[Closed] Expected weight of a modern Hard Tail?

My Slackline is an easy 30lb - 5.5lb frame, 2x9, Lyriks, Reverb, Flows, Minions, Zee 203/180 brakes. It all adds up. I have a 22lb rockhopper if I want to mess around on xc.

Doesn't bother me at all that my hardtail weighs roughly the same as the full-sus. They both do exactly the same thing, which is basically anything I want. Only difference is that they offer two different riding experiences, both with the emphasis on fun, but also both being tough, reliable, low maintenance and capable of being ridden all day on the kind of trails I like (Pennines and Lakes). Great bikes for me, but not necessarily for everyone. Like I said, horses for course.

you will often add a lot of back with a burlier set of rims and tyres

Well this is about choice isn't it. If you don't care about weight you'll add burly wheels, if you do you won't. It's not necessary to build it heavy, light doesn't mean it's going to snap unless you treat it that way.

If you don't care about weight you'll add burly wheels

It's not necessary to build it heavy, light doesn't mean it's going to snap unless you treat it that way.

Even if you do care about weight, you might choose to add the burly wheels for the burlyness and capability/performance/reliability they provide, it's not that you don't care about weight, it's that there are other factors* which in some cases will override it. Sometimes it is necessary to add weight if the lighter components would either be too fragile or cost too much.

* for a lot of people that reason is £

I'm no weight weenie but it just seems wrong that a mid range ht is as lardy as a mid range fs. I love steel and would normally choose it above aluminium but a 50% heavier frame that costs 50% more seems lazy to me.

My Chromag Rootdown is a hair under 30lbs.

Steel frame, big forks, dropper, big sturdy tyres and nice but not light parts (chromag bars and stem for example) and a SLX/XT level build will do that.

But I weigh 220lbs in my pants so I'm not worried about gram counting.

18lbs 4oz with tubes and heavy wheels, more than 500 quid though, nothing weight weenie though M9000 throughout, 240 Hubs, Pro Tharsis Post/Bars/Stem (not pictured) - could easily trim weight off it - doesn't feel fragile at all

[URL= http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/zz211/dansipods/2E86E3CB-53D5-4B3E-8ABA-A34E84B9BFAE_zpsotuzlqcg.jp g" target="_blank">http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/zz211/dansipods/2E86E3CB-53D5-4B3E-8ABA-A34E84B9BFAE_zpsotuzlqcg.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

it's that there are other factors* which in some cases will override it

Of course. But we have a choice. It feels like we are still facing the backlash from 90s weight weenieism, which started in about 2000, when people realised that solid bikes had something going for them. But that doesn't mean that light bikes don't have something else going for them.

I'm all for choice, however don't rubbish light kit just because you like heavy kit. It rides differently, some may like that.

My 31lb Patriot is the second one I've had. The first one was stolen, and it was 37lbs with coil forks and shock. The current one can be ridden all day; the original one though was just too damn heavy. So a lighter (and more expensive) build has made it into a bike that's almost as capable downhill (easily capable enough for trail riding) but can be used as a normal bike instead of a winch and plummet.

molgrips - Member
Is it just me that can ride lightweight kit quickly without breaking it then?

In all honesty, I ride better and faster these days, and can get away with lighter rims than I used to need on my HT back in the late 90s. But I wouldn't be going superlight as, well I'm not light, and I don't want to have to nurse it.

There's something deeply satisfying about putting dual ply tyres on a strong DH rim, pointing it down a hill and worrying about nothing except whether you can stay on top of the bike, HT or FS.

There's something deeply satisfying about putting dual ply tyres on a strong DH rim, pointing it down a hill and worrying about nothing except whether you can stay on top of the bike, HT or FS.

Yeah, there is, that's why I have more than one bike. I don't understand people who buy multiple bikes that are similar. For me, the whole point of multiple bikes is to cover as diverse a range of riding as possible.

Currently I have the Patriot, a rigid Salsa and an XC race bike. Pretty good coverage there I think 🙂

If I had to have one, though, I'd have to lose some of those different ways to ride.

I don't understand people who buy multiple bikes that are similar. For me, the whole point of multiple bikes is to cover as diverse a range of riding as possible.

I'm one of those people. I have two bikes, one FS, one HT. I ride the same trails on both, and choose largely on what I fancy at the time. They give wildly different ride experiences on the same trails, but have ended up similarly built to cope.

Having the right bike for the right circumstances isn't [i]always[/i] the most rewarding experience, but thats as much to do with my 'Can I get a bike over it?' mentality as anything else.

That said, I'm just a trail hacker. Racing, in any discipline is of no interest to me. Obviously if it was, I'd have the right kit for each discipline.

chestrockwell - Member

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.

I've a feeling you may just be looking at bikes that are intentionally built sturdy not light (bearing in mind that they have to build the bike for the hardest use it'll reasonably face, under the fattest clumsiest fastest rider). Light hts are out there but they tend to be racier.

(IMO there's a wee bit of an absence in the middle; the "hard hitting xc bike", classic allrounder XC machine, for your red routes rider who doesn't want racy but does want fast... But I understand why it's a harder market to satisfy, and why manufacturers doing light bikes tend to make them racy.)

I'm all for choice, however don't rubbish light kit just because you like heavy kit. It rides differently, some may like that.

[i]I'm [/i]not rubbishing it, hence all the explanations in my posts about having both heavy and light bikes and saying it's all about intended use.

Let's face it, a lot of this comes down to where you ride and what a bike is being asked to do. World of difference between trail centre trails and natural stuff in places like the Lakes. A wheel set-up that works at Gisburn might last 10 mins on a Lakes descent, even in the hands of the best riders. Not knocking trails centres - it's just a big factor. The likelihood of crashing counts too. If you ride steep, techy stuff and reckon you might crash from time to time, then you'll want a more robust bike, and that's likely to be heavier. Doesn't mean you're not a good rider - just means you might ride more challenging trails and need a bike to suit.

There are now a lot of people riding the same rocky trails in the Lakes or Peaks as 10-20 years ago but a lot faster. That is partly down to the progession in bike technology but also down to the move away from XC being the ‘in’ thing, to a big surge in the populatily of DH, and now its settled somewhere in the middle with whatever ‘trail’ riding is called these days.

The bikes shown on this thread which are hovering around the 20lb mark or well below or even a good few lb heavier than that, will probably be ridden in an XC style on the trails (heck some pictured don’t even have a QR on the seat post let alone a dropper).

I used to have a Ti456 when they first came out and it was 23.5lb as I wanted to be XC fast, once my riding became more DH focused started putting Flow wheels on and proper 2.4 tyres, QR suspension to bolt through forks, chain guide, dropper post the bike soon turned into 27.5lb quite easily, but was far better suited and more composed on the downs and I was only marginally slower on the ups.

Put a good rider (i.e Strava top 1%) on a ‘trail’ focused bike and point him/her down the Beast, Cavedale, Garburn Pass etc and they’ll put in a good time. Put the same rider on that OPEN 18lb hardtail without a QR seat post collar, with a steep head angle and not proper suspension and he/she will be massively slower compared to their time on the trail bike.

Latest hardtail I’ve just built up is steel and 30lb, but its built around the style riding I now do.

I love weight threads and all the willy waving and blind optimism, then a wonderful combo of the two.

2013 26" Chameleon
Pikes
Reverb
X1 gears
Hope brakes, HS and hubs
Waay old singletrack rims
3c HRII's

It weighs 12 lbs. 😉

"hard hitting xc bike"

My Trek 29er is pretty much as you describe. An awesomely capable bike.

I just don't believe bikes are as fragile as many people think. What kills bikes IME is crashes, where the force is hitting areas simply not designed for it.

Back to the OP anything over 28lbs for a £1k+ hardtail is lardy and to be avoided.

Now I know why everyone seems to use uplifts!

Back to the OP anything over 28lbs for a £1k+ hardtail is lardy and to be avoided.

😆 one of my (2015 model year) hardtails (not the chameleon) weight 34/35lbs and its rrp was £3500 😆

I love weight threads and all the willy waving and blind optimism,

Proper weight weenies have scales.. like me...

weight 34/35lbs and its rrp was £3500

They saw you coming 😯

Proper weight weenies [s]have scales[/s] do it by feel...

FTFY

*I didn't pay rrp, and the tyres are 4 1/2 inches wide. 4lbs of it is inner tubes 😉

They give wildly different ride experiences on the same trails, but have ended up similarly built to cope.

Any bike can cope with almost anything. There's no 'need' to make a bike beefy to survive normal trail riding. It's about how fast you want to go, and what you want to compromise on.

A wheel set-up that works at Gisburn might last 10 mins on a Lakes descent, even in the hands of the best riders.

Nope. I've ridden my XC race bike with its 1300g wheels on DH courses, and on rocky mountain steep stuff. I just do it slowly and carefully. It's perfectly possible. Most Lakes trails have been there for 100 years and were being ridden on 90s rigid bikes. It's a completely different experience, but you can do it without breaking everything.

Wonder how much that Morf weighs on the fresh goods Friday?

Nope. I've ridden my XC race bike with its 1300g wheels on DH courses, and on rocky mountain steep stuff. I just do it slowly and carefully.

But why would you want too, when you could ride a pair of 1800g wheels on rocky trails fast and they will still work on all other trails too

Nope. I've ridden my XC race bike with its 1300g wheels on DH courses, and on rocky mountain steep stuff. I just do it slowly and carefully.

That's exactly the point people are making though isn't it, it's not that it can't be done, hell you could ride a road bike down if you took your time, the point is you're having to hold back...and for people that don't want to have to do that whether that be due to lack of skills, or the exact opposite then the heavier components are 'right' choice for them.

All.About.Intended.Use

which is what makes blanket statemenets like 'anything over/under X lbs is too heavy/light' a load of MooPoo!

But why would you want too, when you could ride a pair of 1800g wheels on rocky trails fast and they will still work on all other trails too

But why would you want too, when you could ride a pair of 1300g wheels on rocky trails fast and they will still work on all other trails too.

Not 1300g but I'm >100kg and regularly get airborne on some 29er Crest Wheels which if forum mob opinion is to be believed, should have the strength and stiffness of overcooked noodles.

As Dragon said, most of the time it's crashing that kills bikes, not riding them.

Amedias +1

I've a feeling you may just be looking at bikes that are intentionally built sturdy not light (bearing in mind that they have to build the bike for the hardest use it'll reasonably face, under the fattest clumsiest fastest rider). Light hts are out there but they tend to be racier.

(IMO there's a wee bit of an absence in the middle; the "hard hitting xc bike", classic allrounder XC machine, for your red routes rider who doesn't want racy but does want fast... But I understand why it's a harder market to satisfy, and why manufacturers doing light bikes tend to make them racy.)

I think you've probably nailed it there. The current trail/enduro/gnar ht is far more capable than most of us where as xc race bikes are just that with a vacuum in the middle.

Going further there seems to be a trend in fs towards less travel, less weight, less toughness but still having aggressive geometry. I wonder if that's the next route for ht and I'm a year too early?

Rik + 1 Of course we can ride most bikes down Lakes descents, but many of us who like that sort of trail don't want to have to pick our way down carefully at a snail's pace just to protect our bikes. Done that 20 years ago, and personally I have more fun on bikes now than then.

Last weekend, I was riding a 27.5lb 6" travel slack angled carbon framed 'enduro' bike.

This weekend, I will be riding a relatively steep angled 24lb ti framed hardtail bike.

Guess what? I'll have the same, stupid big smile on my face and flies in my teeth!

The best bike or the best weight bike is the one you are riding at the time - a bit like the best camera on the camera thread the other day.

My steel Switchback was pretty light - not sure how much but a lot lighter than my Rune which was 33lbs or so. The only thing I kept an eye on weight wise was the wheels.

My current Ti one is much lighter.

Things like dropper posts add a good chunk of weight at 500g or so, especially compared to something like an ibeam post.

I try not to get too hug up about weight, feel is more important. My Rune was a porker on the scales but didn't feel like it when riding it even on long XC stuff.

it's not that it can't be done, hell you could ride a road bike down if you took your time, the point is you're having to hold back

But why would you want too, when you could ride a pair of 1800g wheels on rocky trails fast and they will still work on all other trails too

You wouldn't. Well, having said that - there is a certain smug satisfaction in making it. Cleaning something difficult is a recognised pleasure in MTBing.

However read that with respect to what I quoted. Someone was suggesting that the bike could not take it and would break in ten minutes. It won't.

The thing about light bikes is that they handle, stop and go very nicely. So if you aren't smashing your way down rocky steep trails and are on say woodsy singletrack, they can actually be very nice.

dragon - Member

My Trek 29er is pretty much as you describe. An awesomely capable bike.

Original stache?

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.

You have nothing to prove, but have a spreadsheet of individual part weights? Sorry, but that is a little sad 😆

The thing about light bikes is that they handle, stop and go very nicely. So if you aren't smashing your way down rocky steep trails and are on say woodsy singletrack, they can actually be very nice.

Exactly. And add riding uphill and the only area a light build bike will hold you back is on those rough downhills
where you want to go as fast as possible.

ajantom - Member

You have nothing to prove, but have a spreadsheet of individual part weights? Sorry, but that is a little sad

If you want to make a light bike, you have to know what the bits weigh. (I have a spreadsheet of all the OE bits on my fatbike, but more because I thought it was funny... "THen I saved 1300g by changing the wheels!" On my normal bike, if I saved 1300g off the wheels I think I'd just have a rear hub.

the only area a light build bike will hold you back is on those rough downhills

And if you don't have any rough downhills in your area...?

And if you don't have any rough downhills in your area...?

Move?

What's wrong with smooth downhills?

Speed can be fun, but we all like a bit of tech, no?

Seriously, I visited a friend in Norfolk a few years ago. Think I'd go mad living there!

Speed can be fun, but we all like a bit of tech, no?

Everything is tech if you do it fast enough. And besides, rocks don't make tech. I've got rocky trails where you just have to brake and roll down, I've also got smooth stuff that's heart-in-mouth and hard to get right.

I visited a friend in Norfolk

I said smooth downhills, but still some downhills! Had a great deal of fun on my rigid bike in Hampshire last summer.

You have nothing to prove, but have a spreadsheet of individual part weights? Sorry, but that is a little sad

Well hardly a spreadsheet as just using 4 columns - part type, part make/model, part cost, part weight.
Just easier to log that way when building the bike and kept it as a record and it totals up the cost and weight as you go. And don't worry, I don't have any queries out to databases or any macro's in it...

I would imagine you do loads of things that I would deem sad but we're all different so no need to apoligize..

 

Oh, I'm totally sad I many ways! You should see my catalogued and plastic sleeved record collection (though some of them are worth £100s so kind of has a point!)

Back to the original point of the thread though. I can see the point in *wanting* a light bike, but when it boils down to it, unless you are racing and watching the 'marginal gains' then a 28-30lb bike is going to be fine. I mean even a small bloke at about 9 stone (124 lbs or so) 4 or 5 pounds is a small % of their weight. More of a biffer like me at 13 stone, I probably lose 4 lbs when I poo!