. But now? At least a kilo at either end and I still feel like I'm pushing teh limit on lightness. Obviously bigger tyres are heavier but it's way more than that.
Couldn't tell you what drove that tbh. My riding's changed but not so massively- I mean, I rode an EWS round on the Controls. That seems like madness now. Maybe the bike industry has been sharpening the rocks?
Wheels got bigger. Rubber is surprisingly heavy, big wheels need more rubber and put it further away from the centre of rotation.
people are currently buying gravel bikes rather than light mountain bikes
If I was after either I would take the light MTB but light MTBs are twice the price (or more) of the equivalent weight gravel bike, backing up the point of this thread. You can still get a light bike but it will cost a lot of money.
It feels like a lot fewer bikes break nowadays, so maybe they were too light before?
A current gravel bike is basically the same as the first MTBs I had, just with different shape handlebars.
The latest enduro bikes are more capable than the freeride bikes of the early 2000s. Probably snap less too!
It was an interesting article.
It's bunny hoping and manuals where you feel the weight.
Tyres and wheels is where you feel it most though. I remember riding a 36-37lb Kona Coiler, with 2.3s, and that was surprisingly sprightly compared to the Spec Enduro I tried next, which ran 2.5s, double wall and despite that being all air shox.
The drive train point he had was very pertinent though.
I'm on 11 speed Sunrace / Shimano, tried Eagle, didn't really appreciate the range. If I was speccing a bike from stock, I think I'd be tempted to go Box 9 and microdrive the front ring.
Might even try it would with 10 speed XT and a 28t on the front!
As most say, things have moved on, tyres have increased in weight, the race for low weight went away and people wanted more durability and strength, same with frames and parts, instead of making them racing weight, they moved to durability again, dropper posts came along and added a pound to the weight, travel went up, where freeride/enduro was 5", it's now up at around 7", i mean nowadays folk call 120mm travel down-country/XC.
Anyway, are they getting heavy, yes, but it's what the market wants, of course we'd love 21lb 170mm full sussers which don't break, but that never came along.
If I was after either I would take the light MTB but light MTBs are twice the price (or more) of the equivalent weight gravel bike, backing up the point of this thread. You can still get a light bike but it will cost a lot of money.
This is a very good point. When I got my gravel bike I also looked at XC MTB's. Came to the conclusion any XC bike I wanted would be twice the price of the gravel bike so went drops.
I've always thought that one reason that one gets such a range of opinion on these things is that a 5lb weight difference has more of an effect on 'feel' for a 160lb rider as a total system weight than it does for say a 200lb rider, especially as a heavier rider could have stronger muscles developed by being accustomed to a heavier mass - so there'll rarely be a consensus as the weight difference is literally having a different effect.
Although tyres have probably put on 200/300g per end, The quality of the ride, grip, confidence and lack of punctures is absolutely 100% totally worth it. There's no way I'd go back to 2.1 Panaracers or Conti Explorers.
As said above depends what you buy went out today in the snow over Cotswolds on my F.S stache she is a heavy girl at 34lbs but climbs well and takes rocky descents so well yet my cross bike is half the weight but you go downhill a lot slower over those rocks thats the way it is.
Interesting discussion.
Looking at media content on mtb from the US, Canada and major mtb centres in Europe, I get the impression that uplifts are becoming ubiquitous at major trail centres. From my own experience, I am also surprised at how little attention is given in bike reviews to climbing qualities relative to say descending / cornering / ease of getting the wheels off the ground. I suspect most mtbers will have a grinding climb somewhere on their ride to gain the elevation to descend.
What I'm saying in a roundabout way is, is there a perception at the business end that mtbs are being used differently? (hence less concern around climbing / weight).
I’ve always thought that one reason that one gets such a range of opinion on these things is that a 5lb weight difference has more of an effect on ‘feel’ for a 160lb rider as a total system weight than it does for say a 200lb rider,
As a 200lb rider I disagree. I notice the difference between my 29er and full suss bike just the same. The wheels on the 29er weight more as well.
Total system weight is a theory bandied about a lot, but what I think ignored is that the bike is a dead weight compared to the rider which can move its weight around. The rider is also used to their own weight so doesn’t exactly feel it.
I agree with the article, people are going out well over biked and lugging a load of weight they ABSOLUTELY NEED (but actually don't). Yes there is a point where light is too light but by and large lighter is better. I've been reading stuff recently where people want to fit DH tyres as their existing ones are too weak?!? Either get on a diet or stop running them with no damn air in them then! DH casings are shit, utterly and totally and an excellent way to make a hard ride utterly bloody miserable*, I gave up riding up proper hills with the sodding EXO's I got to replace my DH's.
*Even more so without a granny ring.
Can I also point out that the very first post had the GK article, seems a bit unfair on the OP that nobody seemingly bothered reading their post properly.
15 years ago freeride bikes were going out the doors like hot cakes, they were mostly close to 40lbs
*looks at Norco Shore*
*shudders*
My large FS 29er weighs bang on 18kg, so, yes, heavy compared to some. It does have a motor though.... (Levo SL Expert - carbon frame, carbon rims). As said by others, the boundary is a blurry area.
You can buy off-the-shelf 29" XC hardtails that from the likes of Giant, Trek, etc. that weigh in the 22 to 25 lbs range, depending on how much you are willing to spend. That's what similar bikes used to weigh 20 years ago. Back then, DH bikes were generally 40 lbs or more and pedaling them uphill took some commitment. Modern enduro bikes are pretty amazing.
I agree with Guy's article. All else being equal I'd prefer lighter, within reason. More fun and less tiring. Seems like every part of a bike could be made more capable, longer lasting or better in some way, but almost always resulting in more weight. Cumulatively it all adds up to dull, draggy and overbiked in many situations.
Reminds me of a particular local bike shop about 10-15 years ago. 50lb downhill bikes lined up row after row. There's nowhere in hundreds of miles with terrain to warrant a bike like that. And yet bikes that could barely be pedalled (I tried one) sold like hot cakes to riders that never took them anywhere near a real mountain. Presumably because they looked good in a magazine under the likes of Steve Peat.
There's also the issue of lazy designers. Seen a few bikes lately where absolutely no thought has been put into weight or even basic structural analysis that would show certain areas of a frame don't need to be built like a tank. Even carbon frames. For example the latest Trance X and Stumpy Evo frames are 2.5lbs lighter than some comparables, without going crazy.
Seems like every part of a bike could be made more capable, longer lasting or better in some way, but almost always resulting in more
weightcost.
FTFY.
If a Formula 1 team made an enduro bike, it would cost a million pounds (plus another 50 million for R&D), weigh 10 kilos, and fall apart after 50 hours of riding. They could make it last 500 hours, but it would probably weigh 12 kilos, and still cost a million pounds. To build it for 5000 pounds, you need to use off-the-shelf components, so the weight goes up to 15 kilos. All engineering decisions are limited by budget.
All engineering decisions are limited by budget.
BuT hAmBiNi CoUlD dO iT!!1!1
I think rather than fixing it you may have missed my point. Which is almost every way of making a bike more capable adds weight. 4 piston brakes, big rotors, huge cassettes, wider bars, wider hubs, stronger rims, bigger tougher rubber, longer frames, bigger bearings, clipless trail pedals with a cage that in many cases literally does nothing.
Not everything necessarily needs to add cost but incrementally bikes have gotten heavier. These developments are great if you need them, but many riders don't and are overbiked with all these little things sucking liveliness from the ride. Which is the point Guy was making.
many riders don’t and are overbiked
It's not that bikes are getting heavier, then, it's that people are buying bikes that are overbuilt for what they need. Doesn't stop you from buying the bike that best suits you.
Not everything necessarily needs to add cost but incrementally bikes have gotten heavier.
Light, strong, cheap. Pick any two.
Where are all these light bikes that people can choose?
A Canyon Exceed CF5 (carbon framed XC bike) is a £2,000 hardtail that still weighs 12.25 kg.
Guessing those that are saying there are loads of light bikes to choose from have a high budget...
The Giant XTC is listed at £1,499. Not an entry level bike, but you've never been able to get a lightweight bike for an entry level price.
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/gb/xtc-slr-29-1-2021
Something I noticed years ago is that Japanese websites generally include the weight, whereas UK ones do the "weight will vary according to size, etc." thing. The Japanese website lists a similar spec XTC as sub-12 kg.
https://www.giant.co.jp/giant21/bike_datail.php?p_id=00000064
A higher spec carbon version is listed as about 10 kg.
https://www.giant.co.jp/giant21/bike_datail.php?p_id=00000062
Seems to be similar to this version listed at £3,999.
https://www.giant-bicycles.com/gb/xtc-advanced-29-1
A 22 lb XC hardtail has never been cheap, so the idea that bikes have gained several kg is comparing apples to oranges. There are light bikes available off the shelf, but they will have skinny XC tyres, XC forks, and no dropper post. If you want beefy wheels and tyres, long travel, and a dropper post, that's going to add weight, just like how DH bikes used to be heavier than XC bikes.
Edit: I just noticed that that high-end Japanese version has a dropper post. The UK version doesn't.
And this XTC 1 from 2010 (£1500 at time) was also around 12kg.
So same price and same weight so in fact bikes may have got lighter for same price when factoring in inflation!
weigh in the 22 to 25 lbs range. That’s what similar bikes used to weigh 20 years ago
Well if you insist on missing the point again my hardtail 20 years ago was a 19 lb xl scandium Scott. WTF happened lol!?
my hardtail 20 years ago was a 19 lb xl scandium Scott.
How much did it cost? What components did it have? Was it an off-the-shelf bike or custom built?
Back then, the 65 mm travel RS Sid was the standard XC racing fork. The modern 29" version weighs roughly the same but has 100 mm travel and a 15 mm axle. It also has the benefit of being more rigid than soggy noodles.
XC racers used to run 11-28 9-speed cassettes and ditch the granny ring to save weight. XTR groupsets were just as pricey then as they are now. Average riders weren't strong enough to run that gearing for normal riding.
XC rims were generally 17 mm width and people used to run 26 x 1.8 semislicks converted to tubeless. You'd probably be looking at 500 g max for a tyre, rimstrip, and sealant. A 2.2 knobbly tyre was considered to be quite wide and would have added a couple of hundred grams per wheel, even if you stuck with lightweight XC casings.
Foam grips, cut-down non-dropper seatposts, rim brakes, etc. were all normal on XC bikes. Serious weight-weenies would use titanium bolts and remove any bottle cage bolts to shave a few grams. Great if you're a pro XC racer, useless if you're just out having fun with your mates.
Problem is, those bikes were unrideable for the average trail rider, the tyres had no grip, the brakes sucked in wet weather, the forks were flexy and lacked travel...
my hardtail 20 years ago was a 19 lb xl scandium Scott. WTF happened lol!?
I'm going to guess here, but if it was like my old bike of that era (an Easton Elite frame built up with boutique light parts), here's there the difference will be:
29" wheels vs 26"
100mm fork travel that works rather than 48mm of elastomer and carbon Shocktech crap that was light but useless
Disc brakes vs V brakes
Bars wider and stronger than the USE 580mm ones I had. Which bent.
Same with the seatpost
Tyres able to withstand a dirty look without slashing the sidewalls
Longer geometry so more material in the frame
Interesting that GK's piece ended on tyres. My 2009 alloy Anthem weighs 23.9lbs, mainly because the wheels are 24-spoke Hope Pro 3/Crests and the tyres are Racing Ralphs. I bought an XTC Advanced 27.5 and was shocked to find that it was heavier than the Anthem. It wasn't just that it measured heavier, it felt positively ponderous compared to the Anthem. It turned out that all of the weight was in the stock tyres and wheels, and swapping to a ZTR Crest wheelset (thanks Charlie!) and Schwalbe Evo tyres instead of the OEM things completely transformed the ride. Similarly when I got the Jeffsy, junking the 1200g Onza Ibexes in favour of some 800g rubber made the bike feel a lot better - for me. But I'm 70kg and never ride anything gnarlier than Coed-y-Brenin, so I accept that other people's needs may differ.
I was going to say that if we want light bikes then we can just rewind 20 years.... No thanks.
Enduro has meant more of a focus on longevity than weight and bikes are getting bigger (frames, rims, tyres, wheels) so weight increases are inevitable. There is an argument that a lot of people are overbiked but if you only have one bike then compromise is necessary. There has also been slow progress for manufacturers to introduce modern geometry on shorter travel, lighter bikes compared to long travel bikes (YT Izzo Vs Capra for example).
I’ll be honest. I’m overbiked.
But for the mtb I want something that’s fine uplifted in the Alps and I’ll put up with the weight the rest of the year.
If I want light I’ll get the gravel bike out.
IMO most folk are over-biked most of the time, unless they constantly ride trails that need the bike to be 'over-built'.
When I lived down south I had a 456Ti built strong & light (and therefore not cheap), at 22lbs and perfect. I moved to the Tweed Valley and slowly destroyed many of the components while accepting it needed to be stronger - ended up at 27lbs, even though in that time it also became 1x.
My Flaremax is now nearer 34lbs, and perfect for anything Scotland can throw at it - and as I said in another post regarding climbing, still climbs within a whisker of the lightweight 456Ti.
I'm still bothered by weight and do still follow the strong & light approach - but the component(s) has to work for me and my rides. So it's 203 rotors, 4 pot brakes, 1200g tyres etc etc.
Personally I like a light bike. My fatty is 32lb which is too heavy and my MTB is 24 lbs.
It’s an interesting article but Guy states two facts which aren’t:
1. Downhill bikes are quicker if they’re lighter. That hasn’t been proven by anyone and many teams are running alloy frames not carbon despite the weight penalty.
2. Lighter bikes handle better. They handle different for sure but I prefer how my Levo feels downhill (motor off) to any normal bike I’ve ridden. Suspension works better, more stable without needing insanely long wheelbase or crazy slack head angle, hops and gets airborne nicely and gives me confidence to jump. If heavier bikes handled worse then I’d hate this 50lbs beast.
@squirrelking , if you want to go down that route of reasoning, then, on behalf of those guys getting DH casings, I might suggest that if you ever started to ride proper trails at proper race speeds, sometimes among actual EWS racers, then you maybe could understand the idea. Or, instead of suggesting others to lose weight, we could suggest you to get stronger to be able to pedal heavy tyres uphill.
But I digress.
About this whole "things are heavier nowadays", my biggest question for everyone is the following: would we be having this conversation if we didn't actually knew the weights of old and new bikes?
By this I mean, are people actually complaining that newer bikes climb worse and are worse to throw around than their older predecessors, or are we simply focusing on a isolated number and complaining that it increased? Is the fact that this number is higher actually damaging people's riding experiences, or is this just a remaining of the old lighter=better thing?
As before, it's all horses for courses, 15 years ago it was a race to sub 20lb hardtails for a lot of folk, weight weenies was a thing for many, and most routes were XC based, nowadays we do more stuff, within an hour of me there's FoD, Flyup 417, Wind Hill, etc, so i can be doing an XC route hunting for stuff one day, and then hitting Wind Hill the next, overbiked one day, using it properly the next.
That for me is the biggest difference, 15-20 years ago you had a pretty well defined line between the XC/Trail stuff, then the DH/Enduro stuff, nowadays it's all a grey area, you have parks with everything in one place, so a lot of people buy a bike that can do the thing they 'want' to do at some point and live with just enjoying riding, even with the extra weight, again due to a lot using bespoke routes and parks, any reduction in distance can be accommodated pretty easily with shortcuts and so on.
If you have a look at a few of Guy’s videos he waxes lyrical about Santa Cruz which are always a bit porky, even his favourite tallboy is heavier than the epic evo or spur. I do agree with him though, especially for my kind of riding.
Foam grips, .............. etc. were all normal on XC bikes.
whats wrong with foam grips? I have them on all my bikes. Saves a bit of weight and works well. whats not to like?
Remember that 10 years ago the general consensus was that it was necessary to carry a bulging camelbak mule (10lbs plus) just to go for a trail ride, with all the requisite spare parts and tools.
If you have a look at a few of Guy’s videos he waxes lyrical about every single review bike...
FTFY
Where are all these light bikes that people can choose?
A Canyon Exceed CF5 (carbon framed XC bike) is a £2,000 hardtail that still weighs 12.25 kg.
Guessing those that are saying there are loads of light bikes to choose from have a high budget…
They weren't cheap 15 years ago. My Heihei scandium FS (I still have the frame if anyone wants it.... stealth ad...!) came in at about 21.5lbs in a custom build and it cost me about £3,300 which is about £5k in todays' money. So there's no point comparing it to a £2k bike now! Not to mention that the £ was stronger at that time as well.
Must admit I struggle to find enthusiasm to take my ~13Kg Marasa for pleasure rides, compared to when I often ran my Wazoo fatbike with 29er wheels at ~10.5Kg, it feels so much more sluggish up inclines and there's plenty of small ramps up to ~20% locally.
However, I did feel the urge to ride outdoors late afternoon yesterday and after a relative struggle to swap the 28mm GP 4 Season for a tight clearance 50mm Schwalbe Century, it somehow felt a bit more fun on the ~15 mile pootle.
In fairness, when I swapped out the fatbike rear 29er for the fatbike 26er ~12 months ago due to freehub issues, it made it a similar weight to the Marasa and made pleasure rides less appealing.
The people above saying you can still buy a light XC bike - you can, but that's because weight is still important for that market. For some reason trail riders and enduro riders have been duped into accepting much heavier bikes than they should.
Weight has always been important to me. I can tell the difference. I think where riders are being short changed at the moment is around the 140/150mm travel point in most companies' ranges. In 2014 I had a Stumpjumper Evo with Likes, a dropper post and 2.4" tyres. It had good geometry, 150mm travel front and rear and weighed 27lbs. In the interim I've gone through three bikes with similar travel - a 35lb Commencal, a 33lb carbon Transition, a 34lb aluminium Transition and now a 30lb Evil.
My Evil now has 130mm rear, 140mm front. And it's still 30lb. It has XTR. DT's lightest aluminium wheels. Carbon bars and cranks. I built it picking out light parts. And the weight is daft - in a world where there's 35lb DH bikes riders shouldn't be accepting 34lb enduro bikes and 32lb trail bikes. And they certainly shouldn't be paying more than a couple of grand, let alone over £5k, for entry level weight bikes.
While a lot of riders are over biked, six years ago you could have a 150mm bike that was nearer 25lb than 30 and so light enough to be fun where it was too much bike but capable in rougher terrain. Now the same bike is too heavy to be enjoyable so the option to be overbiked and still be comfortable has gone. Manufacturers of all bike parts need to up their game.
@squirrelking , if you want to go down that route of reasoning, then, on behalf of those guys getting DH casings, I might suggest that if you ever started to ride proper trails at proper race speeds, sometimes among actual EWS racers, then you maybe could understand the idea. Or, instead of suggesting others to lose weight, we could suggest you to get stronger to be able to pedal heavy tyres uphill
I'd suggest you know nothing about where I ride or what speeds I ride at. I'm simply speaking from personal experience and the topic I referred to actually ended with the OP deciding to up pressure since the concensus was 21psi was rather low and not a good reason to add that weight.
And yeah I probably could get stronger but still don't see the pleasure in hauling DH tyres around when lighter ones are more than enough. There is a big clue in the name.
I'd say that rather than "duped", riders are deciding they don't want tyres that split, they don't want suspension performance that's compromised by lack of a piggyback to save 150g, and they want tougher, wider rims that reflect the riding they do.
I've seen the progression of the Enduro discipline first hand, from racing Superenduro out in Italy from 2012,through EWS and local events too - the fact is, riders are hitting steeper and rougher terrain faster than 8 years ago, and that puts larger loads on their bikes.
I worked out that I could put lighter wheels and tyres, smaller brakes and an online sir shock on my bike, remove the insert in the rear tyre and make it a more "trail" build, at something like 2.5 to 3kg lighter, but it'd then be useless for the type of riding I do.
I think where riders are being short changed at the moment is around the 140/150mm travel point in most companies’ ranges.
Go back 20 years and see what a 150 travel FS bike weighed. 45 pounds was normal. Sub-40 pounds was considered very light.
If you stick to 120 mm or so travel with 32 mm forks and 2.3 tyres (i.e. an XC oriented trail bike), then getting well under 30 pounds isn't too hard. If you want beefier 150 mm travel forks and wide tyres that can survive bashing over rocks, then you're going to be adding several kilos.
@andyrm most riders are not doing the sort of riding you are talking about, most of us are still riding out in the hills (lakes,dales etc ) and how fast you can get down a hill is totally irrelevant, a 30 miles ride in the Dales or Lakes on an 16/17kg very hard work, in reality the market for enduro bikes is very small
an online sir shock
Been stumbling onto transexual porn sites by mistake?
Been stumbling onto transexual porn sites by mistake?
Bloody autocorrect!! 😂😂😂😂😂
For some reason trail riders and enduro riders have been duped into accepting much heavier bikes than they should.
Because people have delusions of grandeur?
They do not ‘have’ to have such big or heavy bikes if they don’t want them. You can buy an off the shelf Stumpjumper Expert that weighs just over 28lbs. Probably the quintessential trail bike you are talking of.
in a world where there’s 35lb DH bikes riders shouldn’t be accepting 34lb enduro bikes and 32lb trail bikes.
A 35lb DH bike only needs to last one race run. It also doesn’t have half a kilo of seat post, can use a razor blade of a seat, runs a cassette a fraction of the weight of a big range, and the rest is fairly comparable weight wise. Enduro bikes ridden by proper racers of proper terrain arguably ride their bikes harder than DH racers now anyway, as the tracks are less groomed, the rider is on the edge physically and just hanging on, smashing through stuff, Vs a 3 minute DH run of pinpoint accuracy.
Manufacturers of all bike parts need to up their game.
Or people need to be honest with the sort of riding they do, and buy something more appropriate?
“ Weight has always been important to me. I can tell the difference. I think where riders are being short changed at the moment is around the 140/150mm travel point in most companies’ ranges.”
It’s not that we can’t tell the difference, plenty of us don’t see it as a problem — and if you were to measure things you’d find lower weight makes very little difference uphill and usually hinders downhill.
Furthermore, 140/150mm travel bikes can be ridden REALLY fast nowadays without being terrifying. Everything is stronger, stiffer and more capable. Bikes are breaking less often despite riders going bigger on them. If you design a 6” bike nowadays you have to assume that owners might take them on numerous uplift days, which is far more punishing to the bike than typical bimbling duties.
If you want a 150mm bike to have 32mm fork stanchions, a little shock, skinny 26” rims, 2.1” tyres, 700mm bars, no dropper post, and a sub 1100mm wheelbase and a tendency to crack after a couple of years of hard riding then I’m sure you could get a bike down to 27lbs from 32.