Purely hypothetically what's the lightest FS no carbon build?

Statement of fact. Not brag.

Would absolutely fit a Reverb if I had a trail type bike. But I don’t.

lolz

AWWWWW Hell YEAH!!1!!!!!1

‘mtbel’ is here to rattle some monkey fighting cages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!111111!!!!!!

Still can’t believe he’s a child minder.

^^^ For real!? Man, they’ll be so shit hot on bikes when they’re older.

Totally true. They’ll be utter **** too, sadly.

I’ll tell you now though, the man’s race results don’t match his boasts!

I’ve never used a dropper seat post.

I guess I haven’t lived.

And I’m crap on a bike.

I think my liteville 301 ain’t far off 25lbs (American Classic tubeless, 1×10, xtr cranks, carbon bars etc). Frames are plenty stiff but are quite thin walled tubes (only bike I’ve ever picked up a dent from a rock strike).

Full xtr and light seat post and you’d be under 25lbs I bet.

I had a Lapierre Zesty in alloy with 26″ wheels, and with some careful speccing (trivia such as foam grips etc) and Stans wheels it was around 27lb. Still with scope to go lower.

My 2005 Stumpy FSR 120 frame weighed nowt. You could build one of them up pretty darn light and end up with a capable bike. Flexy back end, though.

They weren’t that light. I think the 100mm 2004 ones were lighter. Better shocks too!

2004 were almost identical. No, they weren’t that light but on a par with those Anthem’s I reckon.

“Also you’re sacrificing a dropper, which for a day to day mountain bike is akin to dropping suspension.”

let me guess houmous on ciabatta for lunch today ? seriously – what did you do before droppers became availible….

i have one – was just to see what the fuss was about and i needed a new post for that bike , its not life changing. infact had it been a 31.6 id have given it to mrs t-r i need it that little.

my question is why no carbon ? thats like having an 8 track in your car these days.

my question is why no carbon ?

I think the OP’s question is about how much difference carbon has made weight wise to bikes. So yes you can get (much) lighter using carbon products but if it wasn’t available/hadn’t been invented then what’s the limit?

So yes you can get (much) lighter using carbon products but if it wasn’t available/hadn’t been invented then what’s the limit?

Can you? I genuinely reckon you could build a sub-20lb FS bike without any carbon. It would be a racy build, but then a sub-20lb FS bike made entirely from carbon would also be a racy build!

Ironically I reckon you can do it cheaper if you use carbon parts.

2004 were almost identical. No, they weren’t that light but on a par with those Anthem’s I reckon.

Almost as you say, 100mm not 120mm travel, Triad shock not Septune, and I’m sure when I weighed frames (and I’m obviously going back 10 years now) there was a surprising weight difference. Quite possibly my memory failing me! Agree though, for a proper full alu frame with no carbon linkages or anything they’re probably among the lighter options.

Ellsworth Truth of similar vintage was also a pretty light option, not as light as their claimed catalogue weight, but not far off.

Had a build around 2003/2004 with XO and RaceFace whirly bits, hope/mavic wheels using tubes! and a Pace RC36 (only carbon bit) that came in at a smidge over 24lbs, so be more choosy with bits and some modern stuff and I reckon njee is probably right about going sub 20lbs with no carbon.

I think the OP’s question is about how much difference carbon has made weight wise to bikes

I think carbon has allowed us to drop some weight overall on a like-for like basis, but mainly it’s allowed us to get a bit more travel, more strength and stiffness for comparable weight, and offset some of the weight gains we’ve accumulated for things like droppers, bigger chassis forks (even in XC) and stuff like that, wtill a net weight loss to be sure.

Ellsworth Truth of similar vintage was also a pretty light option, not as light as their claimed catalogue weight, but not far off.

Ah yes, before they reinforced the seat tube, they were properly snaptastic then, basically made out of tinfoil!

Only bike I’ve owned, but never ridden. Someone part ex’d one at the LBS, it was a bargain, so I bought it, took it apart and sold it in bits, made loads.

I see the magic scales have made an appearance 🙂

I think carbon has allowed us to drop some weight overall on a like-for like basis, but mainly it’s allowed us to get a bit more travel, more strength and stiffness for comparable weight, and offset some of the weight gains we’ve accumulated for things like droppers, bigger chassis forks (even in XC) and stuff like that, wtill a net weight loss to be sure.

Nail->Head

Taking litevile as an example, aluminium frames can weight the same as carbon, but they then cost as much as carbon. And for most brands having 2 models (one cheap alu and one expensive carbon) is a simple way of getting a bigger slice of the market. Intense (FRO versions) and Iron Horse (the USA built Sundays) used to market 2 alu versions of the same frame, so it’s been done.

But I’d be suprised if the carbon frame’s weren’t stronger than the aluminium one’s too, carbon fibre isn’t particularly stiff so you end up needing a lot of it, which is fine as with weighs considerably less. Whereas with aluminium and steel (and Ti) the right stiffness and strength are more conincident (as stiff frame is generaly strong enough and vice versa) so there are more advantages than just weight.

Intense (FRO versions) and Iron Horse (the USA built Sundays) used to market 2 alu versions of the same frame, so it’s been done.

Plenty more examples than that – virtually all companies do multiple aluminium frames within a single range – Spesh doing M2/M4, or M4/M5 historically, Trek still do Alpha Black and Red on Fuel Exs IIRC.

You can buy an off the shelf aluminium Canyon that’s a bawhair over 25lbs (exc pedals but with a dropper!)

https://www.canyon.com/en/mountainbikes/bike.html?b=3566

Bars look to be carbon but you could swap them out for aluminium, ditch the 3×10 for 1×10, convert to tubeless etc and get the weight down a fair bit

Not to mention special works/team versions of basically the stock frames and forks but with the lightest ones (from normal variances) pulled out of the batch and then fitted with ti-hardware kits, custom extra-milled linkages, anodised instead of painted, and such managing to shave a few more grammes here and there and sold for extra £

I see the magic scales have made an appearance

nah, these aren’t magic, they’re hypothetical 😉

nah, these aren’t magic, they’re hypothetical

I assume he was talking about this:

Had a build around 2003/2004 with XO and RaceFace whirly bits, hope/mavic wheels using tubes! and a Pace RC36 (only carbon bit) that came in at a smidge over 24lbs

Which doesn’t seem vastly optimistic, those were light frames, but Hope/Mavic wheels weren’t light, as that would’ve been XC hubs back then.

Bars look to be carbon but you could swap them out for aluminium, ditch the 3×10 for 1×10, convert to tubeless etc and get the weight down a fair bit

If we’re really doing no carbon you need to change the rear mech and shifters too, plus you need to add pedals. Still an impressive weight.

This salsa spearfish 16″ frame which I have for sale only weights 5.2lbs (full bike was 23.5lbs)

Which doesn’t seem vastly optimistic, those were light frames, but Hope/Mavic wheels weren’t light, as that would’ve been XC hubs back then

That was genuine weight, no optimism involved, actually surprised at the time how light it turned out, RC 36s were ~1500g so comparable to a modern Reba, Turbine cranks were pretty light at the time, with Ti BB was less than the XTR 950 that I had before them anyway, Wheels were XC’s with the Ti freehub, heavy by modern standards but with 717s and CX rays and alu nipples still made a reasonable weight wheelset, silly thin conti tyres were a bad choice but were pretty light, XO rear mech (proshift front mech, remember them?!) with XO gripshift was waaay lighter than the XTR option, although XTR cassette was still on there, USE seatpost, stem and bars, SLR saddle, all off the shelf stuff, no properly exotic bits or anythign built by crazy Germans!

If we’re really doing no carbon you need to change the rear mech and shifters too

ah yes, bum, the rear mech hadn’t registerd in my head as having carbon bits but they did, I suppose the SLR counts as carbon as well underneath or was it just some clever plastic?

If it was that easy 10 years ago and pre-tubeless then should be easy to go a lot lower now if you tried, not that I’ve had any full suss bike lighter since then (other than a Mk1 Cannondale Scalpel but that’s more soft-tail than full sus), they’ve all been heavier but more capable.

Wasn’t me that disputed it! I had my Top Fuel down to 19.8lbs though, so agree it can be done, but that had lots of carbon.

Wasn’t me that disputed it

I know, was just adding clarity for the other guy 😉

The only bikes I have under 20lbs these days all have just the one gear and in some cases no boingy bits other than the tyres.

And while thinking about forks I’ve just had a little shudder remembering my old Mk1 SIDs, they may have been light but they certainly didn’t turn corners very well, or go up and down very well, or hold their air in very well, or their oil…thank god things have improved in that area now!

Haha! The earliest SIDs were lovely though, drilled ti bolts in the bottom of the legs. £600 for a 1998 SID too. Makes current ones seem a bargain!

I suppose the SLR counts as carbon as well underneath or was it just some clever plastic?

I think they’re injection moulded, but yes there are ‘carbon fibers’ in there, they’re just not in the laminate form most people imediately think of, although some properly light saddles are laminates.