# Why are new bikes so heavy?



## ID Doug (Nov 7, 2019)

I recently bought my daughter a used hardtail MTB, a 2013 Stumpjumper comp. It weighed 26 lbs with pedals. when looking for the bike I checked out new bikes as well. The new hardballs that cost around $1800 were much heavier, around 31 lbs! What gives? The bike industry drives me nuts.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

Quite literally, you get more for your money 

We need to know more info about the bikes you’re comparing if you’re really interested in knowing where the weight is, or isn’t.


----------



## Lenny7 (Sep 1, 2008)

Around here, 9 out of 10 bikes on the floor at local bikes shops are all mountain/enduro bikes. These days everyone seems afraid to pedal.


----------



## Sender420shred (Oct 22, 2017)

Lenny7 said:


> Around here, 9 out of 10 bikes on the floor at local bikes shops are all mountain/enduro bikes. These days everyone seems afraid to pedal.


I pedal the **** out of my 30 pound Enduro bike. That is the point of an Enduro no?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

I have no clue what my bike weighs.... I just ride it like it is.


----------



## scatterbrained (Mar 11, 2008)

Lenny7 said:


> Around here, 9 out of 10 bikes on the floor at local bikes shops are all mountain/enduro bikes. These days everyone seems afraid to pedal.


Considering I climb an average of 2ooft per mile on every ride, while riding a 30lb long travel 29er, I don't think the issue is peoples fear of pedaling.


----------



## Lenny7 (Sep 1, 2008)

Sender420shred said:


> I pedal the **** out of my 30 pound Enduro bike. That is the point of an Enduro no?
> 
> Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


I'll admit, I don't know much about enduro but every vid I've seen shows a conga line of bikes being pushed up hill and then riding down hill.


----------



## Stonerider (Feb 25, 2008)

Oh it's the bike industry marketing just trying to sell you more stuff. They have people believing you can't ride today without 130+ travel full suspension with lockouts, dropper seat posts, and big 50+ tooth bailout gear in the rear. They're also trying to convince everyone that you also need a eBike now because you're so fat and out of shape that you couldn't possible pedal up that hill. They're just trying to make more money.


----------



## Lenny7 (Sep 1, 2008)

Stonerider said:


> Oh it's the bike industry marketing just trying to sell you more stuff. They have people believing you can't ride today without 130+ travel full suspension with lockouts, dropper seat posts, and big 50+ tooth bailout gear in the rear.


Around here you need to be dropped out of an airplane to need more than 120mm of travel but you see guys with 160+ all over the place.


----------



## ID Doug (Nov 7, 2019)

My daughter is not very big so weight is more important. The different sizes of bikes in the same model all have the same parts so for small riders they are way over spec and weight for what is needed. Looking through the manufacturers I see that the cross country hardtails are almost all very expensive carbon fiber bikes. Not too many years ago a beginning CX racer could find a fairly light aluminum frame CX HT for much less. Marketing has taken us backwards once again!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Well, the price of an equivalent-level bike has definitely increased as compared to the 1990s, but apart from that, there are lots of features that have added weight. Some of them useful, some of them useful in certain conditions, some of them not useful, depending on the person. Wider tires and rims, that right there accounts for some significant weight especially when we are talking about 40mm rims and 2.6+ tires. Not just that, but wider hubs, 148 and 157, are heavier and require wider frames, which also end up heavier due to more material (aluminum, steel, carbon). Bigger stanchion and steerer forks are far stiffer than the noodles of the 2000s, but add some weight. 
Wider handlebars, while the weight can be fairly negligible for 60-80mm of carbon-fiber tube, the same length low-grade aluminum can weigh twice as much. Dropper-seatposts add around a pound.

As usual, lower end bikes will get anchor cassettes, seatposts, saddles, handlebars, hubs, cranks, all things that tend to add significant weight compared to the higher end model.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

Marketing -now THAT is funny.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Humans are fatter than they used to be. 

They need beefier bikes that don't break under their heavier mass.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

Because everything on a mountain bike got wider, longer, larger and bigger in the last ten years. And wider, longer, larger and bigger, often contrary to the industry claims, means heavier ...


----------



## scatterbrained (Mar 11, 2008)

Davide said:


> Because everything on a mountain bike got wider, longer, larger and bigger in the last ten years. And wider, longer, larger and bigger, often contrary to the industry claims, means heavier ...


yeah, but now you can get everything in carbon!


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

ID Doug said:


> I recently bought my daughter a used hardtail MTB, a 2013 Stumpjumper comp. It weighed 26 lbs with pedals. when looking for the bike I checked out new bikes as well. The new hardballs that cost around $1800 were much heavier, around 31 lbs! What gives? The bike industry drives me nuts.


I've been chewing on this for a while, and wanted to give you a real answer if I could. If you're comparing like for like, I would be surprised if an equivalent bike was 5 pounds more.

Things I'd like to know would be:
-Did you compare the same size frame in both cases?
-Same material, or was one carbon, one ALU?
-Same trim level, i.e. Comp for Comp?
-Scale?

Generally speaking - at last within same brand - manufacturers agonize how to shave weight, instead of adding. I'd agree that some standards add weight, but I'd need a lot more details before I'd agree with you.

We're missing something.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

I disagree I think some of it is failure rate. Bike companies have seen what the limits are of weight vs strength. To high of a failure rate is bad for image and bottom line.

Me I would like to see new carbon layups based on rider weights.
I shouldn't have to ride the same frame at 140lbs that's built to take a 220lb man down the same trails.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

"I have no clue what my bike weighs.... I just ride it like it is."

Funny that you respond in a weight weenie subforum then.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> I disagree I think some of it is failure rate. Bike companies have seen what the limits are of weight vs strength. To high of a failure rate is bad for image and bottom line.
> 
> ...


I dunno. I had a quick look at Bike Rumour site, and they had actual scale weights on some Specialized bikes from 2013, and I found their similar article for 2018. The model names change so it gets tricky to compare over time, but I found at least a couple of matches, and the newer bike was always lighter.

One reason could be the move away from 3X9 to say, 1X11. That's a lb of weight savings right there.

Lastly, the 5lbs cited by the OP is a massive amount on a bike to add/remove. We have some builds in this subforum where bolts are replaced to shave 50g. 5lbs is unheard of in terms of weight savings (or addition). Even format changes like boost wouldn't come close to adding that much weight.

If someone has some actual scale examples, i.e. 2013 [Company X, Model Y, Size L 29er] hardtail vs 2019 [Company X, Model Y, Size L 29er] hardtail, with the second being 5 lbs heavier, I'd be interested to see it.



Kevin Van Deventer said:


> ...
> 
> Me I would like to see new carbon layups based on rider weights.
> I shouldn't have to ride the same frame at 140lbs that's built to take a 220lb man down the same trails.


I hear you on that - most efficient and safe way to save weight. If you purchase a carbon bar from MCFK, they'll ask for the weight, and suggest a different bar accordingly.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Jayem said:


> Well, the price of an equivalent-level bike has definitely increased as compared to the 1990s


No.

Also, 29ers are heavier than 26ers. Are you comparing apples to apples?


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I just weighed two bikes.

A 2009 custom 26 Ventana with a coil suspension front and rear, both with Ti springs.

And a AL 29 Guerilla Gravity also with coil forks and shock, and carbon rims. It was only a pound lighter.

Both bikes have droppers.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> Me I would like to see new carbon layups based on rider weights.
> I shouldn't have to ride the same frame at 140lbs that's built to take a 220lb man down the same trails.


Rider ability would be a huge factor in that too though which could cause problems.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

scatterbrained said:


> yeah, but now you can get everything in carbon!


... so you could fifteen years ago (ok, not wheels rims, that's 10 years ago).


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Davide said:


> Because everything on a mountain bike got wider, longer, larger and bigger in the last ten years. And wider, longer, larger and bigger, often contrary to the industry claims, means heavier ...


You forgot to mention better.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Lenny7 said:


> Around here, 9 out of 10 bikes on the floor at local bikes shops are all mountain/enduro bikes. These days everyone seems afraid to pedal.





Lenny7 said:


> I'll admit, I don't know much about enduro but every vid I've seen shows a conga line of bikes being pushed up hill and then riding down hill.


That's uninformed. The entire premise behind enduro is that you're pedaling up before you ride down, and anyone who's pedaling miles uphill on a 32# bike with long travel suspension is anything _but_ afraid to pedal. If you don't see the uphill pedaling part on YouTube it's because it's uninteresting to watch. Furthermore, it's not as if you sit up and roll downhill idly. You pedal hard as hell on the way down.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Nat said:


> That's uninformed. The entire premise behind enduro is that you're pedaling up before you ride down, and anyone who's pedaling miles uphill on a 32# bike with long travel suspension is anything _but_ afraid to pedal. If you don't see the uphill pedaling part on YouTube it's because it's uninteresting to watch. Furthermore, it's not as if you sit up and roll downhill idly. You pedal hard as hell on the way down.


Is it?

Because many enduro races are moving to an almost entirely lift served course.

The two biggest enduro races (EWS Northstar, US Open) in the US had 80% or more of the elevation gain covered by a chairlift.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Le Duke said:


> Is it?
> 
> Because many enduro races are moving to an almost entirely lift served course.
> 
> The two biggest enduro races (EWS Northstar, US Open) in the US had 80% or more of the elevation gain covered by a chairlift.


Don't worry Le Duke, you're still in better shape and faster.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Nat said:


> Don't worry Le Duke, you're still in better shape and faster.


I'm not trying to compare myself to anyone here. Not sure why you are trying to inject me into the conversation.

You simply made a statement that, on its face, doesn't appear to be correct. Granted, I haven't analyzed every enduro race out there, but I can't find a single example of an enduro race where every meter descended is matched by a meter climbed under human-only power. That's really just not a thing.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Nat said:


> That's uninformed. The entire premise behind enduro is that you're pedaling up before you ride down, and anyone who's pedaling miles uphill on a 32# bike with long travel suspension is anything _but_ afraid to pedal. If you don't see the uphill pedaling part on YouTube it's because it's uninteresting to watch. Furthermore, it's not as if you sit up and roll downhill idly. You pedal hard as hell on the way down.


Right on, Nat. I'm at least as exhausted at the bottom of a miles long descent as I am after climbing to the top. Why? Because I pace myself on the climbs but not on the descents. Whenever the bike is pointing down I'm either chasing someone who's pulled out all the stops or I'm doing my best to get off the front. There's no pacing on the way down. Working the bike, pedaling, absorbing ridiculous terrain and hitting drops & jumps is exhausting.

I'm 6'2", 220#ish and ride a 160f/140r coil-sprung sled that weighs 36.8# with the wheels & tires I like (35# with wheels & tires I don't like/trust). Regardless I often climb 3-4000' to enjoy previously mentioned rollicking descents. I'd reduce my bike's weight if I wanted to.

Don't care to. My bike suits me fine.

FWIW I owned this bike 14 months before I weighed it and even then the only reason I weighed it was to find out the difference in tonnage between my "light" wheels and the more capable wheels/tires I prefer over them.

Personally I feel MTBs are finally becoming what they were always intended to be, namely capable off-road vehicles (albeit human powered). Of course I want durable, aggressive, wide tires & wheels for the way I ride. Name another high performance off-road vehicle that rolls around on skinny wheels/tires. Then add a long dropper, long-travel coil suspension and other capability-improving factors. Weight is the price I'll cheerfully pay for a machine that's capable of doing the things I want to do in the safest, most confidence inspiring way.

We each set our own priorities. We each choose our own compromises. Prefer a light bike? There are many out there.
=sParty


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Sparticus said:


> Right on, Nat. I'm at least as exhausted at the bottom of a miles long descent as I am after climbing to the top. Why? Because I pace myself on the climbs but not on the descents. Whenever the bike is pointing down I'm either chasing someone who's pulled out all the stops or I'm doing my best to get off the front. There's no pacing on the way down. Working the bike, pedaling, absorbing ridiculous terrain and hitting drops & jumps is exhausting.


That describes me too. I pace myself on the way up and go HAM on the way down. 160mm travel, 32#, most fun bike I've ever owned. Not at all afraid to pedal.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> I'm not trying to compare myself to anyone here. Not sure why you are trying to inject me into the conversation.
> 
> You simply made a statement that, on its face, doesn't appear to be correct. Granted, I haven't analyzed every enduro race out there, but I can't find a single example of an enduro race where every meter descended is matched by a meter climbed under human-only power. That's really just not a thing.


Even the EWS races at bike parks that utilize the lifts end up being a pretty big day on the bike from what I have seen. I tried finding exact elevation gained pedaling but I am not seeing anything that separates the lift assisted elevation gain.

At the end of the day though, I am not sure what that has to do with "every vid I've seen shows a conga line of bikes being pushed up hill and then riding down hill". LOL Also not sure what Youtube channels he is watching.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

rynomx785 said:


> Even the EWS races at bike parks that utilize the lifts end up being a pretty big day on the bike from what I have seen. I tried finding exact elevation gained pedaling but I am not seeing anything that separates the lift assisted elevation gain.
> 
> At the end of the day though, I am not sure what that has to do with "every vid I've seen shows a conga line of bikes being pushed up hill and then riding down hill". LOL Also not sure what Youtube channels he is watching.


EWS Northstar had a total of 491m pedaled up out of 2311m of total elevation gain. 21%.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

rynomx785 said:


> Also not sure what Youtube channels he is watching.


He's probably watching people session segments of trail.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> EWS Northstar had a total of 491m pedaled up out of 2311m of total elevation gain. 21%.


Thanks. Where did you find that? Any idea what the Whistler race was?


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Nat said:


> He's probably watching people session segments of trail.


That coupled with being dramatic to make a point....LOL


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

rynomx785 said:


> Rider ability would be a huge factor in that too though which could cause problems.


 Why? Currently for instance the layup on Aaron gwins m29 is the same as whoever the female intense downhill rider is.

Does it make sense that a 120lb female is on the same layup as Gwin?

All of them are the same..built to withstand the abuse a 220# Aaron Gwin can dish out.

If I buy a m29 I get the same layup as Gwin. I'm a 140lb amateur I don't need that.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

Sparticus said:


> Right on, Nat. I'm at least as exhausted at the bottom of a miles long descent as I am after climbing to the top. Why? Because I pace myself on the climbs but not on the descents. Whenever the bike is pointing down I'm either chasing someone who's pulled out all the stops or I'm doing my best to get off the front. There's no pacing on the way down. Working the bike, pedaling, absorbing ridiculous terrain and hitting drops & jumps is exhausting.
> 
> I'm 6'2", 220#ish and ride a 160f/140r coil-sprung sled that weighs 36.8# with the wheels & tires I like (35# with wheels & tires I don't like/trust). Regardless I often climb 3-4000' to enjoy previously mentioned rollicking descents. I'd reduce my bike's weight if I wanted to.
> 
> ...


 It's ok because you don't care how long it takes you to get up.
If you cared then 36# bike wouldn't be ok.


----------



## eshew (Jan 30, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> EWS Northstar had a total of 491m pedaled up out of 2311m of total elevation gain. 21%.


Does that include transition stages? Most Enduro races are short if you just consider timed sections. There are often many miles of transition stages in between with most of the climbing being done on those transitions between the stages. Example: Local enduro had about 3 miles of actual timed trails but 15 miles of riding with 4k feet of climbing to get to the timed stages.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> It's ok because you don't care how long it takes you to get up.
> If you cared then 36# bike wouldn't be ok.


True. I used to contest endurance races; I built a FS race bike that weighed under 25#. I broke the frame a week after my 2nd 100 mile event. It offered 2.75" of rear travel. It was very expensive to build. This was 2004.

Yes, my priorities have changed since my racing years ended. In addition to riding for the joy of it these days, I refuse to tolerate equipment that breaks or that I can't trust with my life while landing significant jumps at warp speed.

Again, I'll say that we each set our own priorities. Thank goodness we mountain bikers have so many options when it comes to buying or building the perfect machine to cater to our own personal preferences & compromises.
=sParty


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

eshew said:


> Does that include transition stages? Most Enduro races are short if you just consider timed sections. There are often many miles of transition stages in between with most of the climbing being done on those transitions between the stages. Example: Local enduro had about 3 miles of actual timed trails but 15 miles of riding with 4k feet of climbing to get to the timed stages.


That was straight from the race handbook. Page 6.

Https://admin.enduroworldseries.com/uploads/documents/races/1566427516.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

Lenny7 said:


> Around here, 9 out of 10 bikes on the floor at local bikes shops are all mountain/enduro bikes. These days everyone seems afraid to pedal.


Afraid to pedal? What do you think an "all mountain" bike is for?


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> Why? Currently for instance the layup on Aaron gwins m29 is the same as whoever the female intense downhill rider is.
> 
> Does it make sense that a 120lb female is on the same layup as Gwin?
> 
> ...


So you want them to make a 140 lb version of the frame to make it 6 oz lighter? Doesn't seem like there is really that much to save in the just frame and I can't imagine Intense or any other manufacturer wants to double the part numbers in their inventory for a negligible weight savings. They may be able to save a decent amount if they made 140 lb frame that only has to stand up to a beginner rider but we both know that won't happen.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

rynomx785 said:


> So you want them to make a 140 lb version of the frame to make it 6 oz lighter? Doesn't seem like there is really that much to save in the just frame and I can't imagine Intense or any other manufacturer wants to double the part numbers in their inventory for a negligible weight savings. They may be able to save a decent amount if they made 140 lb frame that only has to stand up to a beginner rider but we both know that won't happen.


 Please I had a Recluse the front triangle is so overbuilt it could've lost a pound.
Matter of fact the SL version is almost a pond lighter.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> Please I had a Recluse the front triangle is so overbuilt it could've lost a pound.
> Matter of fact the SL version is almost a pond lighter.


Call Intense and plead your case.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

rynomx785 said:


> Call Intense and plead your case.


 Naw I sold that ****. Bought a 130mm travel 29er. Right now I'm at the end of building up 25lb trail bike.

No comprise trail bike which means $$$$$. Trickstuff Piccola brakes, Intend hero fork etc. No comprise meaning it's Enduro tough at near xc weight.

The frame is the Lightcarbon 958 which funny enough I could've asked for a lighter layup because they actually offer it.

But I said no hahah.

BTW that Intense was the slowest bike I've owned. Was heavy and did not carry speed thru chatter for ****.

It seems the new primer is also slow being last place in the pinkbike trail bike category of the review series they are currently doing.

For racing being their true north..


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

twodownzero said:


> Afraid to pedal? What do you think an "all mountain" bike is for?


Well, if you've ever been to Tiger Mountain, they are evidently for pushing up the trail.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Jayem said:


> Well, if you've ever been to Tiger Mountain, they are evidently for pushing up the trail.


I've been to Tiger Mtn. No one in our crew was pushing our bikes up the trail nor did we see anyone else doing so. Maybe a beginner day when you were there?
=sParty


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> I'm not trying to compare myself to anyone here. Not sure why you are trying to inject me into the conversation.
> 
> You simply made a statement that, on its face, doesn't appear to be correct. Granted, I haven't analyzed every enduro race out there, but I can't find a single example of an enduro race where every meter descended is matched by a meter climbed under human-only power. That's really just not a thing.


We've put on quite a few that have no assist on climbs and start/end at the same elevation.


----------



## barry_gr (Nov 13, 2019)

Well, OP, I had a similar question while we were looking for a new bike for my wife.

What about the reason? It's what sells. So that's all just pointless numbers used by marketeers to make their product sound better than X. You just take whatever is slightly different about your bike, bang on endlessly about the advantages that come from that difference... etc.

The less cynical viewpoint is that bikes are simply getting better as they're engineered better. Just remember the one you've used as a child.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

rynomx785 said:


> Even the EWS races at bike parks that utilize the lifts end up being a pretty big day on the bike from what I have seen. I tried finding exact elevation gained pedaling but I am not seeing anything that separates the lift assisted elevation gain.
> 
> At the end of the day though, I am not sure what that has to do with "every vid I've seen shows a conga line of bikes being pushed up hill and then riding down hill". LOL Also not sure what Youtube channels he is watching.


MES Big Sky this year had some assist, but was still brutal. In one day: 6,000' of climbing (unassisted) and 7,700 feet of descending.

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/2019-sofi-montana-enduro-series-round-3-race-report.html


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Because most mountain bikers don't care what their bike weighs. The few I have met that do are XC racers. There is nothing wrong with either view point. But the old statement, light, cheap or strong pick two so far holds true for MTB in my experience.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

OP feels bikes are heavier these days.

-Some agree.
-Some disagree.
-Some blame marketing.
-Some blame ever-changing standards.
-Some talk about people who don't want to climb.
-Some say people don't care about weight.
-Some debate amount of climbing or lift-assist on some events.

We've done our job folks. Next!


----------



## adaycj (Sep 30, 2009)

The argument for lighter bikes for lighter riders is not going to go anywhere. A pro level race team will already pick "ringers" to match the need of the team riders. The rest of us can buy the "c" or "sl" frames if they are offered. Not all of the forces on a frame are linear in proportion to rider weight either. One positive is that smaller frames are nearly always lighter, and many lighter riders are also smaller. 

I feel for the OP. As a father and a coach on a sizable kids MTB team, kids need light bikes way more than adults. They are usually lighter so the bike is a greater percentage of the total moving mass. Also in most cases a young growing rider shouldn't lose much, if any, weight, so they can't easily lose the extra mass that would be saved by a better frame build/material/layup or some better components.

I personally believe that major bike component manufactures spend quite a bit of time being concerned about weight. They play this into the price of components quite well. There are nearly countless examples of lower priced components that are only heavy for the sake of making the higher priced parts look like they are worth the higher price. It is true that some are better in some other way that makes them more functional, but often that is still a holdout. SRAM and Shimano are prefect examples. Much of this stuff is very much a niche market, yet they are tiers and tiers of product with sometimes very minor variations. They could save a fortune by consolidating the product lines, but not as much as the fortune they make separating the things into finer and finer bins and selling the advantages.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

phlegm said:


> OP feels bikes are heavier these days.
> 
> -Some agree.
> -Some disagree.
> ...


Lol.

We could all save a lot of time if we had discussion templates and could just click on our subject of choice.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

adaycj said:


> I personally believe that major bike component manufactures spend quite a bit of time being concerned about weight. They play this into the price of components quite well. There are nearly countless examples of lower priced components that are only heavy for the sake of making the higher priced parts look like they are worth the higher price. It is true that some are better in some other way that makes them more functional, but often that is still a holdout. SRAM and Shimano are prefect examples. Much of this stuff is very much a niche market, yet they are tiers and tiers of product with sometimes very minor variations. They could save a fortune by consolidating the product lines, but not as much as the fortune they make separating the things into finer and finer bins and selling the advantages.


You blame the companies, but this is not how businesses work. Shimano and SRAM cannot stop developing their various product lines because _competition _for business is such that if one did this, the other would take all of their business. An obvious example recently is Shimano not developing 12 speed mountain bike groupsets until last year. How many new bikes offer Shimano groups at all? I have nothing against Shimano. Actually I have more Shimano bikes in my garage than SRAM. But that was a HUGE blunder and cost them a great deal of market share.

In a competitive market, firms are price takers, not price makers. Panasonic lost a billion dollars trying to sell plasma TVs. They were a good technology, but they didn't sell at prices that could earn them a profit. If they could "save a fortune" and generate more profit, they would. The limiting factor is competition.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

adaycj said:


> The argument for lighter bikes for lighter riders is not going to go anywhere. A pro level race team will already pick "ringers" to match the need of the team riders. The rest of us can buy the "c" or "sl" frames if they are offered. Not all of the forces on a frame are linear in proportion to rider weight either. One positive is that smaller frames are nearly always lighter, and many lighter riders are also smaller.
> 
> I feel for the OP. As a father and a coach on a sizable kids MTB team, kids need light bikes way more than adults. They are usually lighter so the bike is a greater percentage of the total moving mass. Also in most cases a young growing rider shouldn't lose much, if any, weight, so they can't easily lose the extra mass that would be saved by a better frame build/material/layup or some better components.
> 
> I personally believe that major bike component manufactures spend quite a bit of time being concerned about weight. They play this into the price of components quite well. There are nearly countless examples of lower priced components that are only heavy for the sake of making the higher priced parts look like they are worth the higher price. It is true that some are better in some other way that makes them more functional, but often that is still a holdout. SRAM and Shimano are prefect examples. Much of this stuff is very much a niche market, yet they are tiers and tiers of product with sometimes very minor variations. They could save a fortune by consolidating the product lines, but not as much as the fortune they make separating the things into finer and finer bins and selling the advantages.


Like any sport if you want to get your kids seriously involved in it though, right? XC skiing, DH skiing, cyling, hockey, etc. Just like those of us that compete as adults, at some point the gear becomes limiting and holds you back if you want to compete at the highest levels. It's nice when you can be assured that your kid has every opportunity to compete and win, but it takes $$$. If you don't have enough $$$ to support your kid...well, that's your own fault for having kids. The markets for kids equipment is always smaller than everything else, so selections are often less and prices are often more, economy of scale. And they outgrow stuff. Life is hard.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Jayem said:


> Like any sport if you want to get your kids seriously involved in it though, right? XC skiing, DH skiing, cyling, hockey, etc. Just like those of us that compete as adults, at some point the gear becomes limiting and holds you back if you want to compete at the highest levels. It's nice when you can be assured that your kid has every opportunity to compete and win, but it takes $$$. If you don't have enough $$$ to support your kid...well, that's your own fault for having kids. The markets for kids equipment is always smaller than everything else, so selections are often less and prices are often more, economy of scale. And they outgrow stuff. Life is hard.


Okay, that brings me to some tangential topics (but kind of related, maybe). I live in what's considered "the nice part of town" and as such, our kids go to "the rich kids school."

Point #1: The alpine and nordic ski teams every year do fund raisers so that they can afford equipment and travel. Man, I know all of your parents. They're all doctors, lawyers, business owners, and CEOs. Your families have the money, you don't need mine.

Point #2: People with wealth are adept at getting other peoples' money.


----------



## adaycj (Sep 30, 2009)

twodownzero said:


> You blame the companies, but this is not how businesses work. Shimano and SRAM cannot stop developing their various product lines because _competition _for business is such that if one did this, the other would take all of their business. An obvious example recently is Shimano not developing 12 speed mountain bike groupsets until last year. How many new bikes offer Shimano groups at all? I have nothing against Shimano. Actually I have more Shimano bikes in my garage than SRAM. But that was a HUGE blunder and cost them a great deal of market share.
> 
> In a competitive market, firms are price takers, not price makers. Panasonic lost a billion dollars trying to sell plasma TVs. They were a good technology, but they didn't sell at prices that could earn them a profit. If they could "save a fortune" and generate more profit, they would. The limiting factor is competition.


I blamed no one. It is just how the market is structured. I agree that competition is a factor. And just because you can save money developing and delivering a product doesn't mean you will make more profits. The structured feature/weight tiers seem to work pretty well for the big players.


----------



## adaycj (Sep 30, 2009)

Jayem said:


> Like any sport if you want to get your kids seriously involved in it though, right? XC skiing, DH skiing, cyling, hockey, etc. Just like those of us that compete as adults, at some point the gear becomes limiting and holds you back if you want to compete at the highest levels. It's nice when you can be assured that your kid has every opportunity to compete and win, but it takes $$$. If you don't have enough $$$ to support your kid...well, that's your own fault for having kids. The markets for kids equipment is always smaller than everything else, so selections are often less and prices are often more, economy of scale. And they outgrow stuff. Life is hard.


I'm am so glad that the world doesn't work like you describe Jayem. First, I didn't father all the kids on a big MTB team so I'll leave your money vs reproduction stuff for someone else. Any kid can get into the sport for a few hundred dollars. The organization my kids participate in also has funding programs for kids that can't afford the sport. We have also donated parts and bikes to help out in specific cases. The conversation here started because someone was lamenting about higher prices on bikes that are heavy, and the bike bought was for his daughter. There are reasons this happens in the market that most of us participate in. If my comments don't align with the direction you think the conversation should go, I recommend you ignore them


----------



## adaycj (Sep 30, 2009)

Nat said:


> Okay, that brings me to some tangential topics (but kind of related, maybe). I live in what's considered "the nice part of town" and as such, our kids go to "the rich kids school."
> 
> Point #1: The alpine and nordic ski teams every year do fund raisers so that they can afford equipment and travel. Man, I know all of your parents. They're all doctors, lawyers, business owners, and CEOs. Your families have the money, you don't need mine.
> 
> Point #2: People with wealth are adept at getting other peoples' money.


We do have the "sell product X" to your family and friends to earn a discount on camp types of things too. I spare my friends and family the harassment when I am the only benefactor. Sometimes the programs help the kids that won't get to go otherwise, and I just donate to those rather than turn into a salesman. Plus it leaves more market for the other kids.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Nat said:


> Okay, that brings me to some tangential topics (but kind of related, maybe). I live in what's considered "the nice part of town" and as such, our kids go to "the rich kids school."
> 
> Point #1: The alpine and nordic ski teams every year do fund raisers so that they can afford equipment and travel. Man, I know all of your parents. They're all doctors, lawyers, business owners, and CEOs. Your families have the money, you don't need mine.
> 
> Point #2: People with wealth are adept at getting other peoples' money.


I was on ski team and I didn't have jack ****. I feel like I was really held back, not being able to go to all of the practices and races.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Jayem said:


> I was on ski team and I didn't have jack ****. I feel like I was really held back, not being able to go to all of the practices and races.


Yeah, it has a lot to do with my neighborhood. When the anesthesiologist who's married to an attorney said his daughter was selling oranges to raise money... GTFO.

On another tangent, my daughter's friend's dad owns an international software company and is loaded AF. One of his sons held a fund raiser to finance a gap year traveling through Europe and sure enough, got people to pay for it. Skillz. I found it kind of annoying but at the same time I was kind of impressed that a teenager had the ability to do that.


----------



## scatterbrained (Mar 11, 2008)

Nat said:


> Yeah, it has a lot to do with my neighborhood. When the anesthesiologist who's married to an attorney said his daughter was selling oranges to raise money... GTFO.
> 
> On another tangent, my daughter's friend's dad owns an international software company and is loaded AF. One of his sons held a fund raiser to finance a gap year traveling through Europe and sure enough, got people to pay for it. Skillz. I found it kind of annoying but at the same time I was kind of impressed that a teenager had the ability to do that.


What was the kid who held the fundraiser doing to raise money, or was he just asking for it? Personally I don't care how much money you have, you should still make your kids work for what they want, but if that "work" is just walking around asking for money. . . .


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

scatterbrained said:


> What was the kid who held the fundraiser doing to raise money, or was he just asking for it? Personally I don't care how much money you have, you should still make your kids work for what they want, but if that "work" is just walking around asking for money. . . .


He gave a presentation and had hors d'oeuvres and such, explained how he was going to use the time and money to better the planet. I forget what his mission was but it was more than just hanging out with locals smoking their dope. Helping to provide clean drinking water to small communities maybe? I don't remember exactly. It bothered me a bit because I grew up believing you had to put in the work but then I thought, maybe this is how the really wealthy get really wealthy? And here I am still working for living instead of owning **** and traveling the world on the dividends.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> You forgot to mention better.


... not really because of wider, longer, larger and bigger. Arguably (but I am sure some would disagree) the main improvement in the last ten years has been geometry.

Weight wise the only item on a bike that has not gained weight are the rims. But only if you use carbon rims, and if you use a wide rim you are more or less even. If you use aluminum you gained quite a lot. 1x used to decrease some weight but that is not true any longer longer with 1050/1051. The main item is a dropper post (that I would never do without!) and tires, the rest is tens of grams per item (bar/stem/hubs) and at the end of the story it is not that much.

Without really looking at it in detail I am guessing that you can build a bike that is around 1-1.5 pounds heavier than the lightest you could build ten/fifteen years ago ... not too bad ...


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Davide said:


> ... not really because of wider, longer, larger and bigger. Arguably (but I am sure some would disagree) the main improvement in the last ten years has been geometry.
> 
> Weight wise the only item on a bike that has not gained weight are the rims. But only if you use carbon rims, and if you use a wide rim you are more or less even. If you use aluminum you gained quite a lot. 1x used to decrease some weight but that is not true any longer longer with 1050/1051. The main item is a dropper post (that I would never do without!) and tires, the rest is tens of grams per item (bar/stem/hubs) and at the end of the story it is not that much.
> 
> Without really looking at it in detail I am guessing that you can build a bike that is around 1-1.5 pounds heavier than the lightest you could build ten/fifteen years ago ... not too bad ...


You've made great points, but it is not a like-for-like argument. If you look at 2 identical bikes, but add a dropper to one of them, of course the latter will be heavier. If the style of the day is to add a panier on the back, then those bikes will be heavier than non-panier bikes (to use a weird example).

But, to your point on rims - there are some 26" UST Mavic that used to be the top-of-the-line wheelset that are now heavier than wider, 29er, carbon rims. You can get wider carbon bars that are lighter than more narrow carbon bars of 15 years ago.

I suppose I'm suggesting technology has advanced, maybe more than we realize.

Maybe like-for-like is an unrealistic goal, but the bikes I target to build get lighter every year at the component level.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

If we’re talking like for like, I’ll take a 120/100mm 29er modern XC bike (34 SC + dropper) over any 26er for anything short of Free Ride.

Seriously. They are that much better. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> If we're talking like for like, I'll take a 120/100mm 29er modern XC bike (34 SC + dropper) over any 26er for anything short of Free Ride.
> 
> Seriously. They are that much better.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agreed, but that's not like-for-like, you compared 2 entirely different bikes.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 9, 2004)

Because we are.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

phlegm said:


> Agreed, but that's not like-for-like, you compared 2 entirely different bikes.


I'm saying I'd take a modern 29er XC bike over the whole gamut of 26er from XC to trail to AM.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

For sure. I'm also thinking that some of the highest end 29er XC, even with the more capability, are still lighter than smaller 26" bikes of the day.

Anyway, would be great if the OP returned to the thread and explained what bikes he compared. I'm just really curious now.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

phlegm said:


> For sure. I'm also thinking that some of the highest end 29er XC, even with the more capability, are still lighter than smaller 26" bikes of the day.
> 
> Anyway, would be great if the OP returned to the thread and explained what bikes he compared. I'm just really curious now.


They got stuff pretty light pretty fast in the first years of the industry, the problem was that much of it was flat out crap, like Mag 21 SL forks, spindly flexy cranks, short handlebars, 1.8 tires or casings thinner than your tubes (looking at you hutchinson mosquito). Some of it worked ok, but you couldn't really push your bike/ride it hard. The level that you can ride today's XC stuff is just far and away beyond what was possible. And don't even get me started on the frames...so much sideways flex it was crazy.

So you had 20lb and lighter hardtails, 23lb and lighter FS bikes, but they feel like toothpicks compared to today's modern stuff. My racing 29er FS bike is a little less than 23lbs with dropper post, but that's with 2.2" tires, 28mm rims, regular shimano pedals, a 780mm handlebar, etc. It's still not nearly as capable as my AM bike, but it's lightyears ahead of 1990s stuff. To make a 29er around 23lbs definitely takes better engineering and materials than back in the 1990s and early 2000s, any way you slice it, you are dragging around some extra spoke length, tire casing and rim material. I've raced these rims hard, I started pretty gently the first season keeping it short and using my heavier duty ones for harder races, but I gradually started using them for everything and it blows me away that the rims weigh only 290g each (yes, I weighed em). And the wheels are not noodles, they are stiff and stable.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

phlegm said:


> For sure. I'm also thinking that some of the highest end 29er XC, even with the more capability, are still lighter than smaller 26" bikes of the day.
> 
> Anyway, would be great if the OP returned to the thread and explained what bikes he compared. I'm just really curious now.


Well, here is the 2013 spec stump jumper comp weight; 24lb 4oz. 
A 2019 spec fuze comp weighs in at a whopping 32.62lbs.

I am guessing these are comparably priced bikes. Looks like OP may have a good point, unless I am missing something here.








https://bikerumor.com/2012/07/16/2013-specialized-mountain-bikes-complete-overview-actual-weights/

https://www.mbr.co.uk/reviews/hardtail/specialized-fuse-comp-review


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

You're comparing different bikes. From that same Bike Rumour article in 2013, the Epic S-Works is 23.0 lbs, the 2018 (also from Bike Rumour) is 21.8 lbs.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

phlegm said:


> You're comparing different bikes. From that same Bike Rumour article in 2013, the Epic S-Works is 23.0 lbs, the 2018 (also from Bike Rumour) is 21.8 lbs.


Ya, specialized doesn't make a stumpy hardtail anymore, so I am comparing the "comp" version of the 2013 spec stumpy to their modern, mid level hardtail, the "comp" version of their fuze. Pretty sure these are in the same price range.

My understanding is the epic s works are top of the line bikes and not what the op was looking at. Op was comparing reasonably priced bikes.

Do the stumpy hard tail and new fuze hardtail not compare? Seem pretty similar to me.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

It's definitely tough to compare, but the Stumpy HT is (was) their XC hardtail line, and that is now the Epic HT, just to make it confusing. (The Fuze is Trial-oriented, and has 130mm front travel, dropper, far beefier tires, etc.)

I'd agree that comparing S-Works models is a bit unrealistic, but it was the best like-for-like I could find, and that weight continues to drop over the years.

My point is that we just can't compare bike "X" to "Y", see that "Y" is heavier, and conclude that all new bikes are heavier.


----------



## wfl3 (Dec 30, 2003)

singletrackmack said:


> Ya, specialized doesn't make a stumpy hardtail anymore, so I am comparing the "comp" version of the 2013 spec stumpy to their modern, mid level hardtail, the "comp" version of their fuze. Pretty sure these are in the same price range.
> 
> My understanding is the epic s works are top of the line bikes and not what the op was looking at. Op was comparing reasonably priced bikes.
> 
> Do the stumpy hard tail and new fuze hardtail not compare? Seem pretty similar to me.


The Rockhopper would be a LOT closer to that Stumpy than the Fuze for comparison.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Nat said:


> That's uninformed. The entire premise behind enduro is that you're pedaling up before you ride down, and anyone who's pedaling miles uphill on a 32# bike with long travel suspension is anything _but_ afraid to pedal. If you don't see the uphill pedaling part on YouTube it's because it's uninteresting to watch. Furthermore, it's not as if you sit up and roll downhill idly. You pedal hard as hell on the way down.


Yeah I thought a key difference between enduro and DH is that enduro pedals up the hill. Maybe they don't want to, but they do. And several brands carry enduro bikes with the description below them "A downhill bike that still climbs OK". There are a lot of segments where the extended part uphill is called "Enduro...XYZ trail" where they include the uphill climbing, maybe not the whole hill but a large chunk of it. The original XYZ trail would be just DH.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

scatterbrained said:


> Considering I climb an average of 2ooft per mile on every ride, while riding a 30lb long travel 29er, I don't think the issue is peoples fear of pedaling.


Some dude shot a really, really good video of this one DH section in my county, three trails, one easy, two way beyond my pay grade. Everything in the 30-minute video was great, I agreed with almost everything he said, but right off the bat he starts complaining that he has to climb the hill first. HUH? He explains that several years ago, before the Indian Land Managers started getting serious about fencing off their land, this area was the premier DH for San Diego County (Anderson Truck Trail and the Spicollis). Then the shuttle truck area got closed off, so everyone has to pedal up the hill. OK...it does take about 45 minutes, maybe faster if you are in better shape. But it's not even hard, it's about a 6% incline, that's nothing. I've done 12%, now THAT can be hard to do the whole thing on the bike without getting off. 10% is usually no problem, yes 10% is tiring, but I mean, you don't want some exercise out there? 6% is not even hard, and he's complaining??? C'mon. I could do 6% on a 14-28t freewheel and I'm not even a good climber.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

mountainbiker24 said:


> No.
> 
> Also, 29ers are heavier than 26ers. Are you comparing apples to apples?


If you adjust for inflation, today's bikes are about 10 times better than the equivalent, cost-adjusted 26" bike. Doesn't matter if you are talking about wheel size or not. Take a modern 27.5" frame, put wide 26" tires on and I can pretty much guarantee you'll blow away most 1990's bikes, regardless of how much they cost then.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

richj8990 said:


> Yeah I thought a key difference between enduro and DH is that enduro pedals up the hill. Maybe they don't want to, but they do. And several brands carry enduro bikes with the description below them "A downhill bike that still climbs OK". There are a lot of segments where the extended part uphill is called "Enduro...XYZ trail" where they include the uphill climbing, maybe not the whole hill but a large chunk of it. The original XYZ trail would be just DH.


Even if you're not pedaling one mile up per one mile down you're still pedaling a LOT over the course of the day, both up and down. Pedaling downhill pinned and tossing the bike around technical sections is fatiguing.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

rynomx785 said:


> Call Intense and plead your case.


In all seriousness, don't call Intense right now with trivial stuff, they are still getting over losing someone in their family.


----------



## scatterbrained (Mar 11, 2008)

richj8990 said:


> Some dude shot a really, really good video of this one DH section in my county, three trails, one easy, two way beyond my pay grade. Everything in the 30-minute video was great, I agreed with almost everything he said, but right off the bat he starts complaining that he has to climb the hill first. HUH? He explains that several years ago, before the Indian Land Managers started getting serious about fencing off their land, this area was the premier DH for San Diego County (Anderson Truck Trail and the Spicollis). Then the shuttle truck area got closed off, so everyone has to pedal up the hill. OK...it does take about 45 minutes, maybe faster if you are in better shape. But it's not even hard, it's about a 6% incline, that's nothing. I've done 12%, now THAT can be hard to do the whole thing on the bike without getting off. 10% is usually no problem, yes 10% is tiring, but I mean, you don't want some exercise out there? 6% is not even hard, and he's complaining??? C'mon. I could do 6% on a 14-28t freewheel and I'm not even a good climber.


Considering I saw a guy pushing a DH bike up a hill. . . . .at Sweetwater! Just saying. I was a bit perplexed by it to say the least.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

richj8990 said:


> In all seriousness, don't call Intense right now with trivial stuff, they are still getting over losing someone in their family.


In all seriousness, I wasn't being serious at all.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

richj8990 said:


> If you adjust for inflation, today's bikes are about 10 times better than the equivalent, cost-adjusted 26" bike. Doesn't matter if you are talking about wheel size or not. Take a modern 27.5" frame, put wide 26" tires on and I can pretty much guarantee you'll blow away most 1990's bikes, regardless of how much they cost then.


Yep, but I said "no" to new bikes costing more than older bikes.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

My 160mm slx bike is more than a pound lighter than my first fs bike, a 100mm x9 trance. It also does literally everything better.

I also have serious doubts that a 2013 sj comp was 26 pounds. That's a 30+lb hardtail.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

One Pivot said:


> My 160mm slx bike is more than a pound lighter than my first fs bike, a 100mm x9 trance. It also does literally everything better.
> 
> I also have serious doubts that a 2013 sj comp was 26 pounds. That's a 30+lb hardtail.


It is quite unarguable that new frames and components are heavier. No matter how much carbon people are now using everything is bigger, frames are built stronger ... and with shapes that add weight to fit water bottles!

No matter if you need it or not most frames are built with an enduro rider in mind, the only five pounds frames you can buy are XC racing machines.

An example is my Ibis Mojo Classic 2007. The frame was 5.2 pounds, the SL slightly lighter, compared to a Mojo 3 2019 that is 6 pounds, an HD3 with X2 shock 6.5. It could be done. My Norco Revolver frame was 4.85 pounds, terrible performance downhill but at my weight it felt VERY sturdy, and I could see adding 30 mm of travel with no problem. Give me back a Mojo Classic with modern geometry I would be very happy!

It might be a good thing but you pretty much cannot build a bike as light as you could ten years ago.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Specialized has been able to continually make their XC race frames lighter, by year. XC may be the exception here though.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

The important question is, how much is the extra ~2 lbs on your bike slowing you down over the course of your average ride? My guess is not much and I think people would be pretty disappointed to see the actually time savings dropping a couple pounds would make. The average rider is probably better off losing 5 lbs or more off their body.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

rynomx785 said:


> The important question is, how much is the extra ~2 lbs on your bike slowing you down over the course of your average ride? My guess is not much and I think people would be pretty disappointed to see the actually time savings dropping a couple pounds would make. The average rider is probably better off losing 5 lbs or more off their body.


Agreed, I have no debate with that.

In any event, we still don't know what the OP was comparing, so this whole thread is speculative.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

phlegm said:


> Agreed, I have no debate with that.
> 
> In any event, we still don't know what the OP was comparing, so this whole thread is speculative.


Well, this is the internet. haha


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

The OP made his two posts a month ago and my guess is that he's long gone. He probably wasn't actually looking for any answers and just wanted to vent a bit. Hell, he probably never even checked back on the thread he started after he started it.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

rynomx785 said:


> The important question is, how much is the extra ~2 lbs on your bike slowing you down over the course of your average ride? My guess is not much and I think people would be pretty disappointed to see the actually time savings dropping a couple pounds would make. The average rider is probably better off losing 5 lbs or more off their body.


Yep, but it is the weightweenie forum! And yes, who cares about time laps, unless you are racing at a stratospheric level.

But personally I enjoy having to move a lighter bike and it gives a sort of a crossword puzzle to play with. Body weight ... I am a trim 158 pound. I might be able to go down another pound or two but five is really not in the charts unless I loose muscle :nono:


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Davide said:


> Yep, but it is the weightweenie forum! And yes, who cares about time laps, unless you are racing at a stratospheric level.
> 
> But personally I enjoy having to move a lighter bike and it gives my a sort of puzzle to play with. My weight ... I am a trim 158 pound. I might be able to go down another pound or two but five is really not in the charts unless I loose muscle :nono:


It is indeed the weight weenie forum. Guess I overlooked that. I ended in here through the new posts tab. Me and my 33 lb Sentinel will see ourselves out. LOL


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Davide said:


> But personally I enjoy having to move a lighter bike and it gives a sort of a crossword puzzle to play with.


What's a four letter word starting with W and ending with T for "Question that means I don't understand?"


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

I rode a trail last week that I hadn't ridden for a year. It is one of the stops on the Tour de dirt the official Oklahoma xc series.
Last year I rode it a day before the race and was in great shape and the trail was groomed for race day.

When I rode it last week it was in bad shape multiple trees across the trail small limbs everywhere and I stopped to let air out of my tires.

Last year I rode it on my 160/140 travel Intense recluse that weighed about 32lbs.
This year I rode it on my Chinese lcfs958 29er 150/130 that weighs 27lbs.
Despite having to stop and carry my bike over trees multiple times and stopping to let air out of my tires..

I still beat my best time by 2:32. I'd say that's a big difference. I am also out of shape and about 10lbs heavier then I like to be. 

Edit: the average lap times for pro on this trail are 28 to 32 minutes.

Mine was 34 minutes down from 36:32


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> I rode a trail last week that I hadn't ridden for a year. It is one of the stops on the Tour de dirt the official Oklahoma xc series.
> Last year I rode it a day before the race and was in great shape and the trail was groomed for race day.
> 
> When I rode it last week it was in bad shape multiple trees across the trail small limbs everywhere and I stopped to let air out of my tires.
> ...


5 lbs is a decent amount of weight but there is more variables there than just the weight. What tires are on the the bikes? In my opinion rolling resistance is a bigger factor. Just more internet speculation on my part though. Would be really interesting to see what your time was if you strapped 5 lbs to your 27 lbs bike and ran the loop again.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

Well I weigh 146lbs now and weighed 136 then so that's 10lbs right there.

Tires were Magic Mary soft front 2.35 for both bikes.

Rear was Rock razor 27.5 2.35 speed grip and Racing Ralph 29 2.1 speed.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> Well I weigh 146lbs now and weighed 136 then so that's 10lbs right there.
> 
> Tires were Magic Mary soft front 2.35 for both bikes.
> 
> Rear was Rock razor 27.5 2.35 speed grip and Racing Ralph 29 2.1 speed.


I am just curious to see what 5 lbs more on the bike does with everything else being the same.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

One thing about the "lose weight off the body versus off the bike" argument is that it's usually presented as an either-or scenario. In real life though one could lose 5# off the body AND lose 2# off the bike. 

I also wonder how much weight people could lose from their ginormous hydration packs.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Nat said:


> One thing about the "lose weight off the body versus off the bike" argument is that it's usually presented as an either-or scenario. In real life though one could lose 5# off the body AND lose 2# off the bike.
> 
> I also wonder how much weight people could lose from their ginormous hydration packs.


Agree completely and I added another level of complexity to this by bringing up body weight.

I went to a fanny pack trying shed some weight off my back. Limited to ~20 miles with how much water I can take though.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

I don't use a pack or carry water at all I hate them. Hell I'd ride naked with helmet and pads if I could.

All 6 of my local trails are 6-8 mile loops so I just hydrate before the start of the loop. And then re up on the next lap.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

The Stumpy was an XC bike, local shops in my area don't have XC bikes in stock any more, everyone wants enduro or am. That might explain it. I Imagine a lot of XC bikes and components have failed while doing heavier terrain, so unless you really want a lightweight xc bike and go out of your way to find one, you're going to be looking at heavier and stronger builds.
Back in the very early 90s, my race bike was a Kona Explosif, Tange Prestige tubing of some kind. I put a Mag20 on it,, it had ti bars, and I replaced the setpost and stem with Control Tech, added a lightweight (and super uncomfortable) seat, - V brakes. I could never get it below 26 pounds. My current race bikes are 29er's and a few pounds lighter.


----------



## ID Doug (Nov 7, 2019)

Someone said that the Stumpjumper Comp HT 2013 weighed 30 lbs, not 26. I weighed it with an accurate scale. Also, I ride a 2013 Cannondale Flash 29er alloy HT which was $2300 and weighed 24 lbs before upgrades. There were lots of bikes like this in 2013.
When I looked at current bikes, I started with Cross Country bikes, which were almost all FS or CF and very expensive. Next I looked at trail bikes, which were all heavy, more than 30 lbs. The only light not crazy expensive bike I have found is the alloy HT Trek Procaliber 6.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

10 years ago the average WC XC race bike was about 19lbs, now they are 22.5-24lbs. So yes, bikes are significantly heavier. Why?
a. Wheel size (about 1lb)
b. Full-suspension . (about 2lb)
c. Droppers . (about 1lb)
d. Tire weight . (about 1.5lb)

The tire weight is the most interesting. Bigger wheels, FS and Droppers have increased descending speed which has required a significant change in tire technology. 10 years ago I would not have believed in a million years that 700 grams would be an acceptable weight for an XC race tire.


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

LMN said:


> 10 years ago the average WC XC race bike was about 19lbs, now they are 22.5-24lbs. So yes, bikes are significantly heavier. Why?
> a. Wheel size (about 1lb)
> b. Full-suspension . (about 2lb)
> c. Droppers . (about 1lb)
> ...


How do times compare? Excuse my ignorance... I don't know enough about XC racing. Is there a course that is still the same as 10 years ago to look at the times of the top 10 by chance?


----------



## TTTURNER (May 13, 2009)

LMN said:


> 10 years ago the average WC XC race bike was about 19lbs, now they are 22.5-24lbs. So yes, bikes are significantly heavier. Why?
> a. Wheel size (about 1lb)
> b. Full-suspension . (about 2lb)
> c. Droppers . (about 1lb)
> ...


It is crazy that tire weights are up this high. But, it seems that you have to get to the 650-750g tubeless tire weight to have an acceptable sidewall and knobs for our rocky SoCal conditions, as well as the more technical XC race courses of today. You really risk a DNF with thin sidewalls. I ran light 26" butyl tubes that were a little over 100g when racing XC in the late 90's. This put some of the race tires closer to the 700g total weight.
As people have said, heavier people is a big reason for the heavier bikes, but I can't help but think that most people are over-biked with today's heavier bikes in areas like the Coachella Valley where I live that have steep climbs, but not overly technical descents. Lugging that extra weight uphill is not necessary if are not testing the limits of your bike on the downhill.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

rynomx785 said:


> I am just curious to see what 5 lbs more on the bike does with everything else being the same.


I have two hardtails (well three but let's just say two), pretty similar, both 70 degree headtube angle, wheels can be swapped, both 120mm forks, but one is 24-25 lbs (depending on the front wheel/tire weight) and one is 32 lbs. Obviously everything else cannot be the same with an 8 lb difference, that difference is spread out into multiple components. Heavier 32 lb advantages: descending, the 32 lb aluminum bike feels more stable, it's also a bit easier to keep the handlebars straight on steep climbs. Aluminum feels better overall on descents, absorbs bumps a bit better, CF transmits them all the way through the handlebars. I've even had a couple of times where an otherwise average bump knocked my hands right off the bars. So yes CF is a stiffer ride, I can see why a road biker would prefer that frame type. Every single time I start a trail descent the CF bike feels squirrely and unsure of itself, and it takes a few hundred feet to get confidence back with it. Even with a wide tire up front it's still relatively unstable at first until I get used to it and that's every frigging trail, it's not like I get used to it before the descent, I have to get used to it all over again on the next descent. Extra weight gives confidence downhill for sure (assuming you have OK brakes lol).

8 lbs less, at least on a hardtail, has two big noticeable advantages: climbing (really charging) up short 3-6% inclines, and accelerating out of turns, as I mentioned above in a different post. I would assume a 5 lb difference would be noticeable too but not has much as 8+ lbs.


----------



## Greycap (Nov 10, 2019)

wfl3 said:


> The Rockhopper would be a LOT closer to that Stumpy than the Fuze for comparison.


Not by a long shot. The Rockhopper is a beginner model with the low-end versions costing around 600€ and the highest spec model lightens the wallet by 1000€ or so. The Stumpjumper was the best aluminium frame available with nearly race spec parts and the cheapest model was already 2000€ - I should know, I have one. I also know a woman with a Rockhopper one year newer than my SJ HT and pretty much the only similarity between them is that they both look like 29er hardtails.

The current comparable model in the range would be the Chisel, a direct descendant of the Stumpjumper/Epic HT aluminium models. Cheaper builds though, but also lower prices, 1800€ for the Comp model. Add in inflation and we're talking about an around 300€ difference in actual prices.

Speaking of weights, my Stumpjumper HT Comp (in other words the cheapest model of the range) full stock weighed 11,17 kg which is 24,6 lbs. People are reporting Chisel Comps weighing around 27 lbs which is slightly over 12 kg.

OK, there's a difference yes, but as noted the Chisel is a cheaper build. No Roval wheels (perhaps 250g difference), no lightweight SRAM X7/X9 drivetrain (the SX cassette alone is a nearly 700g behemoth compared to the 360g 11-36 and the rest of the groupset isn't light either) and no S-Works tyres (easily 300g). And no Reba fork but a Judy. That's around 800g for the listed parts, more would come from the fork and cranks, even the bottom bracket. And then it would already dip very close to, even below, the weight of the Stumpjumper.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

Nat said:


> What's a four letter word starting with W and ending with T for "Question that means I don't understand?"


Yes, the original statement is indeed someWHAT obscure


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

ID Doug said:


> I recently bought my daughter a used hardtail MTB, a 2013 Stumpjumper comp. It weighed 26 lbs with pedals. when looking for the bike I checked out new bikes as well. The new hardballs that cost around $1800 were much heavier, around 31 lbs! What gives? The bike industry drives me nuts.


I just bought an Ibis Ripmo with carbon wheels. 28ish pounds and it rips. The bike I upgraded from was a santa Cruz Tallboy 1 that weight 21lbs when I bought it. That's 21lbs, with no dropper, 2.1 Rocket Rons and the most uncomfortable seat ever. After adding some necessary upgrades it still remained very light but I can tell you I have way more fun on the Enduro bike over the super light XC bike on all my trails. I'm usually only able to squeeze in about 30 miles Max on a Saturday and all my Tallboy trails can be traversed on the ripmo no problemo. Point is....weight is irrelevant to me. I have way more fun and that's what matters most to me.


----------



## Wheelspeed (Jan 12, 2006)

Heavier because the stuff that adds weight is worth it in riding enjoyment, reliability, traction, etc.

To compare modern tech vs old tech fairly, you have to build a new bike using modern tech, but no disc brakes, no dropper post, and 26er wheels. 

Also, if we're talking about comparing back to the 90's, we're an entire generation away from that. Average person is a little bigger and heavier now.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

richj8990 said:


> I have two hardtails (well three but let's just say two), pretty similar, both 70 degree headtube angle, wheels can be swapped, both 120mm forks, but one is 24-25 lbs (depending on the front wheel/tire weight) and one is 32 lbs.


OK- since nobody else has, I'll bite.

Why?


----------



## wfl3 (Dec 30, 2003)

Greycap said:


> Not by a long shot. The Rockhopper is a beginner model with the low-end versions costing around 600€ and the highest spec model lightens the wallet by 1000€ or so. The Stumpjumper was the best aluminium frame available with nearly race spec parts and the cheapest model was already 2000€ - I should know, I have one. I also know a woman with a Rockhopper one year newer than my SJ HT and pretty much the only similarity between them is that they both look like 29er hardtails.
> 
> The current comparable model in the range would be the Chisel, a direct descendant of the Stumpjumper/Epic HT aluminium models. Cheaper builds though, but also lower prices, 1800€ for the Comp model. Add in inflation and we're talking about an around 300€ difference in actual prices.
> 
> ...


Ok, so you're saying a current Fuze is a lot closer comparison (by a long shot) to the old Stumpy than a current Rockhopper? :-\


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

Wheelspeed said:


> Heavier because the stuff that adds weight is worth it in riding enjoyment, reliability, traction, etc.
> 
> ...


Bikes are heavier now than just 10-12 years ago, and the only component that is really justified weight-wise is the drop post. Everything else is just bigger, wider and consequently heavier. And the main reason is because the industry knows that nothing seems to work as well for MTB advertisement than saying that something is bigger or wider.

You do not need 35 mm bars, or 500% range cassettes, or 12 speed, or 29 wheels with 2.6 tires, or shocks with reservoirs, of forks that can land nine feet drops, or frames that can do the same with impunity, or rims that are wider than a 2.1 tire, or four piston brakes with 200 discs.

Some people of course do, but somehow we are all getting bikes like that: 35 pounds monsters when built cheap, or 31 ... monsters when built in carbon at astronomical prices.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Davide said:


> Bikes are heavier now than just 10-12 years ago, and the only component that is really justified weight-wise is the drop post. Everything else is just bigger, wider and consequently heavier. And the main reason is because the industry knows that nothing seems to work as well for MTB advertisement than saying that something is bigger or wider.
> 
> You do not need 35 mm bars, or 500% range cassettes, or 12 speed, or 29 wheels with 2.6 tires, or shocks with reservoirs, of forks that can land nine feet drops, or frames that can do the same with impunity, or rims that are wider than a 2.1 tire, or four piston brakes with 200 discs.
> 
> Some people of course do, but somehow we are all getting bikes like that: 35 pounds monsters when built cheap, or 31 ... monsters when built in carbon at astronomical prices.


35mm bars are no heavier than 31.8mm, 10-50 cassettes replicate triple crank gear ranges with just 1 chainring, 29" carbon wheels are available that rival lightweight 26" wheels from days of yore, etc, etc. The "industry" could easily produce bikes that are lighter than 20 y/o xc bikes but they would be slower and not as much fun as the stuff they're making now. I think most people have figured out that weight isn't the end all.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> 35mm bars are no heavier than 31.8mm, 10-50 cassettes replicate triple crank gear ranges with just 1 chainring, 29" carbon wheels are available that rival lightweight 26" wheels from days of yore, etc, etc. The "industry" could easily produce bikes that are lighter than 20 y/o xc bikes but they would be slower and not as much fun as the stuff they're making now. I think most people have figured out that weight isn't the end all.


35 mm bars and stems are heavier, maybe by grams but there is no way you can make them lighter than 31.8 and retain the same reliability. 500% plus cassettes with 12 cogs and their loooooong derailleurs are at least as heavy as dual, so there is now zero advantage weight-wise, where there used to be an advantage with 11 speed 1042. 29 carbon rims in 30 mm plus inner are now heavier than 27.5 aluminum (not to mention 26) available 10 years ago, and alluminum 29 rims are way into the 550-650 grams range: that used to be downhill territory.

The bike industry can easily produce an ultra capable 27.5 150/130-150 bike in the 25-26 pounds range with XTR level components (I ride one, my four years old, carefully put together Ibis HD3) but it is not going that way. I cannot even buy a moderately adjustable air rear shock for less than a pound weight nowadays!


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Davide said:


> 35 mm bars and stems are heavier, maybe by grams but there is no way you can make them lighter than 31.8 and retain the same reliability. 500% plus cassettes with 12 cogs and their loooooong derailleurs are at least as heavy as dual, so there is now zero advantage weight-wise, where there used to be an advantage with 11 speed 1042. 29 carbon rims in 30 mm plus inner are now heavier than 27.5 aluminum (not to mention 26) available 10 years ago, and alluminum 29 rims are way into the 550-650 grams range: that used to be downhill territory.
> 
> The bike industry can easily produce an ultra capable 27.5 150/130-150 bike in the 25-26 pounds range with XTR level components (I ride one, my four years old, carefully put together Ibis HD3) but it is not going that way. I cannot even buy a moderately adjustable air rear shock for less than a pound weight nowadays!


I think you're comparing apples to oranges. 10-42 is lighter, but less range than 10-50. 26" aluminum rims with 19mm id used to be common, now you can buy 29" rims with 30mm ID that are ~400 grams and crazy strong. Handlebars used to be 60mm, etc, etc.

Also larger diameter (e.g. 35 vs. 31.8) isn't necessarily heavier and is often lighter. Think big carbon tubes vs. skinny steel ones.

The bike you want is available but for most people it's prohibitively expensive, and I still contend that today's 30# trail bike is faster and for sure more capable over most mtb trails than 25# xc bikes from previous generations.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

Frames were smaller then too. Adding an extra 70mm of frame to extend the reach adds up.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think you're comparing apples to oranges. 10-42 is lighter, but less range than 10-50. 26" aluminum rims with 19mm id used to be common, now you can buy 29" rims with 30mm ID that are ~400 grams and crazy strong. Handlebars used to be 60mm, etc, etc.
> 
> Also larger diameter (e.g. 35 vs. 31.8) isn't necessarily heavier and is often lighter. Think big carbon tubes vs. skinny steel ones.
> 
> The bike you want is available but for most people it's prohibitively expensive, and I still contend that today's 30# trail bike is faster and for sure more capable over most mtb trails than 25# xc bikes from previous generations.


No, I am not comparing apple with oranges. I am saying that many things now standard in MTB were generated by the same marketing idea: bigger. And while bigger is not necessarily a synonym for better, it is always, materials used being the same, heavier.

Any single component used in MTB, or indeed frame as Kevin points out below, got heavier in the last 10-12 years simply because it got bigger ...


----------



## ddoh (Jan 11, 2017)

Conversely. some companies are making the lightest FS XC bikes ever (with dropper posts). Check out the highend stuff at Pivot, CD, Scott or Niner. I predict we'll have a sub 20 lb FS, dropper post, 29er advertised very soon.


----------



## mlloyd007 (Dec 7, 2009)

Probably anathema in this forum, but I've come to the conclusion that geometry and functionality far outweigh (pun intended) mass. I had a 21lb. Pivot 429SL that climbed like a gravel bike but was miserable descending as well as on technical features/drops/jumps. 
Now I have a 31lb. Pivot Firebird 29 that climbs shockingly well and is an absolute blast to ride all over the mountain. A few years ago I would have dismissed out of hand any bike over 25 lb. or 26 lb. but now I concern myself far less with weight, and focus on geometry, kinematics, traction, and overall capability.


----------



## ddoh (Jan 11, 2017)

Why was the Pivot 429SL miserable descending?


----------



## mlloyd007 (Dec 7, 2009)

ddoh said:


> Why was the Pivot 429SL miserable descending?


Steep head angle, short reach, narrow rims, light (sketchy) tires, longish seattube, noodley SC32 fork. Everything you don't want for a good body position descending and dealing with technical features combined with fast, light tires with no traction.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

mlloyd007 said:


> Probably anathema in this forum, but I've come to the conclusion that geometry and functionality far outweigh (pun intended) mass. I had a 21lb. Pivot 429SL that climbed like a gravel bike but was miserable descending as well as on technical features/drops/jumps.
> Now I have a 31lb. Pivot Firebird 29 that climbs shockingly well and is an absolute blast to ride all over the mountain. A few years ago I would have dismissed out of hand any bike over 25 lb. or 26 lb. but now I concern myself far less with weight, and focus on geometry, kinematics, traction, and overall capability.


Point is that 26 pounds version of your Pivot Firebird would be unarguably better. You do not need more weight to have better Geometry, kinematics, or traction ...


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Davide said:


> Point is that 26 pounds version of your Pivot Firebird would be unarguably better. You do not need more weight to have better Geometry, kinematics, or traction ...


Little skinny wheels with narrow featherweight tires have as much traction and roll as good over rough trails as a substantial, fat tire mounted on a wide 29" rim? There are times when more is better.

You can buy xc bikes that are as light as anything available "back in the day" that are more capable than previous generations of heavier trail bikes. Mountain bikers have never had it better and yet we still find reason to ***** & moan.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Are we saying that an Enduro bike with wider tires, dropper, and slacker HA will be better on technical downhills than an XC bike from 15 years ago?


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

Actually the skinny tires are better in alot of situations.

Especially for 29er the skinny tires corner better. I've went down the road 2.8-2.6-2.3 now 2.25 Magic Mary soft 2.25 racing Ralph.

On flat dusty corners the bigger volume/profile tires want to push outside.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> Actually the skinny tires are better in alot of situations.
> 
> Especially for 29er the skinny tires corner better. I've went down the road 2.8-2.6-2.3 now 2.25 Magic Mary soft 2.25 racing Ralph.
> 
> On flat dusty corners the bigger volume/profile tires want to push outside.


I was being sarcastic. Point was that some folks are comparing Enduro bikes to previous XC bikes, and comparing technical performance and weight.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

phlegm said:


> Are we saying that an Enduro bike with wider tires, dropper, and slacker HA will be better on technical downhills than an XC bike from 15 years ago?


Were there enduro bikes 15 years ago? I was saying the opposite.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> Actually the skinny tires are better in alot of situations.


Yep, smooth pavement


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

Yep that's what those guys were saying on our group ride on New year's day.
I was keeping up just pumping while they pedaled their asses off.

I like how you take flat corners and turn it to pavement.


----------



## mlloyd007 (Dec 7, 2009)

Davide said:


> Point is that 26 pounds version of your Pivot Firebird would be unarguably better.


True for the most part with the exception of descending in chunk/rock gardens where lighter bikes tend to ping off of rocks and are generally more nervous, therefore slower.



Davide said:


> Point is that 26 pounds version of your Pivot Firebird would be unarguably better. You do not need more weight to have better Geometry, kinematics, or traction ...


Clearly not the case for traction. Traction is primarily a function of suspension and tires/wheels. The point of more travel is better traction, and that comes with the added weight of bigger and more capable shocks, bearings, links, etc. Added traction from wheels and tires is achieved by wider rim widths for more tire stability when cornering and a bigger contact patch with the ground from wider tires. Both those things add weight.

The real point is that low weight is a tradeoff with capability. If your primary filter for frames and components is weight, you could well end up with a bike that climbs fire roads and nontechnical trails like a gravel bike, but is pretty compromised on everything else. If blazing uphill is your jam, and you're not too concerned with descending, riding technical features, jumping, drops, that makes perfect sense. Otherwise, my point is that low weight shouldn't be the the first criteria for selecting gear.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

As a person in possession of a 26lb 130/160 29er you get used to the lightness and tune your suspension accordingly. You need to weight the bike more be as heavy as possible if that makes sense.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

We're OT on this thread.

OP said bikes are heavier now.

My claim is that like-for-like, i.e. 29er hardtail, no dropper, bikes are no heavier, and tend to get incrementally lighter through frame and component efficiencies, and improvements in composite materials.

If the claim is that people are opting for more and more travel, and droppers, and boost, then yes, people are opting for heavier bikes. 

I make no judgement on capability, as the assumption is that bikes in certain categories are designed for a specific purpose.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

It's a mixed bag.

I'd argue that my 2020 120/108mm (or 120mm) 29er, with 67 degree HTA, dropper seat post, and 2.35 tires is faster both up AND down the mountain than the 29er HT I had back in 2009. I know it pulls faster laps on my local trails than my current HT, with rigid post and swapping the wheels between them. Faster than the HT with a dropper, too. 

Pure gravel or paved road ascending? The HT wins. And that's about the only time. Other than that, on any dirt or rock surface resembling a mountain bike trail, going either up or down, the additional weight of the dropper, FS frame, 120mm fork, etc. is overwhelmed by the ability to produce traction. I've got a couple replacement parts on order, but when they come in, it will be 22-23lbs.


----------



## ddoh (Jan 11, 2017)

phlegm said:


> We're OT on this thread.
> 
> OP said bikes are heavier now.
> 
> ...


Yes, that. Add in wider rims and bigger tires and wider bars; you're adding weight.

My first MTB had no suspension, steel seatpost, real narrow bars and 26 x 1.9 tires. I wouldn't go back to any of that to save weight, but my current bikes with MUCH better componetry and options weigh a lot less.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

mlloyd007 said:


> ... Otherwise, my point is that low weight shouldn't be the the first criteria for selecting gear.


Of course not, my point is that what made bikes better, at least for all mountain riding, were the changes in geometry. And geometry has nothing to do with weight. Everything else we had it 12-15 year ago: 130-150 travel, DW-suspension, good forks, good shocks, 2.5 tires. Somehow bikes were lighter, and I think the culprit is the "rush to the bigger". But whatever the reason the fact is that "cheaper" all mountain 29-ers are now in the 34-36 pound range. It will make for a very strong generation of riders!


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

Davide said:


> Of course not, my point is that what made bikes better, at least for all mountain riding, were the changes in geometry. And geometry has nothing to do with weight. Everything else we had it 12-15 year ago: 130-150 travel, DW-suspension, good forks, good shocks, 2.5 tires. Somehow bikes were lighter, and I think the culprit is the "rush to the bigger". But whatever the reason the fact is that "cheaper" all mountain 29-ers are now in the 34-36 pound range. It will make for a very strong generation of riders!


Give an example of a bike. Then let's see what you could get 15 years ago for the same money.

Geometry aside, tubing, hardware, drivetrain, brakes, suspension all have been improved significantly in 15 years. Some of that also costs weight.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## rynomx785 (Jul 16, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> It's a mixed bag.
> 
> I'd argue that my 2020 120/108mm (or 120mm) 29er, with 67 degree HTA, dropper seat post, and 2.35 tires is faster both up AND down the mountain than the 29er HT I had back in 2009. I know it pulls faster laps on my local trails than my current HT, with rigid post and swapping the wheels between them. Faster than the HT with a dropper, too.
> 
> Pure gravel or paved road ascending? The HT wins. And that's about the only time. Other than that, on any dirt or rock surface resembling a mountain bike trail, going either up or down, the additional weight of the dropper, FS frame, 120mm fork, etc. is overwhelmed by the ability to produce traction. I've got a couple replacement parts on order, but when they come in, it will be 22-23lbs.


This ^^^^

If it is faster and more fun to ride, who cares if it weighs more.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

rynomx785 said:


> How do times compare? Excuse my ignorance... I don't know enough about XC racing. Is there a course that is still the same as 10 years ago to look at the times of the top 10 by chance?


That is a good question and I wonder what the average speed is for an XC race. I do believe that certain courses in Europe have been used a lot so that might be a place to look.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

Don't know how much it would prove. Training and nutrition supplements etc would have to be accounted for also.
Just running laps with an old bike and a new bike would give you an idea though.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> Don't know how much it would prove. Training and nutrition supplements etc would have to be accounted for also.
> Just running laps with an old bike and a new bike would give you an idea though.


Yeah, but I have a sneaky feeling the average MPH has not changed much. Granted there are lots of factors going into this but the key thing is that the impact of all these changes over the years is pretty much zilch.


----------



## Kevin Van Deventer (Jan 31, 2015)

Na have to disagee here. The Scott spark rc 900 SL is 21lbs and will smoke anything from 10 years ago.

High end xc are still light and much better bikes now.

My complaint is the weight of trail bikes. 30lbs+ is just accepted normal for 5k and up bikes and that sucks.


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

I've been riding mountain bikes for 31 years. My 31 pound Hightower, 140/150mm, Fox 36, 180/203 rotors, 4-piston brakes, does not come anywhere close to sucking.

I've owned a lot of bikes in that time, some of them were really light... this is the heaviest and best bike so far, by far.

Damn I'm old!


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Kevin Van Deventer said:


> My complaint is the weight of trail bikes. 30lbs+ is just accepted normal for 5k and up bikes and that sucks.


I'd be interested in seeing an example of a lighter trail bike from 15-20 years ago that compares to one today.


----------

