# How mugh does weight matter?



## David C (May 25, 2011)

xycose said:


> I'm looking to get a hardtail and wondering how much weight matters? I figure it'll be easier to go faster with a lighter bike, but, as an example, would getting a bike that is 27lb instead of 30b be a significant enough difference to notice
> 
> Thanks for the help.


Unless you're not to strong of a cyclist yet, you won't notice much the weight difference into moving the bike up to speed.

What you'll notice is easier handling of the bike, better responsiveness when making moves over obstacles and also easier to jump the bike, like a bunny hop or just lifting up your rear wheel.

Don't forget that rotating weight also counts for double :thumbsup:

David


----------



## xycose (Nov 13, 2011)

I'm looking to get a hardtail and wondering how much weight matters? I figure it'll be easier to go faster with a lighter bike, but, as an example, would getting a bike that is 27lb instead of 30b be a significant enough difference to notice

Thanks for the help.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Depends on where the weight is. Weight on your wheels makes you waaaay slower. There's something called sprung weight and unsprung weight. Generally, the more unsprung weight you can shave off, the faster your lap times are. Wheels, swing arms, fork lowers are generally make up most of the unsprung weight. Reducing sprung weight also will help (such as your own body weight), but pound for pound, unsprung weight makes more difference. It's also good to try and lower your center of mass as well, reducing the weight of things above the center of mass (including your own body weight).

If my hints weren't subtle enough... light wheels, light tires, light rider = much faster climbing.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

xycose said:


> I'm looking to get a hardtail and wondering how much weight matters? I figure it'll be easier to go faster with a lighter bike, but, as an example, would getting a bike that is 27lb instead of 30b be a significant enough difference to notice
> 
> Thanks for the help.


People get pretty obsessive about weight. There's a whole forum devoted to it. I think it does matter, but it's pretty easy to overdo it and if you're looking at 27 and 30lb hardtails, meh. They won't have any parts on them you'll be keeping.

Steady-state speed on the flats is not effected by the weight of the bike. At least, beyond the additional drag effects from deforming the tires a little more. In your example, the 3lb swing in weight has a less than 2% effect on the weight of the whole system. (There's you too.) So, not much of a difference.

On a smooth climb, the 3 lb matter more. If you put out the same watts on the lighter and heavier bike, the heavier bike will take you longer to ride to the top. It's not a linear relationship, but the change will be on the order of 1%-2%. Not enough for you to even shift to your next bigger cog, and less than your daily variation on that climb.

With mountain bikes, ridden on trails with obstacles, the ability to accelerate the bike but not your body matters. Varaxis touches on that. You can model an entire hardtail as unsprung weight, sort of - the suspension fork means that the front wheel tracks better than it would without it, and the bike doesn't buck around quite as much, but ultimately, you still need to track most technical trails with the entire bike, and your arms and legs still provide a lot more suspension travel than the fork will. So you're likely to notice a difference between the two bikes if you ride them back to back. If a sneaky person hid a 3 lb weigh in your seat tube, you might not notice it. If that person hid 1.5 lb around the perimeter of each rim instead, you would probably notice. At the fork dropouts, ditto, you'd notice.

Since you're asking about ~30 lb bikes, though, you're probably going to be choosing between Coke and Pepsi. Maybe you can tell a difference, maybe you can't, but neither of them is champagne. If you can figure out a choice in which you don't get a garbage fork and garbage wheels, do it. Otherwise, just get what fits your budget, ride the hell out of it, and replace what breaks. The bike will shed weight almost every time you change a component, and if you keep the bike, you'll probably change them all, sooner or later, and find out which ones matter (not many) and which ones don't (most.) Basically, between a bike that's a little lighter and one with a high-dollar component that sucks less, put away the scale and go with the one that rides well.


----------



## Kaizer (Jul 19, 2010)

Aren't unsprung weight example like the fork's lowers and part of the rear suspension linkage like CS & SS? I based on vehicle terminology.

Wheels are rotational weights, which weighs more when it started spinning?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

It's both rotational and unsprung weight, technically. The air in the tires also kind of makes it sprung weight too...

Kind of getting too technical for most people to understand. The general summary of losing weight in the wheels, tires, and rider having the most potential to affect climbing performance is enough.


----------



## fast540 (May 29, 2011)

im fat but i rock light wheels=still slow


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Rotational weight (wheels) is the most important since you're not only having to accelerate them with the bike, you're also having to spin them. Naturally, making something lighter spin is easier than making something heavier spin. Therefore you'll notice the most difference cutting weight off your wheels, and the further out on the wheel you cut it, the more noticeable it is.

Unsprung weight is anything on the ground side of the spring in the suspension. On rear suspension it would be the rear wheel, the swingarm, any linkages, and the side of the shock attached to the linkage/swingarm. For the front it would be the front wheel, the fork lowers, and anything rigidly attached to the lowers. The more unsprung weight there is, the slower the suspension will react, but with bicycles it's not really an issue since the weights are all so low anyway.

Yes, weight is definitely noticeable on a bike. A lighter bike handles better, accelerates faster, climbs easier.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Kaizer said:


> Aren't unsprung weight example like the fork's lowers and part of the rear suspension linkage like CS & SS? I based on vehicle terminology.
> 
> Wheels are rotational weights, which weighs more when it started spinning?


You weigh a whole lot more than your bike. So the center of mass of the whole vehicle has more to do with where you are than where the bike is, and you move the bike to track a rough trail.

If the wheels could weigh more when they started spinning, they'd need to be spinning at relativistic velocities.  It's more that something spinning has more kinetic energy than it would if it was just moving translationally. Force is related to change in energy (kind of a rate related to distance - weird.) So if something has more energy to change, it takes more force to do that and it feels heavier, even though it's not. Unless you're riding at relativistic speeds.  I think it actually has more to do with how far away from you the ends of the wheels are. I need to run, but I remember working out that the extra kinetic energy in a spinning wheel on a bicycle was not very significant, and if it's just the spinning that makes it special, it "shouldn't" matter. I think it does, though, so something else is going on. Bear in mind that a wheelset with tubes and tires and everything is a pretty significant chunk of the total weight of a bicycle, and relatively easy to swap out. So it's a lot of bang for the buck and an easy modification for someone trying to take weight off. I think that's another reason people focus on them so much.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Performance and Wheels Concepts

AudiWorld Tech Articles

These links kind of conclude that the effect of rotational mass is over exaggerated. Pound for pound, rotational mass does make more difference than sprung and unsprung weight, but it's not the huge difference people hype it up to be when trying to shed weight for performance. Granted, cars have a smaller wheel radius than bikes, this at least demonstrates that the ratio of rotational weight vs sprung weight is closer to 2:1 than 4:1 or 10:1, where losing more than 2 lbs of sprung weight makes more difference than losing 1 lb of rotational weight. It's still the most significant place to lose weight on the bike, as it does practically count for double, but there needs to be at level a good level of durability and stiffness else the weight savings aren't as beneficials due to the negative side effects. It makes the most difference with how much energy is needed to accelerate, with less rotating mass requiring less energy to accelerate. I'm more or less trying to say that while you can lose 1 lb in the wheel, you might have well over 40 lbs to lose in rider weight--losing weight in the wheel might have detrimental effects on your ride handling while losing riding weight doesn't really have any detrimental effects.

I think tire choice makes one of the biggest differences on your bike. It's the primary point of contact to the ground and can drastically change how your bike rides. People want low rolling resistance (faster rolling tires), but want grip. Increased grip often means more rolling resistance, since traction is essentially friction. More weight on a tire also means more friction. Easy to understand in road tire terms, but with mtb you have working edges and knob flex that generate traction too. Friction generates heat, which is energy waste, and knob flex also can be energy waste, as energy is being absorbed in the tire when it deforms and then springs back into shape when the tire isn't touching the ground. Stiff tires tend to skid, drift, and deflect, not really confoming to the ground. Rolling smoothly through rough sections can often take less energy than riding through, bouncing off everything, showing that a tire conforming to the ground is no slower in some cases. On a smooth track, high pressure and low rolling resistance would be faster. On a rough track with constant need for sharp direction change, depending on how constant the roughness is and how technical it is, low pressure and high grip would be faster. It's a very delicate balance to find the ideal compromise. Hopefully, I don't need a link to demonstrate that more weight load on a tire (everything the tire is carrying, not the weight of the tire) increases friction.

Stiffness in the frame, wheel, fork, etc also plays quite a big role. The stiffer they are, the more efficient they are in regards to power transfer to move in the direction you want to go.

Fit and bike geometry/weight balance also plays a huge role. Most climb better with stretched arms and more forward seating. Having handlebars too high or too close doesn't allow that without the back being in a poor position to properly keep weight centered over the bike. Combine that handlebar position with a setback/layback seatpost on a bike with a slack seat angle, high BB, short chainstays, a short stem on top of a bike with a tall stack height (head tube length, headset height, fork axle to crown length, steep head angle) with the stem sitting on top of a bunch of spacers, a high rise riser bar, where the grips are higher than the seat, and the bike definitely doesn't look to be a good climber to me. All those seem to overly skew the weight balance to the rear, which some believe to offer good driving traction, but I can't really imagine that being comfortable. I find having weight centered and balanced is the best.

When speaking of where to lose weight, it still sums up to be the same, but I guess now that the tech jargon has been explained, I can rephrase it as rotational mass first, unsprung weight second, and sprung weight third. Find out where the biggest potential for weight loss is for the least amount of cash. If you're not a 135 lb 5' 10" skinny sob, closer to the average 180 lb rider, you have so much more weight you can shave from your body and all the gear you're wearing/carrying (tools, water, spare tubes, clothes, protective gear, etc) to help climb better. If you lost 5 lbs of rider weight and 1 lb of wheel weight, you'll feel quicker acceleration on flats with 1 lb weight loss in the wheels, but it might be difficult to tell which if it makes more difference than losing the 5 lbs, but in the climbs, the 5 lbs of rider weight should make much more difference than the 1 lb of wheel weight. Test this out next time: take a hydration pack full of water and tools etc and climb a hill with it. Take the hydration pack off and climb it again and try to notice the difference. Do the same test for flat ground.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> I think tire choice makes one of the biggest differences on your bike. It's the primary point of contact to the ground and can drastically change how your bike rides. People want low rolling resistance (faster rolling tires), but want grip. Increased grip often means more rolling resistance, since traction is essentially friction. More weight on a tire also means more friction. Easy to understand in road tire terms, but with mtb you have working edges and knob flex that generate traction too. Friction generates heat, which is energy waste, and knob flex also can be energy waste, as energy is being absorbed in the tire when it deforms and then springs back into shape when the tire isn't touching the ground. Stiff tires tend to skid, drift, and deflect, not really confoming to the ground. Rolling smoothly through rough sections can often take less energy than riding through, bouncing off everything, showing that a tire conforming to the ground is no slower in some cases. On a smooth track, high pressure and low rolling resistance would be faster. On a rough track with constant need for sharp direction change, depending on how constant the roughness is and how technical it is, low pressure and high grip would be faster. It's a very delicate balance to find the ideal compromise.


The latest generation of tires do a very good job of combining grip with traction. For example, my favorite current tire is the Conti Race King 2.2 SS, which is one of the fastest rolling tires I've ever used, but also has a terrific amount of grip. With new technology is really is less about trading traction for speed, and more about finding the tire which works best on your trails.



Varaxis said:


> If you're not a 135 lb 5' 10" skinny sob, closer to the average 180 lb rider, you have so much more weight you can shave from your body and all the gear you're wearing/carrying (tools, water, spare tubes, clothes, protective gear, etc) to help climb better. If you lost 5 lbs of rider weight and 1 lb of wheel weight, you'll feel quicker acceleration on flats with 1 lb weight loss in the wheels, but it might be difficult to tell which if it makes more difference than losing the 5 lbs, but in the climbs, the 5 lbs of rider weight should make much more difference than the 1 lb of wheel weight. Test this out next time: take a hydration pack full of water and tools etc and climb a hill with it. Take the hydration pack off and climb it again and try to notice the difference. Do the same test for flat ground.


- It's really not worth your time worrying about unsprung vs. sprung weight on your bike. The weights involved just aren't big enough to worry about.
- Losing weight on the bike is much more noticeable than losing weight carried on your body.


----------



## Tigerider (Oct 20, 2011)

Weight does matter, but only to a certain point. Weight matters more, in my opinion, when you first start worrying about it. So, when you do your first weight reduction, you will do the things that will make the most difference and get you the biggest weight gains. After a while, you'll exhaust the large weight drops and you'll be dealing in grams. That's when, but I remind you this is my opinion, weight reduction starts to matter a little less.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

xycose said:


> I'm looking to get a hardtail and wondering how much weight matters? I figure it'll be easier to go faster with a lighter bike, but, as an example, would getting a bike that is 27lb instead of 30b be a significant enough difference to notice
> 
> Thanks for the help.


Easy way to trade off weight for money...

How much would you pay your buddy to haul a beer for you to the top of your highest hill...

Well a beer weighs about 360 grams (13 ounces)...

So that is how much you should pay to reduce the weight of your bike...by that much...

Lighter is better until it breaks.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

bad mechanic said:


> The latest generation of tires do a very good job of combining grip with traction. For example, my favorite current tire is the Conti Race King 2.2 SS, which is one of the fastest rolling tires I've ever used, but also has a terrific amount of grip. With new technology is really is less about trading traction for speed, and more about finding the tire which works best on your trails.


Yea, that's the point I was trying to make, but didn't want to go into that sort of thing with micro knobbies vs all condition/all grounder tires in a thread that was about climbing and bike weight. That compromises other things, such as performance in deeperloose soil and wet conditions, since it relies on the working edges of the stiff small knobs and not friction along the top of the knobs. Running it low pressure often means you use the casing to conform to the ground moreso than the knobs, which is why such tires often have a higher tpi casing, but that's more to prevent deflection than for traction. I bet you find yourself relying more on retaining momentum to get through low traction situations with such tires.



bad mechanic said:


> - It's really not worth your time worrying about unsprung vs. sprung weight on your bike. The weights involved just aren't big enough to worry about.
> - Losing weight on the bike is much more noticeable than losing weight carried on your body.


It's not worth some people's time worrying about unsprung vs sprung when only talking about bike weight. That's why I was trying to simplify it. The ones that should be obsessing over it at the guys that are 135 lbs, since more bike weight makes more of a difference to them and their race times. Your body also counts as sprung weight, even on a rigid bike, since your arms and legs act as springs. No use speaking about 100g of unsprung weight when you can lose 10000g of sprung weight. The 135 lb racer can't lose that much sprung weight, so they're looking at reducing it on the bike. Losing 100g of unsprung weight still makes more difference than 100g of sprung weight. Maybe you can relate it to carrying around 150 lbs of dead weight vs carrying a live person weighing 150 lbs (which is far easier).

Losing weight on the bike only seems more noticeable because it's taken off instantly. I can knock 150g off my bike by upgrading my stem and seat binder, steel bolts--I won't notice that. If you upgrade something that actually changes the feel of the bike, such as wheels, tires, suspension fork, etc. you're feeling a clear difference in performance that not all comes from the weight loss, but is often related to it. I might sweat off a pound and get a second wind, I may or may not notice that, but won't attribute it to weight loss but maybe attribute it to finally "getting into a groove" or being fully warmed up. Body weight is trimmed gradually. You're more likely to think your cardiovascular and muscular endurance is improving when you feel faster than think it's due to you losing 5 lbs. That is why I suggested the test with the hydration pack, since one full of 3L of water, a mini pump, tubes, keys, wallet, a phone, etc. should weight a lot. You do the test--I bet you will notice a huge difference.


----------



## Schirmer20 (Nov 15, 2011)

nice


----------



## nord1899 (Aug 29, 2011)

Just remember that most bike parts list their weight in grams. And 1 pound is 453 grams. Spending large amounts of money to shave 10-50 grams per item may not make much sense.

For example, seat posts. I'll use the Crank Brothers Cobalt series as it has a good price range:
- Cobalt 1 = 290g for $50
- Cobalt 2 = 267g for $80
- Cobalt 3 = 234g for $120
- Cobalt 11 = 157g for $220

So for $170, you save 133g, or less than 1/3rd of a pound.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

xycose said:


> I'm looking to get a hardtail and wondering how much weight matters? I figure it'll be easier to go faster with a lighter bike, but, as an example, would getting a bike that is 27lb instead of 30b be a significant enough difference to notice
> 
> Thanks for the help.


Kind of a crazy thread you've started, interesting reading though. I think it's getting really far away from the core of the discussion though.

Here's what I think is the core of the argument:

More weight = harder to go uphill

Yes, removing rotational weight is typically the best place to save weight, but I suspect you're probably shopping for low to mid range bikes and you're not going to save any much, if any, weight in the wheels from bike to bike at a similar price range.

So if you can save a little weight (no matter where from) it will benefit you in some ways. But (and this is a BIG but) it is never worth picking a bike solely on weight ignoring the way a bike rides. If that were true, I would never have picked any of the bikes I've ever bought. You need to be focusing on test riding bikes and picking the one that you like riding the best and that fits you well. Use weight as a secondary concern, it's not nearly as important as picking a bike you actually enjoy riding.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

It's better to go with something cheap as an entry bike and not bother with something in the middle range.

Find the minimum that you would like to keep for a long period of time, especially with fork and frame, buy the cheapest within that minimum, and keep your money to factor in upgrades that skip straight to the high end that you would like to keep and not upgrade again (moving it to another bike/frame even), IMO.

Even people who buy $5k bikes do this kind of upgrading, but they are losing so much more from the parts they're replacing and the upgrades are smaller.

In theory, you can end up with the same bike as the guy who started with a $5k bike after completing all upgrades, yet spend only half as much as he did. He could be up to $8k, maybe $10k after he swaps frame, and you could be up to $4-5k if he picked the same frame to swap to as you did, and not have anything left to really upgrade. Or you can have spent $2.5k and have a bike that makes someone with a $2k bike and spent $500 on upgrades really envious.


----------



## Will Goes Boing (Jan 25, 2008)

IMO you have to ask yourself what type of riding do you intend to do. I'm not talking about terrain, I'm talking whether you want to be a recreational lackadaisy granny gear using rider, or do you want to do some serious pedaling/riding. From what I've seen my friends who just started riding and don't have much ambition to get faster ride uphills in the highest gear possible. For them whether you gave them a 25lb bike or a 30lb bike they will still be using the highest granny gear where it doesn't take much effort to go up. 

Now if you're trying to hammer it going uphill, weight makes a HUGE difference. My old bike was 28lbs and the new one I just built right now is a tad over 24lbs, I really notice a huge difference in slight inclines and steep climbs.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> I bet you find yourself relying more on retaining momentum to get through low traction situations with such tires.


Not at all. In fact, they're some of the best tires I've ever had on wet roots and rocks.



Varaxis said:


> Your body also counts as sprung weight, even on a rigid bike, since your arms and legs act as springs...Maybe you can relate it to carrying around 150 lbs of dead weight vs carrying a live person weighing 150 lbs (which is far easier).


You don't seem to have a grasp of sprung vs. unsprung weight.



Varaxis said:


> Losing weight on...


Weight that's lost on the bike is so noticeable because it's so far away from our center of mass. It much easier dealing with an extra pound in your pack or on your body than on bike. Rotating weight doubly so because you're accelerating it twice (linear and angular).


----------



## xycose (Nov 13, 2011)

Wow, a lot of posts in response. Only got an e-mail for the first and last one, just now saw the rest and read everyone. Most of the posts were very informative, thanks guys! =)

I didn't get many responces in my other threads, what are your guyss thoughts on a 
Motobecane 2010 Fantom Comp for $600?
Motobecane USA | 26 inch Hardail Mountain Bikes

vs the gravity HTX5 SRAM X5 for $600?
Save up to 60% off new Mountain Bikes - MTB - Front Suspension Gravity BaseCamp 3.0

I'm thinking about buying one in the next day or so. Leaning towards the motobecane because of a post another user made, but would like another input or two before I order it.

Thanks everyone for the help!


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Either of those should work nicely for you, though I like the Motobecane a little more, since it seems to have a nicer frame. To tie it back to the thread, there'll be several nice upgrades you'll be able to do to shed some good weight.


----------



## xycose (Nov 13, 2011)

What would be the best bang for the buck upgrades to start with, and how much would they cost?

Thanks again


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Best bang for the buck would be light weight tubes (130g) and new tires. As already mentioned, I'm a big fan of Conti 2.2 Race King SS tires since they're very fast, sticky, and light. Those should cost you $100 and will cut 1.5 to 2 pounds of rotating mass. Were it me, my next upgrade would be the fork, since you'll not only lose weight, you can also pick up a lot of performance. Something like a Manitou Minute, used Fox, or RS SID would work wonders.


----------



## jaynestown (Oct 23, 2011)

It's not so much weight, but mass that will get you. According to general relativity, clocks tick slower in stronger gravity wells. So if your bike is really massive and you ride it a lot, you may age slower than the people around you. But there's also the flip side, in that if it's really massive, you probably won't ride as fast as people around you, and clocks tick faster at slower velocities. So it may all balance out. I think you'll be OK.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

OP, you opened up a can of worms. To answer you question, not that much. If you race, or ride like you race, maybe it matters. But it's importance is overblown. Spend what you think you can afford on a bike that fits you and is suited to the type of riding you intend to do. Those two considerations are the most important. And remember the old maxim: cheap, strong, light - pick two.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*I disagree...*



bad mechanic said:


> - Losing weight on the bike is much more noticeable than losing weight carried on your body.


Losing weight on your body means that your heart isn't pump blood through as many capillaries and you're functioning better in general. I can ride farther, faster when my weight is down regardless of the weight of my bike.


----------



## xycarp (Apr 9, 2011)

I weigh 255 lbs, wear a camel back with 100 oz. of water, carry spare tube, wrenches... It's nice to ride a lighter bike because it's a bit more menuverable and a bit easier to whip back and forth while cursing through trails. The whole idea of lighter bike - easier limbs just does register with me. Between sweating and drinking my water I can drop 10 lbs by the end of the ride.

Before I worry about a truly light bike, I should lose 30 lbs.


----------



## ecub (Sep 3, 2011)

Hmmm. I might consider using helium in my tires.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

bad mechanic said:


> Not at all. In fact, they're some of the best tires I've ever had on wet roots and rocks.
> 
> You don't seem to have a grasp of sprung vs. unsprung weight.
> 
> Weight that's lost on the bike is so noticeable because it's so far away from our center of mass. It much easier dealing with an extra pound in your pack or on your body than on bike. Rotating weight doubly so because you're accelerating it twice (linear and angular).


You can't really recommend those tires blindly like that, especially after talking about getting the right tire for your terrain. Those are more like a Racing Ralph, with large knobs with flat tops, which rely on a rubber compound and friction for grip. I assume you have the Black Chili compound version, considering how bad I know they are in their non-black chili compound.

When I was talking about unsprung vs sprung weight, I was trying to say that it helped the bike's handling and suspension performance and was a good area to focus on when trying to shed weight. The body's unsprung weight vs sprung weight was an analogy, showing how much more responsive your body's suspension was with less body weight (ex. a tall body builder on a bmx/rigid/trials bike vs a skinny person on a bmx/rigid/trials bike). If you didn't get that, then you probably don't understand unsprung and sprung weight as well as you make it seem like you do.

Regarding unsprung vs sprung weight on climbs, it would help greatly if it's a very rough and technical climb, since the suspension would be more responsive and getting through smoothly would greatly help. If it were a rigid bike, a person with less unsprung weight (lighter arms and legs) would be able to lift the front and rear wheel up easier or lift and swing the wheels over to reposition (such as on skinny ladder features), to get through the technical stuff with more skill. Doesn't make too much difference in the [smoother] climbs otherwise, since weight is simply the pull of gravity on your mass. Since you're going upwards, you're going against the pull of gravity at an angle.

Rotational mass needs to be spun up (accelerated). The more rotational mass, the more energy required to spin it up to a certain speed from a standstill. On a climb, gravity is constantly trying to decelerate your wheels, so you may think you're fighting against that and rotational mass is a huge deal on climbs, but that rotational mass also requires more energy to decelerate it, due to its rotational inertia. I still believe overall weight should be the biggest factor to consider on the climbs, since you're dealing with gravity, and less weight means less gravitational force you have to overcome. Rotational mass is always good to reduce, as it makes the bike feel easier to accelerate and more responsive when slowing down, affecting the ride feel no matter if you're on flat ground, a climb, or a descent. I just don't see the point of exaggerating it more than it should be, when considering the climbs.

You sort of have an idea about the feel of losing weight on the bike, vs weight on the rider, but I can explain it better. What's going, in detail, when you propel the bike forward is: your power to the crank puts tension on the chain, the tension pulls forward on the cassette, the cassette rotates the wheel, the wheel's rotation pushes the frame forward from the stays and that pushes anything connected in front of it forward, including the saddle carrying the rider's lower-mid section forward and the grips carrying the arms forward, which helps pull the upper body forward. It seems like it happens in an instant, but it happens in extremely quick succession. The closer the weight is to originating force (not our center of mass), the more noticeable the effect of the weight is, at the moment you apply power. The further away it is, the more you'll notice a "lagged" effect. Such a lagged effect might create a feeling of the bike moving forward with little effort for a moment, then slowing down significantly. That's the feel of a lightweight bike under a heavy rider climbing up a hill. A heavy bike would feel slower, but steady. I don't think words alone will convince you. Rather than compare a 135 lb rider on a 35 lb bike vs a 150 lb rider on a 20 lb bike, since the rider power outputs are different, use the same bike and same rider and just use a weight. Put a heavy weight on your bike, like 3 full water bottles, time your climb, then move that weight to the rider (in a backpack), and time your climb again. I'd wager the times are very similar and that bike vs rider weight doesn't have that much difference on the climbs. The difference is how more responsive the lighter bike feels or stable/steady the heavier bike feels when giving it power input. That's one reason why some DHers are worried about making their bike feel too light. They don't want their bike to have that lagged twitchy feel. Also the reason why they like their weight low and centered.

In the end, this is the beginner's corner, and how I summed it up from the start should be good enough. Q: How much does weight matter? A: Depends where the weight is. Summed up, the best place a beginner should look to shed weight is in the wheel, tire, and rider. I should add that getting a good tire that's as light as you could get away with without compromising much grip, like one specifically optimized for your kind of terrain as opposed to a heavy all around tire, would be a good choice.


----------



## BORDERCOLLIE (Sep 1, 2011)

I strive to maintain an ideal body weight, I recently lost fifteen pounds and feel stronger than ever on a 32 lb all mountain bike(Heckler) and a 24 lb hardtail that said any trail bike under 32 pounds is acceptable to me.Its a lot cheaper to lose the burger coat


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Varaxis said:


> Blah


You think these massive, half true posts do a better job of explaining? Half of what you write is just wild speculation or what you happened to find on Google. But then, it really just seems like you're butt hurt someone would dare correct you and not let your answer be "good enough". If you want to keep arguing with me, then please continue on PM, not in the thread.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

xycose said:


> I'm looking to get a hardtail and wondering how much weight matters? I figure it'll be easier to go faster with a lighter bike, but, as an example, would getting a bike that is 27lb instead of 30b be a significant enough difference to notice
> 
> Thanks for the help.


If the 3 lbs is in the outer part of the wheels (rims, tires, tubes, and to some extent spokes), then it would make a pretty noticeable difference. Anywhere else, not so much, and you would likely need to do back to back rides to tell a difference, and other factors (suspension efficiency/setup, rolling resistance of tires, geometry.....) would likely mask the weight differences.


----------



## Bowen1911 (Nov 3, 2011)

Rotational energy is a SOB. A friend of mine has a Trek Scratch, which is set up to be pretty much the same weight as my Spec. Camber. His tires are heavy as hell, and as a result, I go downhill faster.

That whole conservation of energy idea really puts a damper (no pun intended) on going fast.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

Bowen1911 said:


> His tires are heavy as hell, and as a result, I go downhill faster.


Correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## miatagal96 (Jul 5, 2005)

I strive for the most fun, performance, and comfort out of a bike. Weight is part of this equation, but not the whole thing. Right now, I have my hard tail dialed to right where I like it and it weighs in at 25 lbs, which some people might consider weighty, but I don't want to make the performance (and financial) compromises I'd have to to reduce weight further by doing things like changing from a steel to a scandium or carbon frame, further reducing tire weight at the expense of traction or comfort, reducing tube weight at the expense of getting more flats, reducing stiffness in various parts, etc. 

I like a relatively light fork (Fox F100) for performance and because it makes it easier to pick up the front end compared to my old fork that was 1lb heavier. 

Other things that I find very important and don't cost extra weight are:
- really good (and clean) cables so shifting is crisp and braking (if you have cable brakes) isn't squishy
- a realy good, clean, efficient drivetrain. Believe it or not, I felt a quite a difference when I changed out the totally worn, dirty cogs on my Shimany LX derailleur (they were worn to little points) with clean, new upgraded cogs. All of a sudden, the drivetrain felt as efficient as my single-speed. The degradation of the old drivetrain was slow enough that I had no idea how bad it was until I cleaned it up and replaced the cogs.


----------



## Mtn-Rider (May 21, 2010)

A lighter bike is for going faster under pedal power, that's it. Shaving weight matters if going faster really matters to you, with the exception of DH riding where you need a stronger, heavier bike. It's a personal preference.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

In a sense, DH riders can benefit the most from a reduction in weight. The more something weighs, the more force it takes to change its velocity. DH riders change their bikes' directions and attitudes constantly on a run.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

AndrwSwitch said:


> In a sense, DH riders can benefit the most from a reduction in weight. The more something weighs, the more force it takes to change its velocity. DH riders change their bikes' directions and attitudes constantly on a run.


Absolutely, and you're seeing that in the direction DH bike development has gone, with race bikes now in the high 30 pound range.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Now that I'm at home, in front of my computer and procrastinating instead of at school, not following a really incoherent discussion of the relationship between failure stress and crack length...










Pro Bike: Greg Minnaar's Santa Cruz Syndicate V-10.4 Carbon - BikeRadar

This is a carbon fiber DH bike with carbon rims. It was a pro bike at the time, but someone willing to spend the money can now assemble it from off-the-shelf parts. Mostly - articles say the ENVE DH rim is available to the general public, but I couldn't find it in my cursory look just now.

Also, carbon fiber tubular XC rims, 260g. If I was a lot faster, raced more short course, and had the money to throw at them... drool. Maybe it'll be a midlife crisis present for myself when I'm old enough and well-funded enough to have one of those. By then, maybe everybody will be riding carbon rims.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Nobody mentioned the fact that riding a heavier bike makes you work harder and anticipate things sooner making you a better, faster rider.


----------



## tshulthise (Apr 23, 2010)

Are you planning to race the bike? If the answer is no then don't worry about the bike weight.

Are you are your ideal weight? If the answer is no then you really don't need to worry about the bike weight. You get a better workout with a heavy bike and you would be healthier if you lost weight.

About upgrades... I've ridden a 10 year old hardtail with V-brakes, a new hardtail and a brand new $3,500 6" FS AM bike and I can tell you I had fun on all of them. Get the best bike you can fit into your budget without borrowing money then ride it until something breaks. When something breaks then think about whether you want to upgrade that part or not. If you financial situation is better at that point you might upgrade the whole bike.

Its easy to get into components and bike brands and features and forget that riding is what brings us here... the ride.

Things to worry be concerned about...
Get a bike that fits you well
Get the type of bike that fits the kind of riding you will do most (Commuter, XC, AM, DH, etc...)
Get a bike that is reliable. Check reviews.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I actually don't think that heavier bikes train someone to be a better rider or give him a better workout. Both just make the same person slower, maybe even less technical unless he's being forced to go slower by an outside circumstance, like riding with the (slow, fearful) grilf or a group of fatties.

If someone rides as fast as his skills and fitness permit, the weight of the bike doesn't matter. Assuming a comparison between a heavier and a lighter bike that are both appropriate to the task at hand, the same person will get the same workout but be faster and flowier on the lighter bike.

To put it another way, if someone has a carbon feather and unobtainium wonder bike and straps a few pounds of ballast to it, he's not going to train at a higher effort level than he did before. He's just going to go slower. And while he might have to anticipate moves more, the real result is going to be that he takes technical sections more slowly, to have that time.

I think when I ride a bike (or skis, or a car, or a snowboard) that feels "telepathic," what's really going on is that it's lighter and stiffer, and it responds faster than what I'm used to. When I get accustomed to it, I can string together more moves in less time.

If I'm honest with myself, I doubt that a lighter bike would make much of a difference for me. I don't know the weight on mine, but I already have a steep-angled hardtail with lightish rims, tires and suspension fork. When I have trouble in technical sections, it's me. I can say that I was miraculously better with a better suspension fork, though. Which I credit more to the previous fork sucking.

All of which is to say that I don't think a lighter bike will necessarily make someone better, but a heavier bike will make someone worse and I don't think that skills involved in compensating for that are actually useful on the lighter bike.


----------



## tshulthise (Apr 23, 2010)

Okay... specifically, assuming you ride the same loop on two bikes, you will burn more calories on the heavier one. 

Point is, to anyone who isn't at race weight and/or who isn't going to race their bike, 5 lbs won't make a lot of difference. The best approach is to get the body weight off (for multiple reasons) then start worrying about spending more money to get a lighter bike, if you still care at that point. I have two seasons of riding in now with about 2000 trail miles and I can say that I couldn't care less if I were riding a 20 lb bike or a 30 lb bike. The only situation I could see where I might care is if I were riding on group rides and the group was pushing too far past my limits. If that were the case I'd probably find a slower group before I spent a lot of money on a lighter bike, or I'd up my training and shed some pounds until I could keep up.


----------



## RealyNorth (Nov 15, 2011)

most significant diffirent i have found was when i rode the same bike with super ligth rims, and then heavy rims, the diffirence was in the acceleration, 

one thing i've noticed is that you dont always feel the weigth as u would expect, my brothers bike is listed as kind a heavy, but it feels so ligth when you are using it,


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

The heavy bike would also take longer. In terms of rate, you'd be doing about the same. Or not. One of the tricky things with training is that as we get better at riding bikes, we find more ways to cheat. Lately I've been doing computrainer sessions (nowhere to hide) and wow...

It's important to keep in mind that the differences are quite small, and when people expect a lighter bike to do something miraculous, they're usually disappointed. Certainly it's smaller than the variation people's mood, how much sleep they got over the last week, and how much beer they drank last night will make.

I was thinking about this a little more when I did an endurance race earlier in the season. I was down 3 minutes on the guy one spot up on me in my class, after 3 hours and 13 minutes (for me.) Turning that into a unit of measurement that doesn't suck, the race took me 193 minutes, so a 3 minute improvement would be a little more than 5%. Expecting that kind of gain from an equipment change is, IMO, pretty unrealistic. When you think about how long it sometimes takes the slower members on a group ride to catch up after a little less than a mile from intersection to intersection, the idea that more bike will really help gets even more farfetched.

OTOH, the next guy up in the overall standings only got me by 37 seconds. Good thing he wasn't in my class, then I'd be really mad my fancy new wheels hadn't come in yet when I did that race.  If I needed to improve anything to do better that day, though, it was my nutrition strategy, or lack of one. I finished the race somewhere in bonktown.


----------



## RealyNorth (Nov 15, 2011)

eat a banana before you ride, much cheaper than buying a ligther bike


----------



## irishpitbull (Sep 29, 2011)

Do you want to push a 5lb rock or 15lb rock 20 miles?

/thread


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

kapusta said:


> If the 3 lbs is in the outer part of the wheels (rims, tires, tubes, and to some extent spokes), then it would make a pretty noticeable difference. Anywhere else, not so much, and you would likely need to do back to back rides to tell a difference, and other factors (suspension efficiency/setup, rolling resistance of tires, geometry.....) would likely mask the weight differences.


So who is the @$$wipe that actually gave me negative rep for this?

And your rep comment.....


> Half true. Doesn't even make sense. A difference in what exactly


as weak as it is, could just as easily been posted here instead.

Lame:nono:


----------



## David C (May 25, 2011)

Go to the tackle shop and buy a down-rigger weight and attach it to your frame. Go ride and see how much 10 pounds of "linear" weight affect your riding. If it feels awful, then answer is yes, weight matters to you. If it's acceptable to ride with that much added weight, then the answer is no, you're not anal about weight 

David


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Some bikes handle better than others, regardless of weight. Geometry, where the weight is, the general balance, and where the rider sits/stands plays a big role in how the bike feels. Some bikes just feel right, downright dialed, the moment you sit on it. I'd MUCH rather ride a 28 lb Yeti SB-95 (which I just got back from evaluating for like 3 hours today) as my primary every day ride than virtually any other bike that's lighter. Except maybe a lighter SB-95 with blingy parts like carbon rims.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I was thinking about this a little more when I did an endurance race earlier in the season. I was down 3 minutes on the guy one spot up on me in my class, after 3 hours and 13 minutes (for me.) Turning that into a unit of measurement that doesn't suck, the race took me 193 minutes, so a 3 minute improvement would be a little more than 5%. Expecting that kind of gain from an equipment change is, IMO, pretty unrealistic. When you think about how long it sometimes takes the slower members on a group ride to catch up after a little less than a mile from intersection to intersection, the idea that more bike will really help gets even more farfetched.


Jeeze, math fail. Still, while a 2-3% difference in total time would have moved me up a couple spots in my class, it would have been from a mid-pack finish to another mid-pack finish. Looking at times, I think the guys who win usually spend all or a good chunk of the race trading places, and while there's some argument for someone being "fresher" at the finishing sprint, I think what really happens in a mountain bike race is sooner or later someone makes a mistake, bonks, assumes the other guy's in less pain when he attacks, whatever. It's in happenstance or the competitor's head. The difference between people on the podium and me is always a fitness-level amount of time.

A good illustration of rotating weight vs. non-rotating weight is water bottles. Mine are the standard 600 mL kind, which contain 600g of water. (Funny how now and then the SI system will make things match nicely. Almost as if they designed it that way.) So when I start a ride I'm expecting to be about two hours, I have 1.2kg of extra stuff bolted to my seat and down tube. If I was less lazy, I could have someone help me do a blind test. I actually don't think I can tell the difference in how the bike handles with and without the water, but I do notice when I lift it. Which is part of my "weight near the bottom bracket vs. weight far away" theory.


----------



## Wild Wassa (Jun 4, 2009)

Tigerider said:


> Weight matters more, in my opinion, when you first start worrying about it.


Yes, I think that is a very good observation ... and that is why I got an Extrawheel Voyager Solo and fitted Vaude Roadmaster Panniers rather than purchase a BOB trailer ... the EVS with panniers is 4kg lighter than the Bob Yak and 8+Kg lighter than the Bob Ibex.










And talking about the weight of wheels, next time a group ride goes past you, check to see if the guys on 29" wheels are down the back of the group. Reducing the weight of the wheels gives you your best bang for buck.

Warren.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Often the weight of the bike is confounded with the quality of the parts. Rarely can one do an apples to apples comparison of the same specs at grossly different weights (say >10 or 15%). 

All things considered, I would vote for picking the bike with the better drive train. The better drive train that will actually shift under load coupled with a good gear range is most important in my mind. If you do not have the right gear ratio for the grade, it doesn't matter how heavy the bike is, you'll be beat. And finally, the biggest variable of the entire discussion is the engine. As lance said, it's not about the bike.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

heyyall said:


> All things considered, I would vote for picking the bike with the better drive train. The better drive train that will actually shift under load coupled with a good gear range is most important in my mind. .


FWIW, shifting under load with any frequency will mean the early death of even the nicest drivetrains. It is an expensive habit.


----------



## David C (May 25, 2011)

heyyall said:


> Often the weight of the bike is confounded with the quality of the parts. Rarely can one do an apples to apples comparison of the same specs at grossly different weights (say >10 or 15%).
> 
> All things considered, I would vote for picking the bike with the better drive train. The better drive train that will actually shift under load coupled with a good gear range is most important in my mind. If you do not have the right gear ratio for the grade, it doesn't matter how heavy the bike is, you'll be beat. And finally, the biggest variable of the entire discussion is the engine. As lance said, it's not about the bike.


What about the SSer ?


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

kapusta said:


> FWIW, shifting under load with any frequency will mean the early death of even the nicest drivetrains. It is an expensive habit.


Very true--same can be said for sandy conditions => dirty chain => new rear cassette & chain.



David C said:


> What about the SSer ?


If the gearing is something that the person can feasibly power over the terrain they are riding, it would be great. For example, for a paved city park trail, the simplicity can't be beat. For more challenging terrain, having a back up gear or two is a big help.

Not to mention, having a wide gear range allows me to ride slowly with my 6 year old and then chase down my 12 year old who always seems to forget the agreed upon speed limit.


----------



## Gary H (Dec 16, 2006)

Static, vs dynamic!


----------



## FelixUnger (Dec 28, 2011)

*Started thinking light, now thinking strong and comfy*

I am compairing two pair of wheels with some scratch I have: Easton AM Havoc at 1930g and an inside width of I believe 23mm vs Shimano 756 hubs and Mavic 729 rim at 2675g with an inside width of 27mm.

This thread echos the two minds I am of-weight matters on the bike because it is an external swing weight to us and the wheels are most external; weight falls a long ways behind conditioning, and comfort on the bike in importance.

I am leaning towards the Shimano/Mavic as I think I would prefer the wider tires they allow. Any thoughts on the wheel choices would be helpful.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

How wide a tire were you planning to use? A 23mm inside width already supports some pretty big rubber. I don't like the weird hubs and low spoke count on the Eastons, regardless of the other differences...


----------



## johnnypie13 (Jan 23, 2011)

really depends on the style of riding i suppose when i raced downhill i had a heavy bike but XC was always the lightest thing i could find

now a days it doesn't really matter as i'm over weight and ride like a snail


----------



## adnoh1924 (Jan 24, 2010)

IMO the biggest weight advantage / disadvantage is the weight of the rider. This is the beginner forum so I assume we aren't talking about competitive athletes.


----------



## FelixUnger (Dec 28, 2011)

AndrwSwitch said:


> How wide a tire were you planning to use? A 23mm inside width already supports some pretty big rubber. I don't like the weird hubs and low spoke count on the Eastons, regardless of the other differences...


Ended up going with a BWW pure xcr wheelset. Your thoughts on the Eastons crystalized some misgivings I had, thanks for your input and that of the others which reopened the search for me. Still may buy the really big Mavics if I can sell my stock wheels-thinking big tires for winter.

Well it is a weight discussion so I will toss my 2 cents in-this is from a road biker and distance paddler. I think the biggest impact weight wise gram for gram is in pedals and shoes. I believe everyone, even the most graceful spinners, does some lifting of the shoe and pedal in a non rotating manner. Coupled with this I have always found it interesting how cleat mass is hardly ever marketed and cyclist seem to not care.

I also think that beginners gain the most from weight savings (assuming there is at least a reasonable level of fitness). The super fit can really charge and they will do so whether their bike weighs 23 pounds or 30 pounds.


----------



## moosington (Jul 15, 2011)

I think the important thing to remember is you will adjust. Buy the bike you can afford. I currently ride a 34lb+ trek 3700 with maybe 1" of working fork suspension and is a size too big (upgrading to FS soon... tax return needs to hurry up!) and I can throw the bike around well enough. The bike is absolutely unforgiving so I have to use a lot more technique. While it is a good learning experience, the bike is holding me back until I get my new one. 

I think 3lb would be a big difference though. If you can afford the 27lb, go for it. Unless it's HT vs FS, then it's a totally different argument


----------



## TimRad (Jan 22, 2012)

*Wheight a minute*

So this post has gone a long way, but my view is you should by the lightest bike you can afford, and if you still feel too heavy on the climbs its not the bike its the rider. When I started out I had the heaviest bike in my group. Everyone made fun of me for dragging, except for the fastest guy on the trail. He said I'd build up my strength on a heavy bike, loose weight, and then kick ass when I could push through the pain. He was right, now I still ride a "heavy" bike (36 lbs.) but I'm 3rd up the hill out of 12 guys. Long story short, don't worry about ounces on the bike, worry about pounds on the rider. Good luck.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

FelixUnger said:


> Ended up going with a BWW pure xcr wheelset. Your thoughts on the Eastons crystalized some misgivings I had, thanks for your input and that of the others which reopened the search for me. Still may buy the really big Mavics if I can sell my stock wheels-thinking big tires for winter.


I have some of their wheels myself, although not with any house-brand components.

They've been great so far, although I've only had them since May. I was really glad to have conservatively-built wheels when I caught a stick in my spokes between the start and first aid station on a 50 mile race in August. The mechanic trued the wheel and I went on my merry way. I was lucky enough that it didn't break, but even if it had, I had 31 other spokes.


----------



## djmisio85 (Jan 10, 2012)

I would sacrifice a bit of weight saving in order to have stronger components/frame/wheel


----------



## David C (May 25, 2011)

djmisio85 said:


> I would sacrifice a bit of weight saving in order to have stronger components/frame/wheel


I would do so but for better geometry/suspension design as I'm on the lightweight side.

Climbing's gonna suck no matter what. So better make the down part as good as possible :thumbsup:


----------



## Bobby_Mercer (Jan 23, 2012)

intristing information, I remember when I ran BMX on the trails early 90's and weight was a huge deal. If your bike weighed more that 20lbs it was considered a tank.


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

FelixUnger said:


> I am compairing two pair of wheels with some scratch I have: Easton AM Havoc at 1930g and an inside width of I believe 23mm vs Shimano 756 hubs and Mavic 729 rim at 2675g with an inside width of 27mm.
> 
> This thread echos the two minds I am of-weight matters on the bike because it is an external swing weight to us and the wheels are most external; weight falls a long ways behind conditioning, and comfort on the bike in importance.
> 
> I am leaning towards the Shimano/Mavic as I think I would prefer the wider tires they allow. Any thoughts on the wheel choices would be helpful.





FelixUnger said:


> Ended up going with a BWW pure xcr wheelset. Your thoughts on the Eastons crystalized some misgivings I had, thanks for your input and that of the others which reopened the search for me. Still may buy the really big Mavics if I can sell my stock wheels-thinking big tires for winter.
> 
> Well it is a weight discussion so I will toss my 2 cents in-this is from a road biker and distance paddler. I think the biggest impact weight wise gram for gram is in pedals and shoes. I believe everyone, even the most graceful spinners, does some lifting of the shoe and pedal in a non rotating manner. Coupled with this I have always found it interesting how cleat mass is hardly ever marketed and cyclist seem to not care.
> 
> I also think that beginners gain the most from weight savings (assuming there is at least a reasonable level of fitness). The super fit can really charge and they will do so whether their bike weighs 23 pounds or 30 pounds.


Probably good that you went with the Pure XCR wheelset. They should be lenty good for your use. The Mavic 729 is wide, but they are also pretty heavy as they are intended for VERY aggressive DH riding and are way overkill for general trail riding. Personally, I wouldn't put an XT hubset on a 729 wheelset unless I was very light myself. The Easton Havocs are also toward that same end of the spectrum and also overkill for the same type of riding that the XCR wheels are intended for.


----------



## Cell (Apr 20, 2009)

I wouldn't worry too much about 3lbs, But I'm not competative at all.


----------



## Cell (Apr 20, 2009)

I usuallt take too much water with me, thats an easy way to reduce weight


----------



## JC50 (Jan 23, 2012)

Great thread! Very informative for a newby such as myself.


----------



## richardshore (Jan 26, 2012)

Less weight is better. Thats all you need to know.
Lighter parts hurt the pocket more.


----------



## edoubleu (Nov 7, 2014)

I have a simple answer to summarize everything else that was said here: Overall bike weight can matter, but not until dozens of other things such as efficiency, bike fit, rider position, rider skill, and where the weight is have mattered first.

Also, the weight really won't matter to a novice because they won't know what to do with a bike initially anyway whether it weighs 27lbs or 30lbs or 15. I know that sounds rough but look at it this way: an expert rider on a 40 lb bike could blow a novice riding a 20lb rig off the mountain. 

To someone who's that new to mountain biking, or road biking for that matter, I'd start off doing what many have suggested: buy something within your budget and that you feel good on. Then learn to ride on that first bike. By the time that bike is worn out you'll have learned enough to actually get a benefit from the next level of bike up anyway. 

If you happen to have a budget that allows for buying a higher end bike that you really won't get the benefit out of initially and you want to grow into, go for it. Sooner or later you'll "deserve" to be on that bike and then you'll be glad you bought a nice bike. 

For example, I bought an entry level "real" MTB for $2k, crashed on it about 50 times, scratched and dinged it up, wore it out, then moved up once I stopped crashing every ride to a much nicer carbon bike that I get a benefit from climbing and handling wise and that I can tell the difference on.

If you do the same you’ll eventually understand all of the other factors aside from weight, and then you’ll be able to choose the next bike based on all factors, weight included.


----------

