[Closed] Are we getting a bit to precious about weight?

Think we've been here before, numerous times...
IMO cyclists in general always overestimate the gains to be made from weight saving, and are pretty poor at looking at weight in any kind of real world context.
There is a vast amount of marketing guff aimed at making folk think that cutting 100-500 grammes off the weight of their bikes will make a substantial difference to performance, but it doesn't really add up in the real world.
As you suggested, carrying a weighty Camelbak, plus being on the well upholstered side means that saving a few hundred grammes on your bike from a total weight of 100+ kgs is not going to make you into a riding god.

It is fashionable again.

Every little counts, save 40g here, 70g there and it'll all add up. You won't notice it but it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside know your bike is half a kilo lighter.

Spot on OP - for the average stwer (overweight, unfit, uncompetitive if he actually IS racing) it doesn't matter.

But a light bike can be a joy to ride, that's what (may) matter to me.

I'm not sure that people care for normal trail riding do they? Maybe losing weight in the obvious places but not swapping a stem to save 10g. Racers are into this and if you do ride a bike without all the extra baggage a light bike is noticeable. I built a light hardtail just for fun and it does feel nippier than my 27lb Soul.

My two mtbs are both heavy and built that way on purpose as I'm crap 🙂

Never really been a concern for me.

I like my bikes to be fairly light, no need to be race light though. 25lbs is alright - certainly a noticable difference to a 30lb anvil.

Kev

Light bikes are nice because they handle better (on the whole) and also climb better (or feel like they are). They may or may not shave a few minutes off your personal best times for climbs but that's often not the point. They feel nice. As long as you don't make it too light for your weight/skill level/kind of riding.

Weight saving has to be done in order. The first 2kg will be easy and cheap, the last 100g will cost a fortune.

Even for normal trail riding, a 23lb bike is much much nicer than a 33lb one.

Light is as follows, I reckon:

Road bike - 16lbs
XC race HT - 20lbs
XC race FS - 22lbs
Long travel hardtail - 23-24lbs (depending on beefiness of kit)
General XC bike - 24-25lbs
Trail (6" bike) 25-26lbs
Budget MTB - 27lbs
Hardcore XC/AM bike - 30lbs

I will just keep riding my anvil up and down the hills then... I bet I can, and may should, shed more weight that my bike can.

[i]Are we getting a bit to precious about weight?[/i]

...so molgrips gives us his 'these are light bikes' list.... 🙄

Light bikes are nice because they handle better

Do not agree

Light is great up to the point it becomes "fragile and skittish" - then it's a PITA. Being sensible is the best option. I have no intention of saving any more weight on my 22-23lb HT having whopped a couple of pounds (and over a grand) on it.

bikes that [i]feel[/i] right aren't always the lightest, are they?

LT HT 24lbs? I'd kill that in minutes.

Long travel hardtail - 23-24lbs (depending on beefiness of kit)
Trail (6" bike) 25-26lbs
Hardcore XC/AM bike - 30lbs

All those would be wrecked pretty quickly if you rode them to their limits.

I rode my last lt hardtail in the alps, dinged the rear rim loads of times but the rest held up ok. Weighed probably 10lbs more than what you've quoted.

My current ht is a bit lighter cos its single speed, still probably weighs close to 30lbs though. The forks are 110mm marzocchis, they weigh at least 5.5lbs i think. Not to fussed about weight though, i prefer things to last.

As grumm says, light bikes dont necessarily handle better, especially if you ride very rough/rocky trails.

DT you need to pump your tyres up innit.

[i]Trail (6" bike) 25-26lbs
Hardcore XC/AM bike - 30lbs[/i]

I would have thought 6" would be the sort of travel on an all mountain bike? And what's hardcore xc compared to trail riding?

I like a lighter bike to ride uphill but you can't beat hard hill training too.

Well I don't know about road bikes (and couldn't care less), but anyone with more than 10% body fat that is spending load to shed weight out of the bike is a bit deluded...

For moutain bike I think that weight should come after being sensible. But then a lot of people bike spend most time being weighted rather than being ridden the way they are meant too...

Weight saving is important. It makes you faster, and I'm afraid that is a fact.

I'm very much convinced that this "lose weight off yourself" thing is nonsense- my weight fluctuates around 6lb between height of the season and off season and I never tell. However, I lose weight off the bike and I can tell straight away.

DT you need to pump your tyres up innit.

What yous on about? I use helium in my tires, got to keep the centrifugal weight down.

Weight saving is important. It makes you faster, and I'm afraid that is a fact.

[i]However, I lose weight off the bike and I can tell straight away.[/i]

Sure, of course you can....

I view bike weight as being worth keeping an eye on. Follow every flavour of the month and ignore weights and you can quickly end up with a a very heavy bike.

My weight saving endeavours tend to amount to seeing what stuff weighs before I buy it. I don't really bother buying extra light stuff for more £...

Juan- I can guarantee you I've sold approximately nothing on STW. I'm not on here to flog stuff.

I buy light bikes myself. I ride light bikes. You're a fool if you think a heavy bike is better in any situation.

Yeh, I mean I weigh about 10&3/4 stone (much of which is probably due to having incredibly strong/large leg muscles) but I choose to ride a heavy SS bike because it keeps you fit and ultimately strong.

You've got to earn a living

Whereas alot of average riders just buy super light bikes because they have the cash and are very lazy, this makes cycling much easier for them. In turn, they dont earn a proper cyclists "living" so they are a much worser rider for it

I'm not on here to flog stuff.

You're a fool if you think a heavy bike is better in any situation.

Argggggg I am gutted... I am a fool then, to think it's better to finish a ride rather than end up in an hospital due to bike failure...

I prefer strong to light. Mainly because I know that if I break something, I'll beat myself up for wasting money/making a poor decision. I'm not loaded and like to buy things that'll last.
Not that I'm saying all light kit is weak!

Bike failure? That would be choosing the wrong tool for the job. There's a difference between that and lightweight.

E.G. rims- Stans Olympics are very light, but would die a death on a big mountain ride, however, Stan's Flows are also light and won't. Different ideas of "light" for different jobs. I reckon the 25lb "AM hardtail" quote up there is fairly easily achievable and would ride excellently.

And Juan- we're a roadie shop. I don't need to tell folk that light is better. They already know.

I'd argue the question could be turned on its head. How many people are riding bikes heavier than need be? So many adverts for gnar super bouncy bikes that could be ridden down Everest (slight exaggeration there!) bought by those that ride around fields. Nothing wrong with riding around fields and I do plenty of it myself. I think as many people get obsessed and drawn into longer travel and more capable but heavier kit as get drawn into gram shaving. Big kit (trying hard not to use the phrse "over biked") is a good skill compensator though, so for some without the time or willpower to learn to ride smoothly and lightly, the extra weight of the bigger bike is worth it.

I guess the next phase (which is what you are alluding to I assume) is going to the next level and getting a bike that is more capable than necessary but weighs the same as the cheaper less capable bike that could be ridden around the same route therefore allowing a less skilled rider on an expensive bike to match the pace of a better rider using the power of the wallet.

Less weight = faster, can you argue otherwise crikey?

Juan - actually I'm not even going to bother.

E.G. rims- Stans Olympics are very light, but would die a death on a big mountain ride,

really? Mine are holding up ok.

Big kit (trying hard not to use the phrse "over biked") is a good skill compensator though

Like lightweight kit is a 'fitness compensator' you mean?

It was cheaper for me to loose a few Kg of lard and so I did 🙂

Like lightweight kit is a 'fitness compensator' you mean?

Probably more in the head than in actuality. An extra inch of travel probably costs about 300g in frame & shock weight and would cost in money about the same as shaving the same amount off the all up weight of the mid range original bike. I'd say an extra inch in travel is worth more in skill compensation than a 0.2% decrease in the all up weight you have to winch up a hill as a fitness compensator.

Al- I mean like Alpine stuff. Basically, stuff the flow is meant for. My Olympics are 3 years old and have done a LOT and are fine.

I weigh in at 10.5 stone, both my SS hardtails come in at 20.4lb for the 29er and 20.1 lb for the 26".
Neither are are particularly skittish as I ride light anyway.
When I had a 27lb hardtail it was hard work riding for 5 hours, now , no problems at all.
Didn't try to build as light as possible, but selected components that were suitable for me.

Reckon my 5 Spot is around the 32lbs mark. Complete guestimate I should add. Not the fastest going up, but it will go up without that much effort. Going down though, it feels rock solid and that's what I prefer personally. Had a lighter bike and wasn't overly keen on the skippy nature it sometimes displayed. Could easily shed a lot of weight off the 5 Spot, but it'd cost money and probably stop the bike feeling the way I like it. It's just all about what you prefer. Hardtail isn't much lighter some to think of it...

[i]Less weight = faster, can you argue otherwise crikey?[/i]

I don't think I actually said that, did I?

[i]Think we've been here before, numerous times...
IMO [b]cyclists in general always overestimate the gains to be made from weight saving[/b], and are pretty poor at looking at weight in any kind of real world context.
There is a vast amount of marketing guff aimed at making folk think that cutting 100-500 grammes off the weight of their bikes will make a substantial difference to performance, but it doesn't really add up in the real world.
As you suggested, carrying a weighty Camelbak, plus being on the well upholstered side means that saving a few hundred grammes on your bike from a total weight of 100+ kgs is not going to make you into a riding god.[/i]

Hehe.. I knew this one would get you lot going.

Right - let's get something straight. SOME people splash loads of cash on bling stuff because they like to pose with flash kit, and don't really ride that much.

However some folk (like me) like their bikes to work and ride well, and take care and spend some money to set them up as best they can. Then they ride them a lot and enjoy them. I've not upgraded anything in the 3 years since I had to replace my bikes after a theft. Just consumables and repairs; a new mech on the road bike since the old one was floppy; and some new forks on the 5 since the old ones weren't quite as plush as I wanted - that was the only extravagance.

So my "big bike" is a 2007 Patriot and is specced as follows:

Air Marz 66 SLs 20mm
Air Manitou shock
Sun Singletrack rims on Hope Pro II hubs
Truvativ Hussefelt bars
Thomson stem and seatpost
Race face atlas cranks
Hope V2 200mm brakes
XT elsewhere
Maxle rear

So what would you break on there?

Anyone here believe in homeopathy?

Just to re-iterate, no-one's advocating choosing the wrong bike for your riding. All I am saying is that if you take the bike you want and lighten it up without making it too weak, it could make it ride better.

Molgrips, so what does the "big bike" weigh?

What simon says...I am guessing around 14-15 kg mark...

Mine are holding up ok.

Big kit (trying hard not to use the phrse "over biked")

is a good skill compensator though

30-31lbs - my scales aren't too hot. I should also add, it's got Kenda Nevegal 2.35s run tubeless.

Oh and preserving an XC bike on big rocky stuff is perfectly possible. It's harder work, and somewhat slower, but it can be done.

my scales aren't too hot

It depends on lots of things though really, some lightweight kit is fragile, some less so. I'd rather have my Carbon Easton bars than some lump of Alloy. but I'm happy to have them held by a Thomson Stem which isn't the worlds lightest by any estimation, but for it's weight it's very stiff. then there's the often over looked stuff like SLX cassettes being 300g and XT being 250g easy weight loss. Having said that Molgrips weights are on the 'light' side. My Chameleon is probably about 26-27lbs, wouldn't want to go much lighter.

No, probably not.

They're maybe 1lb light, and they read 30lbs.

You don't believe my Patriot weighs that much? I saved 1lb by going tubeless - it had buffalo hide tubes in it.

I'm not convinced, TBH.

I've recently bought myself a 'big' bike in the shape of a Marin Wolf Ridge 6.8 (the orange one)

It's as stock & weighs in at 32.4lbs according to my bathroom scales.
I'm 9 stone so it's a fairly large chunk of the overall combined weight of bloke & bike.
I can still climb on it, not as sprightly as my older Mount Vision but still acceptable in the real world - not done any big days out yet though.

heh, my xc bike (cannondale gemini) weighs 45 lbs

[img] [/img]

and you know what, it did the sdw in a day without exploding.

SpokesCycles - Member
You're a fool if you think a heavy bike is better in any situation.

In a chainless race down a hill the heavier bike would accelerate quicker. Would it not be better in this situation?

I saved 1lb by going tubeless

tubeless tyres that has a side wall riped?

 

This crops up every now and then doesn't it?

I guess my first question is.. why is it, that when our biking buddies buy a new bike the first thing we have to do is pick it up and give it the 'weighing scales shake'?

I was running a SS HT at around 22lbs, I've just geared it and the weight has gone up, I don't notice it though except when I'm hoiking it over stiles..

I know a lad who Time Trials a lot, when he's training, he only uses this beefy tourer that weighs a ton, seems to work for him when he gets on his TT'er

I've got an '08 Rock Springs and have gotten it down to circa 30lb, but that's with Revelations, new wheels, SLX and Maxxis Ardents bring run tubless.

It still feels like a "big bike", solid and flex free (compared to my 04 Enduro at any rate) but there is a point where cost compromises need to be made. For a bike like that 30lb is the threshold.

My Enduro on the other hand is circa 28.5lb with no special attention being paid to getting weight down at this stage, aside from a set of Pro2/717 wheels.

Just upgraded Mrs Matt's bike (2008 Rockhopper. Probably around 28lbs) - MUCH better wheels and slightly better drivetrain. Probably knocked off about a pound or more in total and the bike definitely feels "livelier." Well worth doing.

Had it been a while since you rode it Matt?

Now what is the point of that? If it's a big bike I suppose you're going to take it for big stuff. Now I don't want to knock tubeless down (ok I might) but have you try to ride with a tubeless tyres that has a side wall riped?

Well I felt that the bike was hard going, so I thought I'd reduce the rolling resistance by going tubeless, instead of ditching a perfectly good pair of sticky tyres. It worked a treat too, and saved weight.

As for tearing sidewalls, I don't think I've ever torn a sidewall. And in any case I always carry a couple of thick tubes and big patches, just in case. So no problem.

Big stuff for me is longer rocky descents in the mountains and the odd drop. I don't see a risk to tyres there..? If I was riding in say Lanzarote or somewhere with really sharp rocks, I might be worried and take something else, or change tyres.

Al - probably a few months. Only use it when mine is out of action.

Are we getting a bit to precious about weight?

Are we getting a bit too precious about [i]<insert subject here>[/i] rather than being content with our own opinions?

It's a pre-requisite for STW, isn't it? I'm guilty 😉

(and FWIW I do think weight matters)

[i]I know a lad who Time Trials a lot, when he's training, he only uses this beefy tourer that weighs a ton, seems to work for him when he gets on his TT'er [/i]

This doesn't work, does it? I mean riding a heavier bike for training and then using a lighter bike in the event. Training on the lighter bike would be better, no?

Personally I have never failed a climb because the bike was an extra few lbs heavier than my other bike.
Within a reasonable budget there is a trade off between weight, strength and my wallet.
If money was no object and I raced then I would own really lightweight bikes but as this is not the case I dont. i have no idea what my bikes weight but the road bike is the lighteset then the SS then the hardtail then the FS. As it should be.
As a lightweight whippet it makes me laugh to see beer bellied chuffers saving the odd 100 grams when they are overweight themselves. They could save more weight by taking picolax before a ride.

Personally I have never failed a climb because the bike was an extra few lbs heavier than my other bike.

Me neither, but that's not the point for me.

For me, 5lbs off the bike totally transforms the ride and handling. 5lbs off me does little except shave a minute or two off a climb. That's basically it. Call me wrong-headed, stupid, impressionable and vain if you like.

Personally I have never failed a climb because the bike was an extra few lbs heavier than my other bike.

Without having my lighter bike on standby when I fail a climb on my heavier bike, I don't think I will ever know this. I know that my heavier full susser climbs techy stuff better than my lightweight fully rigid, but then this has been done to death on here too!

Totally agree that even for racers the ACTUAL difference in speed achieved by lighter bikes is pretty low. But as molgrips says lighter bikes are more fun to ride, a long as they handle well enough and hold up.

This doesn't work, does it? I mean riding a heavier bike for training and then using a lighter bike in the event. Training on the lighter bike would be better, no?

My bike probably weighs over 30lbs, not bothered what it weighs:

Intense Tracer VP
SLX groupset
Saint brakes
Thompson Seatpost and stem
Stan flows on CK hubs
Magura Wotans
Easton EA90 bars
High roller Double ply tyres (running stans tubeless)

I'm well aware that it could be lighter and a majority of time i ride it im over biked (certainly in the southdowns), but im 15 stone in my birthday suit, less than 10% boby fat and on the times i've ridden a lighter bike it felt like i was tearing it apart. A bike that flexes so much that the tyres rub on the chain stays, despite having a good inch of clearance, doesn't inspire me with confidence.

I went down the light weight path for a while, things broke, the handling was a bit wayward, it didnt feel "right". What i ride now is an evolution of what i rode before. 32mm stanchion forks became 36mm stanchions and the differnce was night and day. Double ply tyres replaced single ply because slashing the sidewalls at 30mph means a new rim at best......

I may not be the fastest up a hill, but i'm not the slowest by a long shot, going for a lighter build would erode my confidence in the bike in some situations, which ultimatley means less fun, so no deal. It certainly wouldn't feel "better" or ride better if it was lighter, as i wouldn't have the confidence in it.

I agree with molgrips.

I'd like to point out that bad handling is a function of geometry and setup, NOT of weight. My bikes all handle brilliantly, but differently, because I take care to fix problems. Weight is not a factor.

I know a lad who Time Trials a lot, when he's training, he only uses this beefy tourer that weighs a ton, seems to work for him when he gets on his TT'er

This doesn't work, does it? I mean riding a heavier bike for training and then using a lighter bike in the event. Training on the lighter bike would be better, no?

Like I said Nick.. it works for him, I'm in no way an expert

Now I don't want to knock tubeless down (ok I might) but have you try to ride with a

tubeless tyres that has a side wall riped?

That's just silly, when the sidewalls ripped a tubed tyre is more than often useless too, as the tube hangs out like a hernia.
Fix? Brace it with something as a tyre boot, fit new tube if necessary and limp home. Exactly the same with tubeless. Except I've never torn a tubeless sidewall as generally they are tougher (and because of this heavier). Tubeless is more about low pressure = more grip without pinches and zero thorn punctures with sealant = less faffing more riding. You can save weight with normal tyres sealed up, but then you are accepting a degree of risk (which I usually do and more often than not get away with). Never had to do more than boot the tyre and fit a tube, and never had to walk home in around 6 years of various tubless setups.

Anyway, back to weight 🙂

 

Well a small rip or simply damage to a sidewall can be tolerated with tubes, but with tubeless it could just piss sealant. That's why I take spare tubes 🙂

Oh and I am using normal tyres for tubeless, not those UST monsters.

not those UST monsters.

Racing Ralph UST I just put on the back of mine was 630g, not that bad...

1. Why are you taking a 3lb D lock on rides.
2. It's a bit like penis envy/worry isn't it?

You're a fool if you think a heavy bike is better in any situation.

Ssssh, don't mention that to Andy Schleck who just lost the TdF by the number of seconds he lost when he didn't bother making his bike slightly heavier by putting a chain device on it.....

That's just silly, when the sidewalls ripped a tubed tyre is more than often useless too, as the tube hangs out like a hernia.

Racing Ralph UST I just put on the back of mine was 630g, not that bad...

You're right, it's not that bad. Still heavier tho, and not as supple so more rolling resistance I'd guess.

It's a bit like penis envy/worry isn't it?

I wouldn't know!

Ssssh, don't mention that to Andy Schleck who just lost the TdF by the number of seconds he lost when he didn't bother making his bike slightly heavier by putting a chain device on it.....

Ssssh - Boardman cocked up - he did have a chain device on it (weight 10g).
I have to say though in 15yrs of road racing I've never seen a road bike with one on or felt the need to have one myself.

On threads such as this, the "anti-weight-weenies" always trot out the old maxim that 'you're better off losing a few ounces of fat from your body than shaving a few ounces off your bike'.
While somewhat true, it is in danger of being little more valuable than an old wives tale, since scientifically speaking, weight saved off the bike is "free" weight, whilst any weight saved on the body is balanced by muscle growth/decline.
In other words, if you put on a bit of fat, you don't have to get on your bike to compensate for it, you build more muscle to carry it around just by walking around, since it's always with you.
Conversely if you lose weight, you also lose muscle mass.
If you don't believe it, try the following experiment - find a 12 stone cyclist, and a 20 stone cyclist, then put the 12 stone cyclist on a bike that's 8 stone heavier than the 20 stone cyclist. Then have a race up a hill and see who wins.
Apart from in a few possible exceptions, normally the thin guy with the ballast will be shown a clean pair of heels.