Forum menu
I dislike heavy bikes but having bought a few over the last year I've come to realise most of the bikes I like , both ht and fs, weigh about the same and are just under 30lb.
The Solaris frame weighs 2.2Kg which is 17% of my bike's overall weight. What would a carbon 29er frame (that you'd trust) costing £500 weigh?
No idea of the frame cost but the S-Works Stumpjumper HT carbon frame weighs 1070g a saving of 1130g on my frame. Swap all my components over (we'll assume they'll fit) and the total bike weight is now 11.57Kg the frame is now 9% of the overall weight.
To get a light bike the frame is just one step.
I've been trying out some 27.5+ wheels in the Solaris - last night I headed round a test loop and got a PB on just about every segment for the same effort as doing the same loop on the 29er wheels, yet the bike is now 1.5Kg heavier! The loop has a variety of surfaces and 600m of climbing in 23Km. Other than the wheels nothing else was different in what I wore or carried.
It's largely irrelevant.
Average bloke weighs about 83kgs according to the ONS, bikes are going to be 11.7kg to 13.6kg (26-30lbs)...most hardtails are going to be somewhere in that range. Then we need clothes and water and a pack, lets call that lot 5-6 kgs?
so the weight of the notional bike is going to something like 11-13% of the total...
It makes a difference if you leap from a very light bike to a heavier one, you'll notice it at first, but it'll soon get normal, and in terms of speed, it makes almost no difference. I went from a FS carbon yeti trail/xc with 125mm travel to a ali 150mm Trail/mountain and went from about 27(ish) to 32(ish) and my times up some 20 minute climbs have maybe got 30 seconds slower...Important if you're racing, but in every other way, makes no difference.
but you know...whatever floats your boat.
I also think HTs should be less than 30lbs and still be capable of most things. It does make a difference for climbing, acceleration, and fatigue having a lighter bike, despite its small proportion in the overall weight of what you need to pedal.
My large Parkwood is under 27lbs with a non-dropper seatpost, and that was built up with 'normal' parts and spending way less than a grand.
But it's not really about climbing performance...
My medium BFe with XT, Reverb, Minions and Hope Enduro wheels comes in about 28lb. Good finishing kit but nothing outrageous. I'd rather have a bike like that built for purpose rather than have crazy light parts that are suspect in the durability stakes. I fitted a Minion SS on the rear and think rolling resistance helps offset a little weight...
My Zero AM is built up with almost exactly the same parts as my Spitfire, for smashing downhill and not breaking. The Spitfire weighs 31lbs, the Zero 27.5lbs. Unsurprisingly one frame weighs 4lbs and one weighs 7.5lbs. The Spitfire has carbon bars but otherwise there's no carbon on the two bikes, just good quality, reasonably light and reasonably strong parts (eg XT cranks, Hope hubs, Flow EX rims).
As long as weight remains the most easily measured spec of a bike, riders will obsess about it. Rolling resistance and pedalling efficiency both matter more but they're far harder to measure.
I think this thing about bikes "handling more" is an expectation rather than a reality.
Everyone likes to think they are really pushing hard and the next big thing in endurognarcore. In reality, they're probably not actually any quicker.
They may be a shed load more clumbsy though.
It is not all about speed, it is how the bike feels. Your own weight is not so relevant as that is all on your body whereas the bike is more like dead weight.
We also are not all average (overweight) 83kg people...
An 18lb bike is a bit daft for most of the riding most of my friends and I do. Pretty sure it wouldn't be very fun (by my own definition) to ride, and pretty sure it would break fairly soon - parts, wheels, frame - eventually through normal use and quickly if it was crashed. Horses for courses I guess.
I know safety standards have made it harder for manufacturers to make very light steel frames if they're to take longer forks. That partly explains the weight rise (for a given cost).
We also are not all average (overweight) 83kg people..
[Inspector Lestrade]
Thank god your 'ere Mr Homles
[/Inspector Lestrade]
Weight does make a difference. Maybe not 1 or 2lb but you'd defo notice a 5lb swing. I think the above comment might be right about the next 'new' thing being a drive to save weight.
I'm just surprised that weights seem to have increased so much over the last 11 years without any real benefit. Sure, the bikes ride better but a decent geometry doesn't explain the heft.
I'm just surprised that weights seem to have increased so much over the last 11 years without any real benefit. Sure, the bikes ride better
??
I always get frustrated by the weight issue that seems to crop up every now and again.
Compared to bikes when I started, (mid 90's) bikes are hugely, impossibly better in every way, suspension, brakes, gears, frames, wheels...all these things are immeasurably more capable, and at the extreme hardtails might be 1-2kgs more, but most are more or less the same.
It is not all about speed, it is how the bike feels. Your own weight is not so relevant as that is all on your body whereas the bike is more like dead weight
This really, after a point a bike looses it's light responsive feel, for me that's at about 28 lbs. Not so important if gravity is helping you but 80% of the time even in S.Wales I'm going up or on the flat. I want a bike to feel nice not just some of the time but for most of it.
If it's any consolation nick, you'll never convince the old guard that modern bikes are better. Most of them have no idea how much faster a bike can be ridden downhill (not necessarily by me!) over rough technical terrain that would leave an old lightweight hardtail feeling completely out of control as the rims, frame and fork flex out of shape and the fork pogoes/chokes/binds and the tyres pinch flat.
About now someone will post a pic of John Tomac shredding a descent on a scary old bike far more quickly than I ever could on my Gnarpoon. But I'm sure Chris Hoy could lap me on a chopper as I'm pedalling his sprint bike round the velodrome - doesn't make the chopper a better track bike!
I'm sure you could make a 25-26lb 29er hardtail that would cope with anything I could throw at it (as a 2kg above average man), money no object.
With limited funds though, I'll concentrate on getting stuff that works (not that I don't have one eye on weight during this build - it all ads up, I should know as I have a 38lb or so full sus, at which point it matters particularly when you have to carry the thing up hill - but in terms of riding it, tyres make more difference to the speed and feel than 10lb weight difference.)
The limiting factor in how fast a bike goes up or downhill is the lump of lard sat on top of it 😛
Modern bikes better? Most definitely - even bikes from ten years ago aren't a patch on today's models.
Just buy the bike you want (better still, build it) and ride it.... never weigh it.
Be happy.
Most of them have no idea how much faster a bike can be ridden downhill
Probably because the old guard don't care and don't have a bike to go downhill more than 50% of the time. I am more interested in how fast a bike goes uphill and how the bike feels to move around underneath me. In both cases, lighter the better.
About now someone will post a pic of John Tomac shredding a descent on a scary old bike far more quickly than I ever could on my Gnarpoon.
Will this do?
[img] 
[/img]
Swap the alloy frame for a comparable steel one and put cheaper but strong cranks, cassette, wheels on my bike and it would gain 3-4lbs. Swap to carbon rims, cranks and bars and it would lose 1-2lbs. Weight weenie it with less burly components and there's a lot of weight to lose, easily 1lb per wheel/tyre, 1lb on the fork etc. So the same hardtail could vary between about 22lbs and 32lbs depending on the build.
Philjunior - you can easily make a 29er hardtail like that, on a decent budget with stuff that works and is tough enough.
Heavy doesn't always mean tough/hardcore, and light doesn't always mean fragile/stiff: the compromises between 'strong, light, cheap, pick two' are much less than they used to be.
faustus - Member
Philjunior - you can easily make a 29er hardtail like that, on a decent budget with stuff that works and is tough enough.
It depends how much of a budget. My budget is "oops I didn't really mean to be building a new bike".
I could save 1lb or so going to a carbon frame (from Al), I might save 1/2lb total on the rims if I went carbon (at similar burliness), and if I went for skinnier tyres I would save something significant at no cost, forks I have got are very budget but only about 1/2lb heavier than those that I'd choose money no object (but prioritising function over weight - another lb or more could be saved if I went for SIDs). 1x drivetrain would be lighter (by maybe 1/2lb), but wouldn't get me as far up some climbs as the 2x9 I currently have does, and would be far more expensive.
I'll see what the weight is when it's built. I'm sure it will be fine for me, and it'll be reliable, but I do weigh these things, probably because I'm a child of the 90s.
I'm just surprised that weights seem to have increased so much over the last 11 years without any real benefit
They havent though have they.
Weights [i]like for like[/i] (intended use) are pretty mcuh the same or lower, the difference being that 15 years ago the 'norm' was a short travel XC race style bike as that's generally what the industry was punting out. The people riding long travel and burly HTs were the outliers, but the weights were the same or higher for that kind of bike*, not to mention they broke more frequently and didn't perform as well. Now there's a lot more middle ground with decent mid travel trail bikes that the XC race bikes are used in XC racing, the DH hardtails are in DH, and that leaves the middle ground of middle weight bikes.
ie: The bikes haven't got heavier, but more people are riding those bikes because they're more appropriate/popular/reliable
Weights in the 90's ~ 20lb -> 30lb depending on budget and build
Weights in the 00's ~ 20lb -> 30lb depending on budget and build
Weights in the 10's ~ 20lb -> 30lb depending on budget and build
^ now also consider that in each decade the bikes at any given weight/category are better performing than the preceeding decade.
* eg: A Mk1 90's DMR Trailstar with 130mm coil sprung Z1s, Hope C2 brakes, Hope Bulbs with D521 rims and burly tyres, Azonic bars and stem is [i]never[/i] coming in under 30lbs no matter how much XTR you throw at it.
I love the retro stuff and still ride some 90s/00's bikes regularly but there's a serious case of rose-tinted scales going on in this thread!
it all relative really 30lbs is not that heavy for a bike under say £500, but if it costs a grand yeah it's heavy
^ even that's relative... if you're talking about an XC bike sure, if you're talking about a DH hardtail or burly trail bike it's not, even at £1k
I bought a Chromag Samurai steel hardtail from a mate. With pikes, double Deore chainset and dropper etc it comes in at a portly 32lbs. I was a bitty surprised but its mainly a play bike and a winter basher so i am not too bothered.
Also its the first time in a long time i have no rear suspension. Thats a shock to the system 🙂
Still a nippy little bu@@er though.
I'm just surprised that weights seem to have increased so much over the last 11 years without any real benefit
They havent though have they.Weights like for like (intended use) are pretty mcuh the same or lower,
I'd second this. My 38lb bike is 10 years old, a similar machine these days would be labelled enduro and 5lb or so lighter. FFS if you spend the money and spec carefully these days you'd get a DH bike 30lb or less.
kerley - Yep. I can't even think about riding a bike that weighs 30lbs. My bike is not far off half that weight at around 18lbs and it still doesn't feel that light to me. I am cheating with an SS rigid bike but barring the rims it is a pretty strong build that I would ride anywhere without fear of breaking anything.
Hmmm, 18lbs...really? Post a pic hanging from some decent scales or I call bs on that.
My lightest MTB (Pace 200 F8, 1x10 XT/XTR, carbon forks, bars, seat post, etc.) feels really light, and in the heft test I estimated it at about 20/21 lbs. On the scales.....24 lbs.
I always get frustrated by the weight issue that seems to crop up every now and again.Compared to bikes when I started, (mid 90's) bikes are hugely, impossibly better in every way, suspension, brakes, gears, frames, wheels...all these things are immeasurably more capable, and at the extreme hardtails might be 1-2kgs more, but most are more or less the same.
Which is why I compared it to my 2005 bike. That had virtually all the features of a modern bike with no real effort to save weight yet was a good 3lb lighter than the bikes I've been looking at. Same travel, similar spec, more gears yet considerably lighter. I just can't see why this should be the case.
This is nothing to do with rose tinted specs or an early 90's rider thinking my 91 Pine Mountain can keep up with a modern bike. Modern bikes are great and perform better in virtually every way, I was just surprised at the weight of the ht's I've looked at and can't really see a reason for it. I would expect a ht to weigh less than fs but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Phil - you probably won't have to make those kind of build choices/compromises. My bike is alu but less than 2kg in large, alu superstar wheels less than £200 under 2kg, fairly cheap reba 120mm fork, 2.2 tyres, alu bars and seatpost, slx 1x10 is pretty cheap and has a good range...comes in below 27lbs and did not bust the bank by any means. Anyway, good luck with the build.
Hmmm, 18lbs...really? Post a pic hanging from some decent scales or I call bs on that.
I can believe it Tom, rigid Ti/Carbon/Light Alu SS with some carbon thrown at it and it's doable, but then you need to question the "good for anything and won't break" aspect 😉
I've got a 90's Klein rigid SS at a smidge over 17lbs, and my XC race bike is a carbon HT 1x9 XO with a carbon lefty is ~ 20lbs so it's perfectly reasonable, but I class them firmly in the 'mincing about' or 'racing only' category*, pretty sure NJee has had his FS Trek Top Fuel in the ~21lb area too and that's full sus!
For proper riding the ~30lb steel thing comes out instead, and isn't really any slower except busting a gut uphill racing...hell my full suss enduro gnarpooon which is far more capable than I am and still very quick is ~33lbs!
* for example there's no way I'd go crashing down our local runs every week on a pair of 1300g wheels with Podium rims, they simply wouldn't last, so they get saved for racing, but there's easily a whole pound lost there compare to most trail wheels, and that's before you take into account silly tyres etc.
I've had hardtails from 22lb to about 30lbs. IME, generally, my bikes start light and get heavier, most often in wheels and tyres, because it's these parts that show their weaknesses quickest and I don't have the budget to be replacing multiple tyres and rims annually.
Since shifting to 29ers, apart from my wheels exploding, I've found it s not possible to match the weight/stiffness ratio of a 26er with comparable equipment (stands to reason really), so you either accept the extra weight or spend more spondoolies on better wheels. Even then, that doesn't cover tyre robustness anyway.
Whilst I could be running lighter 29er tyres, the current 1kg each set, match the right blend of durability. On 26ers, the equivalent tyres would be 700-800g each.
Sure I could run a lighter bike and still ride the way I choose, but it's running costs in replacement parts would be significantly higher, and I'd inevitably face more down time during repairs.
It's a trade off.
'Rose tinted scales' + 1. Been riding a 160mm Orange Alpine that weighs in at just over 30lb with dropper and a tough build. It descends like 40lb DH bikes used to, but it goes all day and can climb up pretty much anything.
[quote="ajantom"]On the scales.....24 lbs.Without a full build of both, you've no way of working out where the extra weight has gone. I know on my first lightweight MTB, which was about 22 lbs in the mid 90's, a year of swapping the odd bit and changes to tyres, tubes and so on, saw it creep up to 24. Nothing replaced was particularly heavier, few grams here and there, but it all added up to near enough 2lbs. (Both weighed on proper scales)
Current weenie bike (which isn't really) cost me far less (we are talking going on for 50% less!), is far more capable and weighs about 21 lbs. Not weighed it for three years, but not actually changed much either. So i doubt there has been much in the way of change.
Been riding a 160mm Orange Alpine that weighs in at just over 30lb with dropper and a tough build. It descends like 40lb DH bikes used to, but it goes all day and can climb up pretty much anything.
That's exactly the point. Your Alpine will stand up to pretty much anything and the frame is not known as a feather weight. Why should a ht weigh the same?
ajantom - MemberHmmm, 18lbs...really? Post a pic hanging from some decent scales or I call bs on that
It's definitely doable, my Soda floated around the 21lb mark depending on tyres, and it had gears and a dropper and quite a lot of "light but not [i]super[/i] light" kit on it. (and wheels I had to true every couple of rides, to be fair).
It was a funny bike to ride though, rigid and lightweight meant I'd go to ride over things and it'd bounce off instead, it took a gust of wind or an obstinate pebble to knock it off line. In terms of capability, it knocked the shite out of my early-90s rigid though, brakes and tyres alone made all the difference.
I sometimes like to think "how far back do you have to go before this bike, would have been the best bike in the world". Really not very far in a lot of cases.
chestrockwell - MemberThat's exactly the point. Your Alpine will stand up to pretty much anything and the frame is not known as a feather weight. Why should a ht weigh the same?
If you're riding the same stuff, then mostly you want the same parts- so you end up with just the frame being lighter. (sometimes you'll want heavier parts on the HT, suspension coddles rims and tyres- I almost always had more back tyre on the Ragley than the Hemlock) And a lot of ht frames just aren't that much lighter. So in the end, a 6lb steel hardtail frame doesn't build up that much lighter than a 7lb full suss.
(it'll cost about £1000 less, new, though)
One of the bottom lines is, if you're building a burly hardtail you're not generally doing it because it'll be lighter than a burly full suss, you're doing it because hardtails are cool.
Is it just me that can ride lightweight kit quickly without breaking it then?
Maybe people have become used to ploughing through everything and expecting the kit to soak it up?
Not really.
I don't break much, if anything. Usually wears out first, or i get bored with it.
Hmmm, 18lbs...really? Post a pic hanging from some decent scales or I call bs on that.
Why would I bother doing that. You can disbelieve all you like, I have nothing to prove. I know my bike weighs 8.3kg (18.2lbs) and that is all I need to know. I even have a spreadsheet listing every single part and its weight on very accurate scales but again I don't need to show you that or prove anything.
As for strong components - XT brakes, Sram XX1 chainset, Hope hubs, Thomson stem/post etc,. nothing weak or likely to break there is there?
The only concession to light weight weaker stuff are the rims (340g Stans Alpine) and the tyres Continental Race king.
The whole point of this is to state that weight matters to SOME people and those that say it doesn't cannot talk for other people. No right or wrong here, but liking lighter bikes is not wrong.
Is it just me that can ride lightweight kit quickly without breaking it then?
not biting 😆
The only concession to light weight weaker stuff are the rims (340g Stans Alpine) and the tyres Continental Race king.
That's a fairly major concession right there...they obviously work for you and your riding, but a lot of people would tear them to shreds in no time, that's not saying they're rubbish, but it's back to the 'intended use' part of the equation, and comparing your light weight build with compromises appropriate to your riding to a burly bike for someone else's riding is pretty pointless as it's not a like for like comparison.
Earlier you said you couldn't even think about riding a bike that weighed 30lbs, well for some riding I wouldn't even entertain a rim <500g or a tyre <800g, and for others it'll be tyres > 1kg, suddenly the weight piles on, but it's for a reason.
If you're riding the same stuff, then mostly you want the same parts- so you end up with just the frame being lighter.
Yep, and I'd expect a ht to be a couple of pounds lighter so come in around 28lb for the same build.
Seems they aren't and that answers my original question. With this being the case they must be way over built or the manufacturers aren't trying.
You need context for that mol. What IS fast. What terrain? It's a mix too difficult to describe mostly.
It's no coincidence that of 6 of us who ride the same stuff together, we've all ended up with similar spec equipment.
IMO, Northwind comments about suspension coddling rims and tyres is a big factor for hardtails.
Yep, and I'd expect a ht to be a couple of pounds lighter so come in around 28lb for the same build
As Northwind said though, the 1-2lbs you lose on the frame you will often add a lot of back with a burlier set of rims and tyres so overall there's bugger all in it if you compare for the same intended use.