i fitted light tyres last summer. the braking was compromised due to the lack of grip and the back one tore its knobs off and the front one got slashed.
foam grips are similar in as much as they are light but flimsy so get torn up in a crash.
North wind
You can get large volume light tyres and light forks with a thru axle
light tyres are a bit flimsy. i’m not suggesting that DH or beefed up tyres are essential, just that light tyres are not as strong or offer as much traction or grip.
perhaps a sturdier narrower tyre on a narrower rim would serve folk better.
i’m interested in the wolfpack tyres GK mentioned in his article. i remember reading about the company a while back and liked what they said.
“ You can get large volume light tyres and light forks with a thru axle”
Yes, and as soon as you hit a corner hard the big but light tyres squirm around worryingly and the fork only takes your steering input to be a vague suggestion rather than a demand.
If you want a long travel super light bike cheap, get an old 26” Mojo or similar. Or lose a load of travel and get a current XC bike.
tjagain
Full MemberYou can get large volume light tyres and light forks with a thru axle
Through axle adds about 100g across teh whole assembly (hub too remember), no way around more metal. And large light tyres are thinner. I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm saying that most people won't because of the drawbacks. Really the "good trailbike 1kg tyre" is a bit of progress that wasn't around 10 years ago rather than a problem. Likewise the slightly heavier forks- I was happy enough with the old 32mm Sids and Revs but as soon as lighter 34s and 35s were available people got onboard- we were offered the choice and chose it.
(plus a little bit of push from the other side- Fox never could make a 32mm fork to compete with the Revs so they were quick to sell the "advantages" of a 34mm fork that was actually no stiffer than the competition's 32s...)
The weight of the tyre does not effect its grip.
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
that describes most of our riding(lakes) and speed downhill is definatly not irrelevant, its 95% of the reason we ride.
don't even know(or care) what my Rallon weighs but with tough tyres and a rear liner i'm guessing it'll be well over 30lbs. it climbs well for a 170/160 travel bike and i have no problems going on big lakes rides with it. those rides would be easier on a lighter bike but the downs would be slower at times and also for me another bike would then be needed for enduro racing and uplift days at inners
The weight of the tyre does not effect its grip.
if everything about the tyre is the same, then that would be correct. however most light tyres have a lower profile tread than the burlier options.
lighter tyres will generally need more air to stop them puncturing. this will stop them gripping as well.
eh? slicks have better grip on tarmac, you need to qualify that ^
that describes most of our riding(lakes) and speed downhill is definatly not irrelevant, its 95% of the reason we ride.
for some people - again its the split between the landrovers and the rally cars.
eh? slicks have better grip on tarmac, you need to qualify that
on a mountain bike
again its the split between the landrovers and the rally cars.
what about one of those land rovers that Bowler have prepared?
splittist!
Hesitate at putting this out there but surely it all depends on what trails you ride.
I ride old school XC, covering a fair bit of ground, plenty of climbing and fast descending - I live on the Malverns. The most GNAR I do would be a 12 or 24 event such as Mayhem.
I have two ‘old’, as in 2011 and 2013, light-weight XC hard tails, 100mm forks (and god forbid 26” wheels!). Scott Scale at ~21lbs and a Cannondale Flash Ultimate at ~17lbs.
They’re both incredibly fast at covering ground and will handle more than I can.
Am I inclined to change anytime soon?
Not while I still have fun on these ...
Horses for courses I guess.
You would be faster on the same bike with 29" wheels (yes I know it would not be exactly the same bike but just to make the point I am making).
The 29" wheels and tyres would be heavier so weight of bike would go up but you would be faster on old school XC riding. Don't see many XC riders riding 26" wheels because they are lighter and in some places and for some reasons adding weight is offset by other bigger advantages.
splittist!
😜
edit - if that emoji has a sexy meaning, i didn’t mean that
Making a top tube 50mm longer in the middle where the material is at its thinnest doesnt add weight. To my mind its all about the engineering
Firstly, it does. Secondly, longer tubes need different wall thicknesses and/or “tube” profile to keep the same stiffness and strength. More material. The rest of your armchair engineering post I’ll ignore, based on your one attempt to show your understanding.
I meant it adds a very small amount of weight and nothing like the amount we are seeing bikes weight increase by. It certainly doesnt explain why companies are producing shop floor DH bikes that weigh less than other companies 140mm trail bikes.
Those high end bikes are really profitable though and the racing thing is good marketing for selling those bikes. The engineering of those bikes is phenomenal, they are massively better than bikes from 20 years ago.
If the engineering was that good why can company A make a DH bike that is lighter than company B's 140mm trail bike both of which are current models?
But, you can’t make a 150 mm travel enduro bike that can smash through rock gardens as light as an XC bike designed mostly to climb up fireroads.
Your right you cant. But you should be able to make it lighter than a DH bike that can definitely smash through anything
on a mountain bike
on tarmac yes the tire does care what bike it's on. as I said you need to qualify your statement
for some people – again its the split between the landrovers and the rally cars.
i did actually mean "we" to mean me and the people i ride with, although in my experience most others are the same
on tarmac yes the tire does care what bike it’s on. as I said you need to qualify your statement
apologies, i thought i had qualified my statement. Im talking about mountain bikes riding off road in a variety of conditions that can present themselves in the same ride.
the article at the beginning of the thread was about a mountain bike. i am talking about mountain bikes. i do t have any other bikes and i’m not interested in how heavy road bikes are. i ride my mountain bikes off-road. i really don’t have any interest in how my mountain bike’s tyres perform on tarmac. that said, big slabs of rock certainly favour a lower profile tread, but big slabs of rock don’t make up much of my usual ride so i’m prepared to accept a reduction in performance in that instance.
in summary, i am talking about mountain bike tyres on mountain bikes being ridden off road as a leisure activity for fun and exercise on a variety of surfaces that don’t include tarmac.
@squirrelking , exactly, see what I did there? I threw out a bunch of assumptions on how you ride without knowing nothing about you. That’s why we should avoid suggesting that people don’t know how to set up tyre pressure, or how to ride or that they’re overweight without knowing them or their riding in the first place. I wrote that to show this point.
Except in the case I was talking about the OP DIDN'T know how to set up the tyre pressure then wondered why he kept pinching, he just assumed he needed DH casings adding needless weight.
If you want lighter- get rid of the dropper post, that’s the best part of half a kilo. Cut your bars down to 600mm. Fit skinny light tyres. Get rid of that stiff fork and fit a 32mm noodle with QR. These are all things you can do yourself, will you? Almost certainly not.
Why not? I can happily thrash my 32mm Revs and Sektors all day long on proper trails (and never had this steering issue you think exists), if I'm descending I put my saddle down and if I'm climbing I put it back up. Depending on the trail I'm quite happy with 2.2 Racekings.
A lot of the stuff people are so convinced is essential just isn't. It's convenient.
Is it essential to get rid of a front mech? Of course not, I can go ages between chain drops with a decent retainer which still weighs in less than a bottom end 1x setup. Is 1x more convenient? Of course it is.
Is it essential to have a dropper? No, you can still get up and down the hill as people did before droppers, it's just a convenience.
Was moving to 27.5" or 29" essential? No, it can roll over stuff easier and for some things made sense but easier isn't really better IMO.
Now all these conveniences add up, a bit here and bit there until you have a meaty bike that weighs more than it would have 10 years ago (lets be sensible here and not compare with 20 year old bikes). And in a lot of cases it's rotational or unsprung mass which is even worse.
I'm not convinced a lot of this isn't just marketing driven nonsense. Things like the Reverb AXS, a "performance" product that weighs more than it's original incarnation (however more reliable you choose to believe it will be). Carbon frames that don't weigh anything close to what manufaturers claim (and yes, 40% stronger than the alloy equivalent does mean it's been overbuilt) but cost a lot more. Wider rims to run this seasons must have tyre (Mavic D521/EX721 was rated for a 3" tyre, think on that), carbon rims to bring the weight down (lol'd at "budget" sub £1000 wheelset thread) and the nonsense "steel is real" shite that folk come out with.
Part of the problem is us as the consumer expect far more than we used to, we won't stand for a tyre tearing (even if it's a thin casing) or a crank snapping (even if we were riding DH and it was a "trail" crank). Components are far stronger than they used to be (I can't remember the last time a saw someone pringle a wheel) and we expect to be able to ride DH on an Enduro bike, so how can we expect them to be strong enough for DH but also expect them to be lighter..
Light weight used to the major selling point of components, now it's durability. I know which one I prefer.
@squirrelking - i agree with a lot of what you are saying, but a lot of the convenience leads to more fun and less faffing about and making allowances front mechs means that suspension design needs to be compromised. i’d rather have better suspension than a front mech, even it it is heavier, likewise more convenience (to a point, i have no need for an electric seatpost)
My current hardtail weighs 36lb! Which in many respects is pretty dumb but I didn't build it up to be a 'performance' bike. I can get it up normal climbs reasonably well but the bike comes into it's own going downhill. The combo of 29+ tires and Cushcore make for an entertaining ride. My old Carbon Trek Remedy weighed around 4lb less and was faster up and down, but there's something to be said for riding something a bit daft and still being able to ride it competently down BC 'black' trails. There's more to mountain biking than Strava times, for me at least.
@squirrelking - while most of what you say is true, the convenience vs necessity thing is a trap when we're talking about whats essentially a hobby for the vast majority of us. Unless you're a racer or a guide/instructor, everything about a mountain bike is a matter of convenience
The convenience factor us a very good point! My racing days are pretty done now, but at 43 with a young family, demanding career and all that "life" stuff, riding time is absolutely at a premium. I don't want to lose a second of valuable ride time with punctures, mechanicals etc, so the same reliability mindset that goes into building an EWS race bike also carries over into #dadduro setup too 👍
If the link doesn’t work, it’s a Chromag Arcturian.
i was hoping that you would say that. i’d love one of those. unfortunately they don’t do my size and i can’t afford one.
I work in 'the industry' so Chromag kindly gave me a great deal on the bike. Mike Truelove welded it in my current home town which is pretty cool. Dekerf did the paint (which I didn't get a deal on ha ha. I was happy to pay the money though). It's a great bike and I can ride most things on it that I could on my previous FS bikes.
well jell, as the kids used to say
@squirrelking – i agree with a lot of what you are saying, but a lot of the convenience leads to more fun and less faffing about and making allowances front mechs means that suspension design needs to be compromised. i’d rather have better suspension than a front mech, even it it is heavier, likewise more convenience (to a point, i have no need for an electric seatpost)
Of course, I'm not saying it's necessarily all bad but that convenience comes at a cost. How much you are prepared to pay varies. I just get annoyed with people not understanding or obfusticating the difference between necessity and convenience.
I don’t want to lose a second of valuable ride time with punctures, mechanicals etc, so the same reliability mindset that goes into building an EWS race bike also carries over into #dadduro setup too
I get that, you obviously have to make compromises to get to that point but that's what works for you. I guess that's why so many folk lap up hardtails like the Moxie as it's one less thing to go wrong.
Smuggler (140f/120r) - 33lbs (proper wheels and tyres, 31 with XC wheels)
Geometron (170f/165r) - 35lbs
Weight is only part of the story, you can have a light bike with terrible climbing ability, goes down crap as well. Last generation stumpy was a good example, new one is supposed to fix those issues.
Neither of my bikes are light for the class, but they are built with parts which are going to survive, all to often you see parts that aren’t fit for purpose , either being flimsy or don’t last the time they should (raceface carbon cranks).
Modern bikes arn’t fixing the issues we have, poor service intervals, pivots which have woeful sealing (sealing in general for that matter), shock tunes which are miles out (privateer 161, reactor 290), mud traps.
Be a welcome change to see some proper engineering being applied, rather than the nonsense which is being created by marketing departments. With that you would see weight saving and efficiency improvements.
Ews pro riders bikes aren't that heavy most seem to be between 14-15kgs
https://m.pinkbike.com/news/video-how-much-do-the-ews-pros-bikes-weigh.html
“Of course, I’m not saying it’s necessarily all bad but that convenience comes at a cost.”
The changes that have happened to trail bikes over the last decade makes them heavier but faster downhill and often more capable uphill. Many of us don’t have a problem with the extra weight. If you do you can ride an older lighter smaller bendier bike or a more XC bike.
Personally I prefer how these newer bikes feel. And most recent full-sus bikes are more efficient and thus faster uphill because the suspension works properly and the wheels are bigger and roll better.
Weight is VERY easy to measure, which is why some riders obsess about it. And in pro road biking it clearly matters a lot when you’re chasing tiny margins uphill. For MTBing it’s simply not as important as some riders have convinced themselves but the placebo effect is powerful.
My brother still has a scandium dawg deluxe 2009 with 160mm coil forks and its way lighter than my bike, surprisingly decent reach too for its age, feels like its around the 28lb mark, its a shame scandium isn't used these days, but surely its time for graphene to be utilised in frames, vittoria have started using it in their rims as well as their tyres but there's a disappointing lack of uses for such a revolutionary product 200 times stronger than steel.
After reading this i'm away to dust off my x-lite seatpost and stem and get them back on the bike ;o)
“I guess that’s why so many folk lap up hardtails like the Moxie as it’s one less thing to go wrong.”
I got my first full-sus in 2013 after two consecutive uplift days (Antur & BPW) on my Cotic Soul with Fox 32s left my fingers hurting for a few months. But I’m pretty confident that my Zero AM with 150mm Pikes, that replaced the Soul in 2015, would be fine with that. Hopefully I’ll get to test that theory at some point in the next year! For such a gnarly bike (sub 64 deg head angle) it’s pretty light at under 28lbs thanks to the lack of rear suspension, alloy frame and 27.5 wheels.
It’s not as fast downhill as a similar full-sus but it inspires similar confidence, much safer feeling than an XC FS, and goes uphill quick too. Feels faster when going slower. The only weaknesses are actual times downhill (if you care) and rider fatigue on long descents or multi-day things.
squirrelking
Free MemberWhy not? I can happily thrash my 32mm Revs and Sektors all day long on proper trails (and never had this steering issue you think exists),
Seriously? Neither of those was a noodle, that's why! And you know why? They weigh pretty much exactly the same as the 35mm versions! My Rev Teams (26er, 150mm) were 1810g (weighed by me with short cut steerer and SFN). A set of new Pike Teams (26er, 150mm) are 1835g (claimed not weighed but with full uncut steerer). And yet is stiffer, stronger, and better controlled.
When I say "32mm noodles" and you think "but my 32mm forks aren't noodles" then it's daft to think "you are wrong" rather than "you are not talking about my non-noodly forks". Especially when we're talking about light vs heavy and you're comparing forks that weigh the same (and possibly just not realising that?)
I'm also not just talking about steering as you wrongly assumed- tbh steering accuracy's the least of the issues with a flexy fork, for me at least, I always found that even going back and forth from my flexy Sids to my old Lyriks I just adapted to that quite quickly. But it also causes unpredictable braking and loss of traction (fore/aft flex) and bushing bind. Just ride a 150mm Fox 32 on a slack bike for a couple of days and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
squirrelking
Free MemberA lot of the stuff people are so convinced is essential just isn’t. It’s convenient.
I never said a think about "essential" either and tbf neither will many people. Of course it's not essential. But convenient is fantastic. Dropper posts literally swap weight for convenience and hardly anyone ever goes back.
But tyres that don't puncture easily or offer more grip are also "only" convenient. Wider bars are "only" convenient. Slacker head angles are "only" convenient. Literally everything that makes today's bikes better than 10 or 20 years ago is "only" convenient, nothing that's been improved has been essential.
Incidentally, 10 years ago, a Specialized Pitch Pro was 32lbs. Today, a Calibre Bossnut costs about the same, weighs only 1lb more despite the dropper, bigger wheels, and appropriate tyres and is massively more capable at literally everything, which is also convenient.
You don't really seem to be arguing with my actual post but with what you think I said tbh but I hope that helps understand it.
I was arguing about the forks then went off on a tangent, that second part was nothing to do with your post, sorry for giving that impression.
Your point about droppers though, I'm sick of hearing how they are essential and how someone would rather give up suspension than their dropper. Their words, not mine. It's a convenience and if you can live with it fine, I'm not judging, every build is a compromise but like I said people seem really confused between necessity and convenience.
As for the fork content, I genuinely thought you were applying that to all 32mm forks. I'm rocking 150mm straight steerer Sektors (on a Pitch Pro funnily enough) and you'd think that would be enough to get noodly but they're rock solid. No experience of Fox so can't comment on them. If I missed your actual point there I apologise again.
I’m not judging
But you are. This entire thread is basically, "People buy bikes that I disapprove of, even though I can still do whatever I like, I still don't like it when other people have fun."
“ I’m rocking 150mm straight steerer Sektors (on a Pitch Pro funnily enough) and you’d think that would be enough to get noodly but they’re rock solid.”
Except they’re not. All forks are bendy - it’s impossible for a lever that long and skinny yet that light to not be bendy under the loads of a rider.
Your argument has been repeated for centuries. Go back 100 odd years and it was “my horse is really fast, no-one needs a car”.
it’s one less thing to go wrong.”
my Spesh Enduro probably weighs more than it needs to (given that it has coil shocks and forks almost certainly) but if I compare the amount of preventative maintenance I used to have to do on previous bikes in comparison, I’m happy to take the weight penalty. If not had to replace any component through failure. I think also where you ride and terrain that you have near you dictates a lot of these conversations. The bike you need for XC in the Chilterns or Surrey is different to the one you need for Calderdale or the Peaks
Also, comparing the weight of a single use competition DH bike with an off the shelf punter bike is pointless. I remember wandering through the outs at a worlds years ago and was “surprised” to see xc 2 pot Hope brakes on Steve Peat’s (then) Orange. These bikes are made as light as possible with every corner cut as much as possible, the fact that you can get a DH to weigh as little as that is testament to the time and effort they’re prepared to go to rather than a reflection on what’s available to Mr Average
My Pitch was no where near as capable as the subsequent 27.5 Enduro. It didn't climb or accelerate as well. Sure I could thrash it but it was not as fast.
But what does it really matter.
Is the weight thing also a result of increasing costs? Like in 2015 a mid range spesh enduro was £4500 and was about 30lbs with X01. For that level of spec we would have to spend £7k? So as a result a lot of us are buying lower spec, heavier components for the same money?
I build my SC up with fairly robust parts these days. Alu bars, heavier casing tyres with inserts... Best to finish a stage rather than have a super light bike and puncture etc. Finding the right balance is key. It climbs ok. With the draggy tyres its never going to be a rocket but going down is more fun than riding up a fire road so I'm ok with that.
Wasn't the importance of a bikes weight debunked long ago??
Why do people still make it out to be a big problem when a bike is over an arbitrary 30lb limit?
Sure, 2.5" tyres covered in winter mud suck the fun out of riding quite a bit, but just put some lighter and thinner ones in winter on the same bike.
