[Closed] Tyre weights...load of rubbish.

Weighting sh*t what a waste of time...... 😆

*is pleased his XR4's are light*

Don't normally weigh much...but given the hype about rollimg weight and going tubeless,thought I would make a comparison and realised its all a lie as usual!

As 'they' used to say in the olden days, 'If your that bothered about weight, have a shit & a haircut before you ride'

[i]Weighed 2 Hans Dampfs, supposedly 740gms at 793gms and 803gms today.[/i]

Pretty good then, at 793g and 803g - only a difference of 1% or so.

And the 740g is from the marketing dept...

Aye, there's 2 things going on here... One is just natural manufacturing variations (and some tyres are surprisingly handmade). And the other is claimed weights that are derived not from putting a tyre on some scales but on a marketing man making crap up.

See also: tyre widths.

I don't know if they always do this, but the last couple of Kendas I bought had a claimed weight and a +/- on the packaging, and they both came in well within the stated range. (also accurate on size)

Sorry...too much of a Ronseal person. Better off not reading what's on the tin!

There's usually several different weights depending on bead/rubber etc for each tyre... eg. XR4 vary from 582g to 861g
http://bontrager.com/model/09476

weights generally vary a bit and are 10-15% heavier than stated IME - bar the decent folks who weigh stuff properly.

"[i]As 'they' used to say in the olden days, 'If your that bothered about weight, have a shit & a haircut before you ride'[/i]"

Presumably "they", if they were talking any sort of sense rather than just being glib, also used to attach turds and hair to the fastest-rotating bits of their bikes.

😉

(Or, as they say in the modern days, if you're that bothered about weight, have a shit and a haircut *and* fit lighter components before you ride; cos if you're just having the shit and the haircut then maybe you're not really that bothered.)

PS, before you ask: yes I do; and a grade 2.

I once had a guy complain that the two super lightweight 29er tubes I sold him did not save him the 60g per wheel i claimed (based on me weighing 5 normal tubes and five SL tubes of the same size and brand) because when he removed his old tubes they were also a lightweight tube and only 15g heavier, and he weighed the new ones at 148g, not the 140g I came up with.

He wanted to post them back from Australia, and wanted me to pick up the postage and refund him, all for 8g.

Scales are probably not calibrated / accurate.
If you weigh things you will be disappointed

Weighed my hans dampf and they were both 740 give or take a gram.

I use calibrated scales and find that tyres are usually within acceptable tolerances for me.

(I may have on the odd occasion when in the grips of a real weight weenie fever, talked nicely to a fellow addict shop owner and weighed all their 29er tyres and similar to get the lightest pair in the shop)

please someone fetch a vet with a shot gun, I'm beyond help. 😳

I once weighed a wheel set, then gave myself a slap and had another beer - not done anything stupid like that for a while.

Sssssh, don't tell everyone, but the idea that rotating weight is important is another one of those cycling myths, along with cramp being a lack of salt, and hora being satisfied with his latest bike.

My Conti M-King and X-King 2.4 Protection came in a 10g or so less than the manufactures stated weights, all well and good you might say but it has taken 250ml of stans solution in each tyre to seal the friggin porous sidewalls and 10 days of constant deflation, i think they're sealed now as they've not went down in the last 2 days so i'll remove the extra 200g of sealant and see how i get on, would rather conti made the sidewalls with a heavier compound to start with.

How is the rotating weight idea a myth?

[url= http://www.schwalbetires.com/bike_tires/off-road_tires/hans_dampf ]Schwalbe website [/url] says 765g.

My HDs were 780 and 788 grams (Trailstar 26x2.35) so about 3 percent heavy which seems pretty reasonable to me.