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

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.

on the body is balanced by muscle growth/decline.

Conversely if you lose weight, you also lose muscle mass.

Now that is a fabulous wives tales...

 

put the 12 stone cyclist on a bike that's 8 stone heavier than the 20 stone cyclist

Or just put the 12 stone cyclist on a nice light bike of his choice knowing that he wont break it. Then put the 20 stoner on a strong (to support his weight) but utimately heavy bike and race them uphill. I bet the guy who weighs 12 stone wins.

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.

http://www.parker-international.co.uk/432/Deda-Dog-Fang.html?referrer=froogle&utm_source=google&utm_medium=froogle&utm_campaign=pid432

Actually the one on Schlek's bikes was one of [url= http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/cycle/7/K-Edge_Chain_Catcher/5360044389/ ]these[/url].

As I said though, in 15yrs including some time riding as an elite, I've never actually seen one on a bike - maybe the "pros" parkers mention as all using them are the real pros on the continent and you pick on up in your induction pack 😉

The weight thing is a red herring here though as all the top bikes come in under weight and carry a little ballast to get up to the uci minimum, so the 10g just comes off the ballast and the bike weights the same.

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.

Yep, that's why fat people have the most toned bodies of all, and as a general rule can run and cycle just as fast as thin people and never get out of breath ...

I think anybody who really thinks that human body has a constant fat-to-muscle ratio needs to log of the Internet now and meet some real people 🙂

Don't over think it. Just have fun riding.

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.

Wonders why I dont see any fat cyclists at the Olympicas or on the Tour but hey a guy on the Internet said it so it is clearly true.

Or just put the 12 stone cyclist on a nice light bike of his choice knowing that he wont break it. Then put the 20 stoner on a strong (to support his weight) but utimately heavy bike and race them uphill. I bet the guy who weighs 12 stone wins.

Yeah but that's a different experiment to prove a different point, is it not?

The original point was that weight on the bike and weight on the body are different things, especially for MTBers.

Er - bit off topic but what advert is everyone else getting on the right of this thread? I know for an absolute fact I've never needed any of what I'm being offered!

I discovered this weekend that my SS HT is a fair bit heaver than I'd imagined, by 2 or 3 pounds at least. Quite surprising the difference between 'perceived weight' and 'actual weight'. I'm pretty chuffed, because it means my 'performance' is just a teeny bit better than I thought, considering the considerable extra weight I'm lugging around. TBH, the bike doesn't feel 'heavy', although I know it would be a little bit more sprightly with lighter wheels. I pondered what would be involved in taking that extra 2-3 pounds off, and have concluded that it would cost me in the region of £800. And mean getting rid of loads of decent parts which are doing a perfectly good job anyway. Would it make my riding any more enjoyable? I doubt it. In the meantime, hoiking the 2kg+ wheels around means I'm getting fitter. And better. Give me a sub-20lb machine, and I'll burn you all!