Are we getting a bit to precious about weight?

Now I know that a lighter bike is probably a better bike and for the competitive hardcore racer it could mean the difference between winning and losing, but for the average man in the street (or pootler) is losing every last gram such a big deal?

I ask because I've just changed my 853 Inbred for an 853 Pipedream Sirius, I switched the kit across, rode the bike and really enjoyed it, it's a tad harsher and less flexy but then again there are situations where the frame being a little less flexy and more direct can be a plus. And then I read various posts about how the Sirius is a bit of a bloater and I decided I didn't like it (I should probably worry less about what other people think). I've just come back from another ride and actually I really do like the frame and in it is heavier I really can't tell the difference.

Now I'm not a racer, or even a skilled rider, I just pootle around enjoying the ride, and I'm probably larger than the average race whippet too, add to that the fact that my ride rucksack contains a 3lb D lock, tools, a tube, a pump, a mobile phone and at least one bottle of drink (I've just weighed it before posting and it comes out at a staggering 8lb 12oz) and I guess that spending a fortune on titanium bolts isn't going to notice much. A few extra ounces on the bike is probably going to get lost in the general mass.

Are we getting a bit obsessive about the weight of components

Think we've been here before, numerous times…
IMO cyclists in general always overestimate the gains to be made from weight saving, and are pretty poor at looking at weight in any kind of real world context.
There is a vast amount of marketing guff aimed at making folk think that cutting 100-500 grammes off the weight of their bikes will make a substantial difference to performance, but it doesn't really add up in the real world.
As you suggested, carrying a weighty Camelbak, plus being on the well upholstered side means that saving a few hundred grammes on your bike from a total weight of 100+ kgs is not going to make you into a riding god.

It is fashionable again.

Every little counts, save 40g here, 70g there and it'll all add up. You won't notice it but it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside know your bike is half a kilo lighter.

Spot on OP – for the average stwer (overweight, unfit, uncompetitive if he actually IS racing) it doesn't matter.

But a light bike can be a joy to ride, that's what (may) matter to me.

I'm not sure that people care for normal trail riding do they? Maybe losing weight in the obvious places but not swapping a stem to save 10g. Racers are into this and if you do ride a bike without all the extra baggage a light bike is noticeable. I built a light hardtail just for fun and it does feel nippier than my 27lb Soul.

My two mtbs are both heavy and built that way on purpose as I'm crap 🙂

Never really been a concern for me.

I like my bikes to be fairly light, no need to be race light though. 25lbs is alright – certainly a noticable difference to a 30lb anvil.

Kev

Light bikes are nice because they handle better (on the whole) and also climb better (or feel like they are). They may or may not shave a few minutes off your personal best times for climbs but that's often not the point. They feel nice. As long as you don't make it too light for your weight/skill level/kind of riding.

Weight saving has to be done in order. The first 2kg will be easy and cheap, the last 100g will cost a fortune.

Even for normal trail riding, a 23lb bike is much much nicer than a 33lb one.

Light is as follows, I reckon:

Road bike – 16lbs
XC race HT – 20lbs
XC race FS – 22lbs
Long travel hardtail – 23-24lbs (depending on beefiness of kit)
General XC bike – 24-25lbs
Trail (6" bike) 25-26lbs
Budget MTB – 27lbs
Hardcore XC/AM bike – 30lbs

I will just keep riding my anvil up and down the hills then… I bet I can, and may should, shed more weight that my bike can.

Are we getting a bit to precious about weight?

…so molgrips gives us his 'these are light bikes' list…. 🙄

Light bikes are nice because they handle better

Do not agree

Light is great up to the point it becomes "fragile and skittish" – then it's a PITA. Being sensible is the best option. I have no intention of saving any more weight on my 22-23lb HT having whopped a couple of pounds (and over a grand) on it.

bikes that feel right aren't always the lightest, are they?

LT HT 24lbs? I'd kill that in minutes.

Long travel hardtail – 23-24lbs (depending on beefiness of kit)
Trail (6" bike) 25-26lbs
Hardcore XC/AM bike – 30lbs

All those would be wrecked pretty quickly if you rode them to their limits.

I rode my last lt hardtail in the alps, dinged the rear rim loads of times but the rest held up ok. Weighed probably 10lbs more than what you've quoted.

My current ht is a bit lighter cos its single speed, still probably weighs close to 30lbs though. The forks are 110mm marzocchis, they weigh at least 5.5lbs i think. Not to fussed about weight though, i prefer things to last.

As grumm says, light bikes dont necessarily handle better, especially if you ride very rough/rocky trails.

DT you need to pump your tyres up innit.

Trail (6" bike) 25-26lbs
Hardcore XC/AM bike – 30lbs

I would have thought 6" would be the sort of travel on an all mountain bike? And what's hardcore xc compared to trail riding?

I like a lighter bike to ride uphill but you can't beat hard hill training too.

Well I don't know about road bikes (and couldn't care less), but anyone with more than 10% body fat that is spending load to shed weight out of the bike is a bit deluded…

For moutain bike I think that weight should come after being sensible. But then a lot of people bike spend most time being weighted rather than being ridden the way they are meant too…

Weight saving is important. It makes you faster, and I'm afraid that is a fact.

I'm very much convinced that this "lose weight off yourself" thing is nonsense- my weight fluctuates around 6lb between height of the season and off season and I never tell. However, I lose weight off the bike and I can tell straight away.

DT you need to pump your tyres up innit.

What yous on about? I use helium in my tires, got to keep the centrifugal weight down.

Weight saving is important. It makes you faster, and I'm afraid that is a fact.

Any proper data to back that claim up? Or is it just because it is good for your bike shop.

However, I lose weight off the bike and I can tell straight away.

Sure, of course you can….

I view bike weight as being worth keeping an eye on. Follow every flavour of the month and ignore weights and you can quickly end up with a a very heavy bike.

My weight saving endeavours tend to amount to seeing what stuff weighs before I buy it. I don't really bother buying extra light stuff for more £…

Juan- I can guarantee you I've sold approximately nothing on STW. I'm not on here to flog stuff.

I buy light bikes myself. I ride light bikes. You're a fool if you think a heavy bike is better in any situation.

Yeh, I mean I weigh about 10&3/4 stone (much of which is probably due to having incredibly strong/large leg muscles) but I choose to ride a heavy SS bike because it keeps you fit and ultimately strong.

You've got to earn a living

Whereas alot of average riders just buy super light bikes because they have the cash and are very lazy, this makes cycling much easier for them. In turn, they dont earn a proper cyclists "living" so they are a much worser rider for it

I'm not on here to flog stuff.

I didn't say on here…

You're a fool if you think a heavy bike is better in any situation.

Argggggg I am gutted… I am a fool then, to think it's better to finish a ride rather than end up in an hospital due to bike failure…

I prefer strong to light. Mainly because I know that if I break something, I'll beat myself up for wasting money/making a poor decision. I'm not loaded and like to buy things that'll last.
Not that I'm saying all light kit is weak!

Bike failure? That would be choosing the wrong tool for the job. There's a difference between that and lightweight.

E.G. rims- Stans Olympics are very light, but would die a death on a big mountain ride, however, Stan's Flows are also light and won't. Different ideas of "light" for different jobs. I reckon the 25lb "AM hardtail" quote up there is fairly easily achievable and would ride excellently.

And Juan- we're a roadie shop. I don't need to tell folk that light is better. They already know.

I'd argue the question could be turned on its head. How many people are riding bikes heavier than need be? So many adverts for gnar super bouncy bikes that could be ridden down Everest (slight exaggeration there!) bought by those that ride around fields. Nothing wrong with riding around fields and I do plenty of it myself. I think as many people get obsessed and drawn into longer travel and more capable but heavier kit as get drawn into gram shaving. Big kit (trying hard not to use the phrse "over biked") is a good skill compensator though, so for some without the time or willpower to learn to ride smoothly and lightly, the extra weight of the bigger bike is worth it.

I guess the next phase (which is what you are alluding to I assume) is going to the next level and getting a bike that is more capable than necessary but weighs the same as the cheaper less capable bike that could be ridden around the same route therefore allowing a less skilled rider on an expensive bike to match the pace of a better rider using the power of the wallet.

Less weight = faster, can you argue otherwise crikey?

Juan – actually I'm not even going to bother.

E.G. rims- Stans Olympics are very light, but would die a death on a big mountain ride,

really? Mine are holding up ok.

Big kit (trying hard not to use the phrse "over biked") is a good skill compensator though

Like lightweight kit is a 'fitness compensator' you mean?

It was cheaper for me to loose a few Kg of lard and so I did 🙂

Like lightweight kit is a 'fitness compensator' you mean?

Probably more in the head than in actuality. An extra inch of travel probably costs about 300g in frame & shock weight and would cost in money about the same as shaving the same amount off the all up weight of the mid range original bike. I'd say an extra inch in travel is worth more in skill compensation than a 0.2% decrease in the all up weight you have to winch up a hill as a fitness compensator.

Al- I mean like Alpine stuff. Basically, stuff the flow is meant for. My Olympics are 3 years old and have done a LOT and are fine.

I weigh in at 10.5 stone, both my SS hardtails come in at 20.4lb for the 29er and 20.1 lb for the 26".
Neither are are particularly skittish as I ride light anyway.
When I had a 27lb hardtail it was hard work riding for 5 hours, now , no problems at all.
Didn't try to build as light as possible, but selected components that were suitable for me.

Reckon my 5 Spot is around the 32lbs mark. Complete guestimate I should add. Not the fastest going up, but it will go up without that much effort. Going down though, it feels rock solid and that's what I prefer personally. Had a lighter bike and wasn't overly keen on the skippy nature it sometimes displayed. Could easily shed a lot of weight off the 5 Spot, but it'd cost money and probably stop the bike feeling the way I like it. It's just all about what you prefer. Hardtail isn't much lighter some to think of it…

Less weight = faster, can you argue otherwise crikey?

I don't think I actually said that, did I?

Think we've been here before, numerous times…
IMO cyclists in general always overestimate the gains to be made from weight saving, and are pretty poor at looking at weight in any kind of real world context.
There is a vast amount of marketing guff aimed at making folk think that cutting 100-500 grammes off the weight of their bikes will make a substantial difference to performance, but it doesn't really add up in the real world.
As you suggested, carrying a weighty Camelbak, plus being on the well upholstered side means that saving a few hundred grammes on your bike from a total weight of 100+ kgs is not going to make you into a riding god.