Forum menu
What Molgrips said.
It's not all about the rocks, I went to uni in Sheffield, having access to rim smashing trails from your door is fun, and I miss it, but it's not the be all and end all, eventually you crave some speed and corners!
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.
See I guess from my XC roots I want a bike that goes point to point as quick as possible. Even Enduro bikes have to compromise on the downhill capability to make them ridable uphill.
Anyway if Tracy Mosley thinks that if she was limited to one bike she'd have a 120mm full sus, then that's good enough for me.
Someone was suggesting that the bike could not take it and would break in ten minutes. It won't.
10 mins is internet exaggeration for sure, but the point is still valid, if you don't hold back and were to ride some lightweight stuff at full pelt in the way you can ride burlier stuff it wouldn't last [i]as long[/i].
I know from experience where the durability sweetspot is for my personal riding, and I know if I go under it I start breaking things sooner than I'd like.
The options therefore become, add weight for durability and strength/performance, or hold back, and frankly, I don't want to hold back!
If I want a nice gentle pootle I'll go out on my tourer (which weighs a ton), if I want to make life difficult I'll use my silly light SS, but I don't want equipment holding me back on general MTB rides, the only thing I want holding me back is me.
When racing it's a bit different, I still go as light as I can, but I take some more risks with equipment that I wouldn't use on a daily basis, not because its not outright strong enough, but because it doesn't have the extra leeway or the long term durability.
because it doesn't have the extra leeway or the long term durability.
Such as?
Such as?
well one example from earlier in the thread, Stans Podium rims...
very light, strong [i]enough [/i]but fatigue wise they die early, I also wouldn't trust them to repeated hard beatings.
Also, superlight tyres, they are not as durable, and they certainly don't have as much leeway for hitting pointy things.
Superlight rotors which either don't perform as well or can't take the occasional little bump.
And lightweight Alu drivetrain bits were steel lasts longer and is more bash proof
I'll also quite happily take a slightly heavier bigger fork on the trail with more bushing overlap and maybe even old school with a proper oil bath over some stunted-stanchion almost-dry flexier XC forks that I would happily use for racing.
EDIT - in fact any super light bits where either a bit more material or a different material would add a few grammes but make them sturdier.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm coming at this from both sides, I have light bikes and heavy bikes, I use them both, under different circumstances, I'm just firmly in the camp that says it is sometimes necessary to add weight to achieve certain requirements, when the alternative is a less durable or capable bike for the use you want to put it to.
Just because a 20lb XC whippet works for you, or even a 31lb bruiser of a HT, it doesn't mean that it will work for everyone else everywhere, and blanket statemnts like Xlbs is too heavy for a HT etc. are just too black and white in my eyes.
Where are all these mid range sub 30lb fs trail bikes?
Quick review of bike weights reported by my riding buddies- bikes specced for a weekend in Wales including Snowdon, where strava top 10s were obtained on rhyd ddu and rangers top to bottom, so durability and all day pedalability most important factors:
Aluminium reign with 1x11 pikes, procore at the back etc 31.6lb
Santacruz butcher 2x10 pikes 31.5lb
Carbon reign pikes 1x11 30.5lb
Spesh pitch 26 2x10 lyriks 33lb---fastest of all of us down most things
My Blur 4x pike air 454 reverb 2x10 i25s pro2s 2.5 minion UST etc 32.5lb
Depends on your idea of mid range I guess.
My nothing special HT, Prince Albert classic with revs 1x10 dropper and 2.3 tyres on arch ex is 28lb.
My five was 27lbs. It was originally 26 but I put bigger tyres on.
Must be bigger wheels then...
I knew I was right to stick with 26
the point is still valid, if you don't hold back and were to ride some lightweight stuff at full pelt in the way you can ride burlier stuff it wouldn't last as long.
It's just not possible to ride it quite as fast, but yes of course - if you **** it really hard, it'll break. That's obvious. However ****ting it hard is not a requirement to get down many trails. That's my point. It will last perfectly fine if you are sensible (yet not slow). It's not INHERENTLY short lived.
Stans Podium rims
Those are the extreme ultra light race only ones, yes? Not really a fair comparison. Compare something like say, Crest with Flow. Crest will last just fine if you ride normally and aren't an oaf. Flow if you want to push it harder. And by hard I mean properly exercising your bike, not going slightly quicker than mincing.
I'm just firmly in the camp that says it is sometimes necessary to add weight to achieve certain requirements
Of course, that's obvious. What I'm trying to say is that you don't HAVE to build a 30lb bike to prevent it falling to bits at the first rock. 24lb bikes are far more capable than some people apparently seem to think, and 21lb bikes can get down most things in the right hands or in the right part of the country.
Furthermore, there are OTHER advantages to light bikes - they ride really nicely - and if you don't ride in the rocky areas of the country you might actually have more fun on one.
Those are the extreme ultra light race only ones, yes? Not really a fair comparison
that's exactly what we were comparing, light things that can be too fragile Vs normal things that aren't.
The Crest v Flow thing in my mind isn't comparing light with normal, it's comparing with heavy duty. The Flow is a very tough rim.
And you know what, the Crest is still right at the limit of what I would consider an everyday XC rim, and I'd not be confident giving them a repeated hard time unless I had some pretty beefy rubber wrapped around them, which would kind of defeat the point. Maybe I'm being overly cautious but I've seen enough ruined lightweight rims over the years to sway my opinion. Arch would be more like it, and they're still a decent weight for their toughness.
normal things that aren't
I'm saying that there are two kinds of normal. Light normal and heavier normal, that normal people can choose between. DH and weightweenie kit are outside of that range.
Light normal bike - 25lbs, heavy normal bike = 30lbs, weightweenie bike = 20lbs
I'd not be confident giving them a hard time
Of course, that's precisely my point 🙂
I think we're banging the same drum but with one tiny difference in perspective/opinion:
[s]heavy [/s]normal bike = 28-30lbs, heavy = 32-33lbs+
but again, this is all dependant on where and who you ride with isn't it. My bikes were certainly a lot lighter when I lived in the South East vs the South West.
Whenever my non-racing bikes go < 26lbs I start getting failures or compromises I'm not willing to have, and so they creep back up.
I said it early on in the thread though, when a lightish tyre comes in at 600g, and a tougher burly one nearer 1kg, simply the difference in tyres for a ride or conditions can be 1-2lbs so getting hung up on 26vs28lb or 28vs30lbs is largely irrelevant without knowing the details.
It's like the old 'weighed without pedals' thing, they have to be as pedals are so personal, there'd be a lot more parity between bike weights if they were quoted without tyres and that was left up to the customer to pick to their preference, not that for one second I'm suggesting we start actually doing that! 🙂
My perspective might be skewed towards 26ers though. 29ers would seem to be a good chunk heavier.
that's exactly what we were comparing, light things that can be too fragile Vs normal things that aren't.
Not really. The 'normal' is the forgotten section in the middle. What's being compared is weight weenie stuff Vs over built tough gear. I can't accept a 30lb ht is normal.
@ chestrockwell
[url= http://www.mbr.co.uk/reviews/hardtail/bird-zero-3-2015-review ]Bird Zero 3 weight[/url]
So bathroom scales not far off!
That's more like it and puts Bird on the list!
Wheels are larger, tyres bigger and tougher, rims wider, frames longer, head tubes and seat tubes larger (tapered forks and dropper posts), forks thicker and CEN requirements for frame durability more demanding. On the plus side, these burlier bikes cover ground just as fast as their more dainty smaller wheeled predecessors, despite the extra weight.
If you find the 30lb mark psychologically bothering, either go alloy for the frame or hang a load of carbon bits off a steel frame. With bigger wheels and tyres and dropper posts I'm not sure steel is as advantageous as it used to be.
[img] 
[/img]
That's 27.5lbs, built pretty damned strong. You could lose a fair bit of cost and excess strength without ending up with a flimsy bike or gaining weight.
That's what am talking about. 27.5lbs for a burly hard tail seems ok. Nice bike 🙂
molgrips, not meaning to cause offence, or doubt you but how are you getting your FS bikes so light?
My Carbon S-Works Enduro = 31lbs, but it has got HopeTech Enduro wheels and X-Fusion Vengeance forks
My carbon Capra with Lyriks, 1 x 11, e-thirteen wheels (light) and Raceface finishing kit, is still over 30lbs
Tl;dr
The problem here is meauring in pounds.
By converting to kilos you're at what? 13?
Thats seventeen more better! go on, have another slice of cake.
Tafkastr, not entirely sure, although being 26 helps a lot. Will check the weight again. It's got 3x9 XT, 66sls, hope hubs and brakes, maxis ignitors 2.35 tubeless, medium weight kit...
I keep meaning to go weigh my SIngular just for a laugh.... On-One Reet'ards and Alfine does not a light bike make....
TBH my road bike would do the same.....
Heavy guy - Heavy Bikes....
Cheers, Steve
Singular Swift with old On-One Reet'ard wheels, Alfine and Rockshox Recon Silvers 14.3kg....whats that about 32lbs? Doesn't matter as I like how it rides....
My Mk2 Kaff is 11.6kg..heavy for a road bike, I was surprised my wife's Merida Speeder was heavier by nears a kg.
Cheers, Steve
27.5lb on my Park scales, could go lighter with the tyres. Rode it today for first time since riding fat bike exclusively this year - it positively felt like a whippet! Despite being only a couple pounds lighter than my fat bike, it's like night and day riding them
[URL= http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae168/keepitsteel/image_zps5tr4ckbg.jpe g" target="_blank">
http://i968.photobucket.com/albums/ae168/keepitsteel/image_zps5tr4ckbg.jpe g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
A base level Zero TR (the £995 one) in large weighs 27-28lbs depending on tyre choices/1x v 2x drivetrain etc. From there its hard to make it heavier unless you add a Reverb.
Just out of interest Ben is that 27-28lbs with or without pedals?
What's a reverb weigh? 530g maybe, so +250g (1/2lb) over a normal post?
All of your bikes come tubeless by default don't they?
Thats without pedals yes. A reverb adds around 1/2lb on average but that depends on the post of course!
We don't do tubes 8)
What's the point of weighing without pedals? They are part of the bike, you wouldn't weigh the bike without the front wheel.
Because it's far too personal and dependant on pedal/footwear type so to be fair weights are normally always quoted with pedals. you gonna weigh with riders shoes as well?
So that puts a Bird with reverb and pedals back up to around 29lbs, so right back where we started, an entirely respectable and normal weight for a bike of that type and budget.
I know it's been said before but should be highlighted again, big thumbs up for Bird supplying bikes already tubeless'd 🙂
My new Boardman Pro 29er is 26.9 lbs with pedals. A bit heavier than expected but some of the OE finishing kit is quite lardy and theMountain king tyres are of the non chilli variety so should be able to lose a pound off that quite easily.
By comparison my 26er hardtail is is 24.5lbs but much less confident inspiring to ride.
Because it's far too personal and dependant on pedal/footwear type so to be fair weights are normally always quoted with pedals. you gonna weigh with riders shoes as well?
So are tyres, saddle, handlebars, gearing, etc. The only weight that matters and that should be compared is trail weight otherwise it's just showroom BS. You aren't going to get very far without pedals so why omit them from the total.
Shoes are part of a rider's clothing so don't count to the bike weight.
Shoes are part of a rider's clothing so don't count to the bike weight.
But you have to accelerate them round in circles a LOT on the average ride, believe me shoe weight is a factor in racing circles (delicious pun intended)
My point is that pedals are arguably different from tyres and other components as they are more than just a preference, for example, if I ride SPDs and you ride flats, we'd have a hard time swapping bikes on a ride, but our choice of tyres or gearing wouldn't.
Pedal choice forces you down a particular avenue, if you were looking at bike X supplied with SPDs and you're a flat rider, comparing it against bike Y supplied with flats you'd have to start looking up pedal weights and doing mental-swapsies to compare, better that they're just both listed without pedals for an even comparison, especially since pedals are often not supplied OEM or only basic plastic jobbies to get you home.
Pedals exist in that dodgy zone where they're more than a preference, but still part of the bike as well as the rider, if you could imagine that all bikes simply had 'default spindle X' fitted to their cranks, and your shoes/pedal 9as a unit) slotted onto them then you could take them out of the equation. But as it is there is a reason why bike weights have historically been quoted without pedals.
I know why manufacturers/shops quote bikes without pedals but once outside that environment it's pointless: quote the weight of the bike in the configuration you ride it not in comparison to shop quoted weights.
A reasonable comparison would be quoting a manufacturers calorie count of a cake while ignoring the cream you poured over the top. Yes the calorie count is correct for how you [b]bought[/b] it but it's not for how you [b]eat[/b] it. Hmm cake ... 😆
quote the weight of the bike in the configuration you ride it not in comparison to shop quoted weights.
on this I agree 🙂
It's why the question keeps getting asked isn't it though, manufacturers quote without pedals (for reasons), but then people compare real world weights and get confused why its lb's heavier once they've bolted pedals and proper tyres and a dropper on etc.
And I think it's also why a lot of people are so often wildly optimistic about their own bike weight unless they're proper weighers.
Manufacturers have always quoted bikes without pedals because (for legal reasons) the supplied pedals are garbage and would add alot of weight. Once one starts quoting without pedals everyone has too. Otherwise its bunk. Therefore the ridden configuration would almost certainly be different to what is supplied. Its easier to standardise on no pedals than with. Weights are comparative not real in terms of their usefulness.
Late to the party, but my new Scott Scale 910 (carbon 29er) with MountainKing Protection 2.4 on (heavy tyres, tubeless) comes in at 11kg, or 24.3lbs - and that's with the double still on
benpinnick - MemberTherefore the ridden configuration would almost certainly be different to what is supplied. Its easier to standardise on no pedals than with.
Yup. And since with quality bikes, the pedals included aren't expected to be used, they could easily go the other way and include something useless but very light- tiny plastic pedals or something- and go "400g lighter!"