# Why do so many people on this forum have an obsession with bike weight?



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

Serious question. I feel like I am missing something at this point. I've been riding bikes a really long time, from BMX to mtn and even some road and gravel. I don't think I have ever once taken weight into consideration when buying or building a bike. I completely understand if you're a weight weenie high level racer, where weight actually counts for something. Half the posts on this forum lately seem to be people discussing if it's worth owning a bike because its a half a pound heavier than the next bike, when in reality I can't imagine it affecting your riding experience in the slightest, especially with bikes these days. Fit and bike geometry have always been the top things I looked for, but what do I know...

Is this just some kind of internet phenomenon where new riders become obsessed with incremental things that don't really matter from doing too much research? In my 30 years of riding I have never heard so much discussion and nitpicking about bike weights as have in the past year.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

For many (most) it's an ideal esthetic rather than practical appreciation. Making something as light as practically (and sometimes impractically) possible has always been a design goal in bikes, motorsports, aviation... so one can appreciate the achievement even though it may not be consequential for your use.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

You must be new here. The internet is rife with weight weenie-ism and weight weenies. It was huge in the 90's (early days of mtbr) and started to fade because a lot of the weight weenie parts back then were sketchy AF. I'd say mid-2000's seemed to be really when durability seemed to take hold as a development concept, when computer analysis of parts could happen, and weight weenies got pushed to the fringes.

It seems like it's starting to creep back, sure, but at not even the same level as it used to be. It's one of those cyclic things.


----------



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

Light bikes are easier to load on racks & lift over fences. I'm getting old.


----------



## Tommy E (Oct 30, 2019)

I agree. I'm fortunate enough to have several bikes and I've never been on any of them thinking I'd be having so much more fun or be way faster if what I was riding was a couple pounds lighter. A couple of my bikes are pretty light for what they are which did cost quite a bit to get there but the only time that I really notice the weight is when physically picking them up to put them on the rack. I do definitely notice and appreciate a lighter wheelset though. Full disclosure- I'd be way better off losing a few pounds off my belly than any of my bikes.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

A good poop before a ride is more valuable, to me. 

I do agree with a light bike being easier to lift though


----------



## Mark16q (Apr 16, 2006)

Similar to why someone with a 600 hp suv will chip it to get 700 hp. Why not if you can do it, part of the fun and hobby of biking. But not necessarily needed.I love to tinker almost as much as riding.


----------



## TrustyAxe (Dec 21, 2020)

Because when you ride with a pack and the lead has a 22lb bike while your on a 31lb bike with heavy wheels/tires, you will get dropped. Lighter wheelset = easier to pedal, Lighter top end = easier to flick around the turns.


----------



## Schril (Oct 28, 2010)

My 34# bike pedals really well from the shuttle van and downhill.


----------



## TippyD (Dec 6, 2017)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Serious question. I feel like I am missing something at this point. I've been riding bikes a really long time, from BMX to mtn and even some road and gravel. I don't think I have ever once taken weight into consideration when buying or building a bike. I completely understand if you're a weight weenie high level racer, where weight actually counts for something. Half the posts on this forum lately seem to be people discussing if it's worth owning a bike because its a half a pound heavier than the next bike, when in reality I can't imagine it affecting your riding experience in the slightest, especially with bikes these days. Fit and bike geometry have always been the top things I looked for, but what do I know...
> 
> Is this just some kind of internet phenomenon where new riders become obsessed with incremental things that don't really matter from doing too much research? In my 30 years of riding I have never heard so much discussion and nitpicking about bike weights as have in the past year.


I think bike weight is important to all of us to some degree; more so for some than others. Personally, I ride mostly slow and techy stuff, so I prefer the front of my bike especially be as light as I can afford to make it. Lesser degree on the rear. I still have a rather heavy crankset that doesn't seem to bother me. If I competed in XC or Enduro, I think it would annoy me to haul extra weight up hills when trying to keep up with the group. Since I don't compete, do I need the lightest bike? No, it makes little difference and there are diminishing returns to spend a lot of money for saving a few grams.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

There's also ALWAYS been the element for beginner riders where they feel like they're slow because their bike is heavy. 

I mean, sure, if strength/stamina are equal, a lighter bike will be a little faster. But new riders still need to develop strength/stamina. And so do a lot of more experienced riders (myself included).

It doesn't help that cheap bikes put weight in the wrong places (wheels & tires), but there are a lot of other aspects of the equipment that also hold riders back (poor geometry/fit, low quality suspension with insufficient adjustability, tires with over-hard rubber compounds and less grip, less reliable drivetrains, lower quality bearings that are probably not greased/adjusted optimally, inadequate lubrication of the drivetrain, and so on). so when a new rider gets a better bike, they attribute all of the improvement to the lighter weight, when that is really just the most easily noticeable improvement, but the whole suite of improvements is really responsible.


----------



## Tommy E (Oct 30, 2019)

I put carbon X01 cranks on two of my bikes to lighten them up and for some added bling. Did it lighten them up? Yep. Did it lighten my wallet? Yep. Can I notice the crankset weight difference while out riding? Nope. My other carbon purchases such as bars are more for compliance than for weight advantages. I do agree with the numerous others on here that wheels are the best place to invest for weight savings and added durability.


----------



## Manning (Apr 11, 2007)

It's easy to measure. At some point a heavy bike is not enjoyable. Weight does matter, but not that much.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Yep, that's why my last build just got Aeffects. I can't tell the difference anyway, so I just want something that'll take a hit.


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Serious question. I feel like I am missing something at this point. I've been riding bikes a really long time, from BMX to mtn and even some road and gravel. I don't think I have ever once taken weight into consideration when buying or building a bike. I completely understand if you're a weight weenie high level racer, where weight actually counts for something. Half the posts on this forum lately seem to be people discussing if it's worth owning a bike because its a half a pound heavier than the next bike, when in reality I can't imagine it affecting your riding experience in the slightest, especially with bikes these days. Fit and bike geometry have always been the top things I looked for, but what do I know...
> 
> Is this just some kind of internet phenomenon where new riders become obsessed with incremental things that don't really matter from doing too much research? In my 30 years of riding I have never heard so much discussion and nitpicking about bike weights as have in the past year.


It sounds like you got into this mountain biking thing about same time I did and find it interesting that you say you have never seen this obsession with weight. I can remember in the early 90s when everything was about racing. Seemed like everyone wanted the same bike as what one of the well-known Pro racers was riding (when nearly everyone cared who they were), which meant some XC rig with the classic "NORBA" geometry. This is the time when John Tomac raced XC one day and downhill the next on the same bike, and kicked ass on both. Ned Overend was killing it for Specialized and he would tell you and the world, races were won on the climbs. How much does it weigh was pretty much guaranteed going to be in the top three questions, if not number one, when you showed up for a ride with a new bike.

On that note I have noticed the number of weight related posts lately and yes, some pretty ridiculous. I have just chocked this up to the large increase of new and older riders returning this past year. For the new riders, they come into this with a common perception that any bike that costs more than $500 is going to be very light weight. For those older riders returning, many only know mountain bikes from a time when they had more in common with road bikes than the bikes the majoity of us ride these days.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

The short answer is:
The internet in general is a dick waving contest. 


Strava, money, trail quality, miles ridden, elevation climbed, etc are all relative and don’t have apples-to-apples comparisons.

Bike weight? Now that’s a way to low-key satisfy one’s superiority complex. 

If I have a very light bike, it implies that:
1) I have a ton of money to spend.
2) I am a very accomplished rider and am competing at a level where these things matter.
3) my bike is lighter than yours and that wins me the internet today. 


FWIW, I have only a vague idea what my bikes weigh. My 160mm FS bike is ‘kinda heavy’. My Ti singlespeed is ‘kinda light’. 

Both are built for sustainability in rocky rough terrain. 

I have no idea what the actual weight numbers are.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Weight was a big issue in the '90s and into the 2000s. A lot of manufacturers started cheating with listed bike weights (which was pretty much a requirement back then as everyone wanted to know) by listing the weight of the smallest size and sometimes out-and-out lying. They were also caught between building bikes as light as possible to increase sales and then having more warranty claims when those frames broke. 29ers came along, dropper posts, etc that just added weight. So with all of this, the bike companies stopped listing weights and based their products on how they rode. So anyone coming back into the sport from years ago are still focused on weight like they were when they rode previously.

I've seen tests of how much weight affects time on road bikes, the ratio ended up being not enough to worry about unless you are racing, something like a couple of seconds per pound per mile.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

It is pretty popular now a days to dismiss bike weight as irrelevant. It isn't.

A good rule of thumb is each 1lb weight gain is equal to about a single heart beat to climb at the same point. That guy that you ride with who always slightly puts the hurt on you doesn't if your bike is 5lbs lighter. It is a small change but just as significant as degree of head angle or a different tire. It just happens to be the most expensive performance upgrade. And one that any of us can do for free by losing a couple of lbs off our belly.


----------



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

LMN said:


> A good rule of thumb is each 1lb weight gain is equal to about a single heart beat to climb at the same point.


At the same power? You don't _have_ to stay with the guy in front of you


----------



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

Impetus said:


> If I have a very light bike, it implies that:
> 1) I have a ton of money to spend.
> 2) I am a very accomplished rider and am competing at a level where these things matter.
> 3) my bike is lighter than yours and that wins me the internet today.


5) Cycling is an important part of my life and I enjoy a nice ride.


----------



## Phillbo (Apr 7, 2004)

I have no clue how much my Stumpy weighs.....


----------



## J_Westy (Jan 7, 2009)

Schril said:


> My 34# bike pedals really well from the shuttle van and downhill.





Manning said:


> It's easy to measure. At some point a heavy bike is not enjoyable. Weight does matter, but not that much.


For those that like to coast downhill, it doesn't matter much.

If you actually ride, Work = Weight x Height


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Serious question. I feel like I am missing something at this point. I've been riding bikes a really long time, from BMX to mtn and even some road and gravel. I don't think I have ever once taken weight into consideration when buying or building a bike. I completely understand if you're a weight weenie high level racer, where weight actually counts for something. Half the posts on this forum lately seem to be people discussing if it's worth owning a bike because its a half a pound heavier than the next bike, when in reality I can't imagine it affecting your riding experience in the slightest, especially with bikes these days. Fit and bike geometry have always been the top things I looked for, but what do I know...
> 
> Is this just some kind of internet phenomenon where new riders become obsessed with incremental things that don't really matter from doing too much research? In my 30 years of riding I have never heard so much discussion and nitpicking about bike weights as have in the past year.


It's something you can actually measure.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

The weight weenie thing has been around since I started riding over 30 years ago but it's less of a concern nowadays than it was back in the NORBA era. I don't obsess over weight (my bike weighs around 36#) but nonetheless I'd prefer a lighter bike if it doesn't sacrifice performance. If someone were to ask, "Would you prefer a heavy bike or a light bike? Choose one." of course I'd pick "light bike" but in real life I consider performance too (e.g., heavier coil springs v. lighter air springs).


----------



## Schril (Oct 28, 2010)

J_Westy said:


> For those that like to coast downhill, it doesn't matter much.
> 
> If you actually ride, Work = Weight x Height


You're catching on to my sarcasm...


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

Is there really an obsession? I mean keep it under 25lbs and we don’t got a problem, eh?


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

I think it has its place... but not the be all end all.

Probably best to consider it when you are planning your build, so say you are spec-ing a trail or enduro bike... being conscious of what you select so you don't accidently go into prohibitively heavy territory. It's easy to do these days. Currently, all my bikes are in the 30s and it wouldn't have been hard to wander into dreaded upper 30s - for me that's a line where I'm making it harder than it needs to be.

I don't find much use in saving like 100g off a crankset _unless_ I'm investing in more than just 1 component. Sum of the parts n all. And I think there are times where this pays off - getting something like a Spur where you could be in around 25lbs absolutely creates a different experience than riding a 33lb bike. Neither better or wrong, but you'll notice.


----------



## wayold (Nov 25, 2017)

My last bike weighed 36 pounds. On a ride up a long grade with a bunch of similar old farts a few years ago I was running out of gas and a smirking friend passed by saying "Life's too short for heavy bikes". I keep up a lot better now in my current 25 lb. bike. My friend was right, life's too short, ride what you want. I like to ride lighter bikes.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

weight does matter to certain extent. DH bike certainly won't be nimble on the trail as enduro or trail bike. heavy tires will suck the life out of you on regular trail ride.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Picard said:


> weight does matter to certain extent. DH bike certainly won't be nimble on the trail as enduro or trail bike. heavy tires will suck the life out of you on regular trail ride.


Agreed, but I gladly accept the weight penalty of a tire insert because of the benefits. If someone could make an insert that has no weight penalty I'd prefer it of course.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

wayold said:


> My last bike weighed 36 pounds. On a ride up a long grade with a bunch of similar old farts a few years ago I was running out of gas and a smirking friend passed by saying "Life's too short for heavy bikes". I keep up a lot better now in my current 25 lb. bike. My friend was right, life's too short, ride what you want. I like to ride lighter bikes.


I'm getting mixed messages there...


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

It's a real problem because the bike also wants more stuff. This forum has driven my bike to bulimia.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

You can see how much of a difference bike weight makes in the latest Pink bike field test where the weight lines up closely with efficiency (it's significant). It's even more significant in dynamic terrain where acceleration makes weight a compounding issue. You hold your bike by your hands and feet so even just hopping and maneuvering the bike weight matters. Even freestyle bmxers care about weight (especially tire weight) and they don't care about climbing at all.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Priorities? Misguided priorities?

I know how much I weigh, I know what kind of terrain I ride, I know my riding style. Combining these aspects, I feel I know which frame, wheels, cranks, handlebar, etc. will serve me best -- and these aren't the lightest. I hope & believe the last frame I broke will be my final frame to break.

We each have to make our own way.
=sParty


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Serious question. I feel like I am missing something at this point. I've been riding bikes a really long time, from BMX to mtn and even some road and gravel. I don't think I have ever once taken weight into consideration when buying or building a bike. I completely understand if you're a weight weenie high level racer, where weight actually counts for something. Half the posts on this forum lately seem to be people discussing if it's worth owning a bike because its a half a pound heavier than the next bike, when in reality I can't imagine it affecting your riding experience in the slightest, especially with bikes these days. Fit and bike geometry have always been the top things I looked for, but what do I know...
> 
> Is this just some kind of internet phenomenon where new riders become obsessed with incremental things that don't really matter from doing too much research? In my 30 years of riding I have never heard so much discussion and nitpicking about bike weights as have in the past year.


It's all about the drama. Then you look at the weight of that rider complaining about bike weight. If only bikes could complain about the weight of their riders! There would be a forum far larger than MTBR!! Bikes bitching about that beached whale of a rider they have! Bikes wanting carbon and Ti parts for their rider...


----------



## TazMini (Jun 21, 2019)

Generally speaking, a 35lbs bike is a different animal for someone who weighs 135lbs vs 205lbs.

I have 22lbs HT that is fun to zip around on flat flowey trails but gets ping ponged about on rough trails where a heavier bike seems to track better even if more work. Right tool for the right job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I'm guessing there's a high correlation between guys who don't care about weight, and people who get off and push bikes up fire roads.


----------



## MrIcky (Oct 2, 2007)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Is this just some kind of internet phenomenon where new riders become obsessed with incremental things that don't really matter from doing too much research? In my 30 years of riding I have never heard so much discussion and nitpicking about bike weights as have in the past year.


Weight obsession is one of the oldest things to argue about on MTB. It's not an internet phenomenon- I remember MBA magazine reviews back in the 90s talking about weight and features on drillium components.

But, with bikes getting so good- if I'm looking at 2 roughly equivalent bikes in my price range and 1 is a pound lighter- that pound may sway me.


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm sure everyone has changed from 2.35 tyres weighing 800g to 2.5s that weigh 1200g and noticed the difference.


----------



## Tommy E (Oct 30, 2019)

I really think this comes up more with people with a biking background that left years ago and then came back to the sport. When I was younger, whether it was bmx, road, or mountain, the more you spent the better stuff you got along with a lighter bike. When I returned to mountain biking 20 plus years later, I was seeing all these high dollar bikes and I was surprised by how much they weighed. I was expecting much lighter bikes at these premium prices. I was naive to how much better things actually were and how much burlier they were being built.


----------



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

Le Duke said:


> I'm guessing there's a high correlation between guys who don't care about weight, and people who get off and push bikes up fire roads.


I haven't noticed that.


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

Are more people riding bikes with more travel? I think since getting rid of my downhill bike fifteen years ago, the least travel bike I've owned is 150mm. More travel, more weight.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

I've never weighed my bikes so I have no idea how much each one weighs but I never gave it much thought. 

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

I'm of the opinion that weight matters, but _mostly_ if you are racing, where every second counts. Especially because most people who are racing are already in peak(or close to it) physical condition. And it's hard to drop a couple of pounds when you're in your ideal physique.

For most of us more casual riders, I have a hard time understanding how people will spend thousands of dollars to lose 3lbs on their bike... when it would be cheaper and more effective to lighten the rider (I'm in this camp as well fwiw).

I do think rider weight, bike type, and terrain play a big part in the discussion though.

A 150lb casual cross country rider in Kansas will notice a 37lb cross country bike way more, than myself as a ~200lb "All mountain" type rider in the PNW would notice a 37lb long travel bike.

Ive seen the times. I honestly don't care if a climb takes me 10seconds, or even a few minutes longer. I tend to just find a heart rate and leg effort gearing combo that works for the climb in on, and then just settle in for the duration.

And also, budget is a big part. If you're a bigger rider on a budget, you basically have to accept that weight is the natural consequence of those two things, or deal with the fact that you'll be damaging equipment (rims denting, tires flatting, etc).

If I had a magic wand (or simply a lot more money) my bike would be lighter, it's totally true. But when faced with my real world budget, and desire to not damage stuff or get a flat on every ride, means my bike is heavy (36-37lbs I think). But I still enjoy riding it, which is the main thing that matters to me.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

LMN said:


> It is pretty popular now a days to dismiss bike weight as irrelevant. It isn't.
> 
> A good rule of thumb is each 1lb weight gain is equal to about a single heart beat to climb at the same point. That guy that you ride with who always slightly puts the hurt on you doesn't if your bike is 5lbs lighter. It is a small change but just as significant as degree of head angle or a different tire. It just happens to be the most expensive performance upgrade. And one that any of us can do for free by losing a couple of lbs off our belly.


By your description anything within a reasonable weight is irrelevant for me. I don't care if it takes an extra minute to get up this one mile climb or 10mins longer for a 10 mile climb. Also as you said if it were that important to me I'd lose the weight off my body which would be more effective anyway.

I build my bikes speced for what I'm doing with them. The weight when complete is simply the result of what the bike is intended to be doing.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ocnLogan said:


> Ive seen the times. I honestly don't care if a climb takes me 10seconds, or even a few minutes longer. I tend to just find a heart rate and leg effort gearing combo that works for the climb in on, and then just settle in for the duration.


If you climb at the same power output and it takes you 15% longer then you've used 15% more energy. E=P*t. This isn't simply a climbing speed issue. Besides using significantly more energy it affects handling. Like I said all the weight is effectively at your hands and feet. It's kinda like how strapping 10 lbs of ankle weights to a runner makes a bigger difference than 10 lbs of the runner's body weight.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> By your description anything within a reasonable weight is irrelevant for me. I don't care if it takes an extra minute to get up this one mile climb


If you normally make that mile climb at 6mph but then add a minute, you've used 10% more energy over that mile. I don't normally care how long it takes to climb but I do care how many descents I can get in.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> If you normally make that mile climb at 6mph but then add a minute, you've used 10% more energy over that mile. I don't normally care how long it takes to climb but I do care how many descents I can get in.


How many descents I can handle is based on where I used the energy I do have available. Pedaling uphill in zone 2 or 3 heart rate is far easier than a few minute maximal downhill efforts. I can do 30 mile rides up multiple mountain peaks but can be pretty well wrecked doing only about 8 one mile downhill runs. How and where you use the energy is far more important.

I don't agree with your analogy to runners carrying weight either. If you're riding with a 5lbs hydration pack would you be more or less fatigued if those 5lbs were on the bike instead of on your back?


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

It maters if you are a pro or Cat 1 racer, where it can make difference of being on the podium or not. A lighter bike is easier to get to the top than a heavier one. A lighter bike feels more nimble and snappier. 

A lighter bike can also be slower. If you have to slow down to not break stuff, you have defeated the purpose of a lighter bike. If you break stuff all the time, you have defeated the purpose. 

It is about balance. Keith Bontrager’s old saying is still true: “Light, strong,cheap, pick two.” The midrange is often the sweet spot, 90% of the performance for 50% of the cost. Making a bike a reasonable weight doesn’t cost huge dollars, but as light as possible is expensive.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

Fajita Dave said:


> How many descents I can handle is based on where I used the energy I do have available. Pedaling uphill in zone 2 or 3 heart rate is far easier than a few minute maximal downhill efforts. I can do 30 mile rides up multiple mountain peaks but can be pretty well wrecked doing only about 8 one mile downhill runs. How and where you use the energy is far more important.
> 
> I don't agree with your analogy to runners carrying weight either. If you're riding with a 5lbs hydration pack would you be more or less fatigued if those 5lbs were on the bike instead of on your back?


The proper analogy would be putting 5 lbs on the wheels. When thinking about bike weight, too many people ignore the unsprung weight penalty of heavy wheels. That and their spare tire.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

D. Inoobinati said:


> The proper analogy would be putting 5 lbs on the wheels. When thinking about bike weight, too many people ignore the unsprung weight penalty of heavy wheels. That and their spare tire.


More of the folks need Nutrisystem... And some bikes do too, go figure! 
Then we move to the aspect of rider strength or weakness.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

jeremy3220 said:


> If you climb at the same power output and it takes you 15% longer then you've used 15% more energy. E=P*t. This isn't simply a climbing speed issue. Besides using significantly more energy it affects handling. Like I said all the weight is effectively at your hands and feet. It's kinda like how strapping 10 lbs of ankle weights to a runner makes a bigger difference than 10 lbs of the runner's body weight.


I'm aware of the math on this one, and it doesn't change my opinion.

I am a casual rider who rides for fun and fitness. If it takes me 15% longer and takes 15% more energy, it is just what it is. I'm more worried about if the bike is reliable, and fun, while fitting in my price range.

For someone racing, that makes a difference though.

Extra weight on the bike can also be a good thing in certain situations as well. It increases the sprung weight of bike (or rather increases the ratio of sprung to unsprung weight), which is a desirable suspension trait. It's also harder to knock off line. Those are mostly relevant for downhill riding though.

Things like the pink bike efficiency tests also highlight something else. An efficient pedaling platform is easily worth as much in terms of uphill efficiency as weight (the Nomad and Spindrift were competitive with lighter weight trail bikes, even with more travel, and slower rolling tires).

Anyway, I'm not allergic to the idea of a lightweight bike though. It's just my magic wand is broken, and my money tree is always a bit more bare than I'd like. But for how I ride, the weight of the bike makes little difference.

Perhaps if I was the slowest rider in my group I'd care more. But my riding group has guys with even more mushy dad bods than myself, so I'm always waiting at the top anyway.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Fajita Dave said:


> If you're riding with a 5lbs hydration pack would you be more or less fatigued if those 5lbs were on the bike instead of on your back?


Depends on where it is on the bike, to be honest. That's one thing I learned commuting and bike packing


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

D. Inoobinati said:


> The proper analogy would be putting 5 lbs on the wheels. When thinking about bike weight, too many people ignore the unsprung weight penalty of heavy wheels. That and their spare tire.


Still not accurate because the wheels are spinning conservation of momentum is at play. A runners legs stop to change direction between strides. Even attaching weights to your ankles and riding a bike won't have the same effect as running with the same weights because your legs follow the circular path of the cranks.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Fajita Dave said:


> Still not accurate because the wheels are spinning conservation of momentum is at play. A runners legs stop to change direction between strides. Even attaching weights to your ankles and riding a bike won't have the same effect as running with the same weights because your legs follow the circular path of the cranks.


It's definitely not the same as strapping 5lb leg weights on a runner.

A runner is constantly accelerating and decelerating their legs.

A bike is in a relatively steady state of motion most of the time. On something like a fire road, the bike barely moves around. And even on a technical up, or downhill, the bike is more "jostled" than it is accelerated in nearly perpendicular directions 60-100 times a minute.

And, even runners wear different shoes in different conditions. Sprinters do wear the lightest possible shoes. But track spikes look nothing like a trail runners shoe, or a marathoners shoe.

Just like a 33lb XC bike would be quite heavy, and kind of inexcusable. But would be a pretty respectable weight for a long travel29'er.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

All else equal, lighter is always better. Humans don't put out much horsepower. So power to weight ratio is a very scarce resource. As other have pointed it out, it can affect both your speed and the duration of your riding. So given two bikes with similar capabilities and cost, why wouldn't I take the lighter one?

But I suspect the OP is really asking a different question, which is: If all else is NOT equal, why do people still prioritize weight? That becomes a subjective question because everyone has different priorities and benefit cost ratios. So the answer is I don't know.


----------



## toadmeister (Sep 24, 2017)

I’m a Clydesdale and dropping 5-10kg of body weight is going to have a larger impact than saving 200 grams on my drivetrain...

That said reducing rotational mass of 500g per wheel is very noticeable but a couple kg of frame weight is insignificant for me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> At the same power? You don't _have_ to stay with the guy in front of you


But then climb takes longer!! Who wants that?


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

Fajita Dave said:


> Still not accurate because the wheels are spinning conservation of momentum is at play. A runners legs stop to change direction between strides. Even attaching weights to your ankles and riding a bike won't have the same effect as running with the same weights because your legs follow the circular path of the cranks.


I suggest a quick primer on "unsprung weight":

*We Can Prove Why Extra Mass on Bike Wheels Is Your Worst Enemy *_(Wired Magazine)_

*MOTO PHYSICS: The Hidden Evils Of Unsprung Weight* _(Moto Action)_



ocnLogan said:


> A bike is in a relatively steady state of motion most of the time. On something like a fire road, the bike barely moves around. And even on a technical up, or downhill, the bike is more "jostled" than it is accelerated in nearly perpendicular directions 60-100 times a minute.


Every bump, no matter how small represents a decceleration, loss of momentum, and subsequent acceleration. Every bump exacts a penalty on high unsprung weight.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

ocnLogan said:


> It's definitely not the same as strapping 5lb leg weights on a runner.
> 
> A runner is constantly accelerating and decelerating their legs.
> 
> ...


The bike is accelerating and decelerating with every pedal stroke. And every tiny bump. Every rock, root or other imperfection.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Lowering unsprung weight is all fine and good, but that even has a point of diminishing returns  

I tend to, occasionally, do stupid things and so my wheels are heavier built.. do I know this going into it? Yep, but it's an 'all mountain' bike, and I'm just looking to have fun anyway. My XC bike's lighter, my road bike's lighter, but still haven't cared as much as I did when I was riding BMX. There's always a balance that's sought.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> The bike is accelerating and decelerating with every pedal stroke. And every tiny bump. Every rock, root or other imperfection.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, of course it is, I don't dispute that. But it's not being moved 3-6ft away 180 degrees from its direction of travel 90 times a minute like a foot is when you are running. A bike hitting your average size root or rock is moving what... 4-8in?

Its relatively steady state in comparison.

And 5-10lbs in bike weight is significant... but we are taking 50% difference in the bike (even lightweight cross country bikes are about 20lbs). Increasing a runners shoes weight by 5lbs per leg would be increasing the weight by something like 500%.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Nothing to argue about.
If a lightweight bike is your priority, then buy lightweight stuff.
If it's not, then don't.
Your bike. Your money. Your priority.
Same for me.
My priorities may be different than yours.
Heck, my own priorities of today are different than my priorities of yesterday.
I don't race anymore.
I define fun differently now than I did then, too.
That doesn't mean that low weight wasn't a worthy priority for me back when it was.
Or that riding a lightweight bike wasn't fun.
It just isn't important to me anymore.
Carry on.
=sParty


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

I see what everyone is saying. I definitely don't think weight is something that should be completely overlooked. I'm just confused by all of the people lately who seem to have the "this bike ticks all of the boxes for me, but I wish it were 27lb instead of 28.5lbs" mentality. I'd rather have a bike that does everything I want it to do and lug around an extra few pounds personally.

Of course there are situations where weight matters. Like I mentioned originally, racing. If you buy something and want to make it lighter because you have the funds and want it lighter, by all means. It just seems like too many people put weight as the first metric when comparing new bikes, when in my opinion it should be one of the last.


----------



## shwndh (Nov 20, 2004)

Weight does matter depending on your goals. Racing is a given but a fun bike should fulfill your idea of fun. I personally like my FS bikes to be at 30lbs or less for my riding preferences. I can handle that kind of weight up and down the mountain and it can be strong enough support my body weight. 33lbs is a bit too heavy for me but may not be an issue for others. Add tools, extra tube, water, etc, and that bike is getting heavy to lug up the hills man! Weight does matter.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> How many descents I can handle is based on where I used the energy I do have available. Pedaling uphill in zone 2 or 3 heart rate is far easier than a few minute maximal downhill efforts. I can do 30 mile rides up multiple mountain peaks but can be pretty well wrecked doing only about 8 one mile downhill runs. How and where you use the energy is far more important.
> 
> I don't agree with your analogy to runners carrying weight either. If you're riding with a 5lbs hydration pack would you be more or less fatigued if those 5lbs were on the bike instead of on your back?


There's no escaping the fact that there's a loss of energy.

I don't know the answer to the pack analogy. 5 lbs in a backpack isn't the same as 5 lbs distributed throughout your body either.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

I've ridden lots of miles on light bikes and heavy bikes, and all other things equal, I like light bikes better.

There isn't much more too it than that.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Improving the power-to-weight ratio is a big deal when the motor is so weak. Efficiency & range are of concern too.

Pedaling is one thing. Handling the bike is another (bike flick-ability, bike acrobatics, and transport).

People have money and are willing to risk trusting brands that promise lower weight without giving up strength. They probably didn't need to understand the difference between material toughness, ductility, brittleness, etc. to earn their money or learn to ride. The marketing talks about strength, stiffness, and weight, while the tech specs list a few fitment options. That's what they got to work off of when they decide to buy one option over another.

People come here to yap about one figure like CSL, HTA, stem length, etc. The discussions rarely reach any conclusion that lasts, repeatedly popping up again and again. A new bandwagon trend comes and goes, with people deciding to hop aboard one or remain sitting on the fence. Peoples' understanding continually gets revised. Weight is a figure that isn't that disputed. It just seems to be shamed...

Lower weight correlates with higher enjoyability. It's a shortcut to a feeling you might get if you were fitter, but it improves the enjoyability when you're fit too. The trade-off might be compromised durability, but some gamble on the fact that these parts see a different load intensity under different riders, on different terrain. They take a risk to personally see if the parts survive under them, perhaps reasoning that if it lasts under much more intense riders, that it should last under their relatively less advanced demands. People who can't afford to lose this money end up talking a bit more to ensure that it would be a safe choice for them...


----------



## EchoTony (Nov 18, 2020)

Having had a reasonably light hard-tail XC bike for a number of years, I was excited recently to get the green-light to buy a full squish bike. I wanted a highly capable downhill bike that could climb too. Something that was leaning Enduro, not Downhill. My old bike was under 23 lbs. It was front suspension only and was pretty quick. My new bike is a 160 mm travel slacked-out joy that weighs 31.5 lbs. I can feel it on every climb. It makes me yearn for an e-bike.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

*Also, this 'argument' is always blown out of proportion as if you have to pick between being a weight weenie or being in the weight doesn't matter camp. Weight matters (basic physics) and you don't have to be a weight weenie. I would caution newer riders from rationalizing away added weight that's not a benefit... IOW, maybe don't add Cushcore Pro and double down tires to your 36 lb enduro bike if all you ride are XC trails. *


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

ghettocruiser said:


> I've ridden lots of miles on light bikes and heavy bikes, and all other things equal, I like light bikes better.
> 
> There isn't much more too it than that for me.


FIFY
=sParty


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

1) It makes a difference, not huge, but it is quite noticeable. Those watt measurements that show you ONLY lose X seconds assume perfectly smooth climes. That's not my world. Besides, 5 seconds behind after 90 seconds means the group dropped me by a significant amount and in fact I can't even see them, and that's no fun.
2) it's fun, the researching, shopping, wrenching part of it.
3) I NEVER sacrifice performance, just money. MTBing is my last hobby and so much cheaper than the others I did, it doesn't even feel like indulging. It's very inexpensive compared to racing motorcycles and cars.
4) No joke, it's much nicer hiking and lifting a light bike when that time comes.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I always look at weight. I'll try and go as light as I can. Bike parts are just getting bigger and heavier for the sake of being "burlier" than the last version. If that extra weight doesn't really serve a purpose...why have it?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

D. Inoobinati said:


> I suggest a quick primer on "unsprung weight":
> 
> *We Can Prove Why Extra Mass on Bike Wheels Is Your Worst Enemy *_(Wired Magazine)_
> 
> ...





D. Inoobinati said:


> I suggest a quick primer on "unsprung weight":
> 
> *We Can Prove Why Extra Mass on Bike Wheels Is Your Worst Enemy *_(Wired Magazine)_
> 
> ...


As the article specifically said heavy wheels only take more energy to get moving. Once up to speed there's no extra effort besides the fact you're still carrying the weight up hill. Surges from pedal strokes don't matter as energy you put into the system isn't lost unless you hit the brakes.

Definitely has a negative impact on suspension performance but we aren't talking that much weight. A 29er freeride rim is 525g vs an XC race rim at 325g. A seasoned pro might notice a tiny difference between them but I still doubt most would. Comparing it to the complete wheel and tire the rim weight is a small percentage especially on the rear. Tires are going to be chosen based on your needs. You won't be riding an XC race tire on gnarly downhills and expect them to survive. Average riders won't want to deal with the risk of puncturing on a light XC tire.

I'm never going to say don't try to make your bike lighter. If you have the money go for it but I'm agreeing with OP that obsessing over a pound is rediculous.

I just added about 2lbs to my bike (haven't weighed) with new rims, some heavy tires and a coil shock bringing it from 33lbs to 35lbs. Thanks to the sweet Spank Spike Race 33 rims, Vittoria tires with 120tpi enduro casings and a coil shock my bike rides better than ever and it hasn't slowed me down on climbs either. The Vittoria Mazza front, Martello rear roll quite a bit faster than the DHF's that they replaced despite each tire weighing a few hundred grams more. The lower RR on these heavy tires is very noticable on a paved section of road to the trail head and still noticable on the trails. My Strava times and HR data also back up the feel.


----------



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

Maybe it's not such a big deal


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

RS VR6 said:


> I always look at weight. I'll try and go as light as I can. Bike parts are just getting bigger and heavier for the sake of being "burlier" than the last version. If that extra weight doesn't really serve a purpose...why have it?


That's one thing I don't understand. The aspirational "burly" = better purchases.

I get purchasing a fork with a better damper. I get buying a coil shock or fork with a coil that matches your weight + riding style. I get buying tires that match your riding style. But, the person who is riding XC trails, who thinks going from a 36 to a 38 is going to transform their riding? Or going from 160 to 170mm to roll 2ft drops? That their 300g aluminum bars are an absolute requirement for their riding? Some people literally equate weight with durability, which just blows my mind.

My bikes have Syntace stems and bars. Not even close to being "super light", but pretty decent on that front. But, also rated to survive various Euro "DH" standards, and come with a 10 year warranty. Find them on sale, and that's a cockpit that you'd be hard pressed to match in terms of quality engineering, durability, and weight. Yet, I've been asked several times over the years, "What stem is that?". Which is kind of crazy to me. I'll take Syntace over ENVE every day, and twice on Sunday.

Similarly, all the other parts on my bikes are purchased with durability, strength and weight in mind. DT 240 hubs on every bike in the fleet. We Are One rims with a lifetime warranty. BikeYoke dropper. Magura brakes. I never pay more than 75% of retail, new with warranty.

I'm not sending huge gaps every day. But I'm putting a lot of miles on my bikes, and I demand that they work well under hard, fast riding, whether on my neighborhood trails or 20 miles from the nearest dirt road. The least reliable portions of my bikes are the suspension bits, and I only have so many options there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbfoo (Aug 26, 2019)

If you don't understand why getting the lightest bike possible without compromising performance is important, well, you are either ignorant or a troll.
Now, enthusiasts in all fields wave their e-peen and "obsess" about diminishing benefits. From bike "weight weenies", to PC overclockers to "fill_the_blank". This doesn't make the general category of what they are obsessing over unimportant. Min-maxing is a thing, and depending on your level of performance, it might be a logical step - or totally not. 

Now, the guy who spent good coin to get a "fill the blank" and justified in to himself in a particular way, will also brag about it in a particular way that might not connect with you, or you might find tertiary etc which is understandable, but downplaying how important it is to have - in this example - a light(er) bike, or any performance vehicle other than maybe a puller, well, doesn't add points to your intelligence.

Also, for those posting roadies that test "heavier" stuff vs lighter stuff, the conversation is pretty much in the field of aero benefits, and how - for example - lighter wheels are nice and great, but bit heavier aero-wheels actually are making up the difference and finishing ontop, but we are talking speeds that average 35-40kmh and typically out of the average MTB envelope, so context is everything.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> As the article specifically said heavy wheels only take more energy to get moving.


Or any acceleration. On tight undulating terrain pedaling acceleration occurs very often.


----------



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

mtbfoo said:


> Also, for those posting roadies that test "heavier" stuff vs lighter stuff, the conversation is pretty much in the field of aero benefits, and how - for example - lighter wheels are nice and great, but bit heavier aero-wheels actually are making up the difference and finishing ontop, but we are talking speeds that average 35-40kmh and typically out of the average MTB envelope, so context is everything.


If you're referring to the vid I posted that's not what it's about.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

jeremy3220 said:


> *Also, this 'argument' is always blown out of proportion as if you have to pick between being a weight weenie or being in the weight doesn't matter camp. Weight matters (basic physics) and you don't have to be a weight weenie. I would caution newer riders from rationalizing away added weight that's not a benefit... IOW, maybe don't add Cushcore Pro and double down tires to your 36 lb enduro bike if all you ride are XC trails. *


Perhaps that's just how people behave according to the Overton Window.

The bulk of people are somewhere in the middle. A few outliers on the extremes: people getting no-name Chinese carbon parts for weight savings & those spending major money on the best money can buy on one side, versus people getting gravity-proven parts who are done dealing with broken parts & those looking for parts they can grow/progress in to, with a budget that only allows for one bike that can do-it-all.

When people say they _lean_ one way or the other, people can't help but picture the Fred (racer poser) or Enduro-bro.

You're guilty of it yourself, describing an Enduro-bro stereotype. I bet someone just pictured you as a Fred in response. You come up with this extreme example to pull the Overton Window to better reflect your bias, expecting others to use an extreme example themselves in response. People do it all the time for other topics like ebikes, flats vs clips, carbon vs metal, HT vs FS, etc.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

I think "most" people would agree that ideally, bikes would weigh as little as required to perform their function reliably. With an ideal theoretical weight of "none".

I know that when I say things like "weight mostly matters if you're racing" or "I don't really care about weight" what I'm really saying, is that for my situations, the cost benefit analysis of a lighter weight bike doesn't make sense for my financial/biking situation. So, its not to say that I don't care at all about weight... its just that its usually much lower on the priority list for myself. I'd wager a fair number of people feel about the same.

A more relevant question for me and my friends, is "if Bike A is 2lbs lighter, but $1500 more expensive than bike B, which is otherwise identical, which would you choose". Or, I'd easily love to have a super lightweight wheelset... but, for another 100g, I can get some that should never have problems/get damaged... I'm likely going to go with the heavier ones that I won't have to replace if I take a crappy line through a rock garden, as I don't have the kind of disposable income to casually replace big ticket items like those all the time.

That said, I have... kind of been trying to lighten my 36-37lb bike a bit. My stock wheelset is over 2400g, and yet somehow super weak. I'm lucky enough to get some financial assistance from work for fitness related gear each year. And in 2020 I spent it (plus more), on a new WAO Union rear wheel (haven't received it yet). Next year, I'll be doing the same, but for the front. The last cassette I put on was less than the stock cassette as well. Same with the brakes (my 153mm travel bike came with 2 piston brakes, that were somehow heavier, and weaker than the 4 pistons I replaced them with).And of course its now tubeless.

However, I've also added heavier casing/wider tires to it, and recently added tannus tubeless inserts as well (because of the afore-mentioned stiff as cheese rims).

I agree with the OP's assertion though that it seems that a small percentage of users hyper focus on weight, so much to the point that they won't even consider if bike (or part) A is better for fit their needs/budget, even though it weighs 100g more. And that mentality I personally have a hard time identifying with. Not that its wrong, but its harder for me to understand their logic, unless they're racing.


----------



## kk2 (Sep 29, 2014)

Because given everything else equal a 22lb bike is more fun to ride than 30lb bike. That simple. 8 lbs of weight over 100 miles makes for a big difference.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

kk2 said:


> Because given everything else equal a 22lb bike is more fun to ride than 30lb bike. That simple. 8 lbs of weight over 100 miles makes for a big difference.


Speak for yourself. My 30 lb bike is light years more fun to ride than my 22 lb bike.
Of course everything is not equal component-wise. The lighter bike doesn't even have suspension.
When you say "everything is equal" are you including dollar investment?
=sParty


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

I think the opposite. In the last few years bikes are on a steady weight gain, and riders don't seem to care. My current enduro bike weights 3 pounds more than the one it replaced, running the same tires. Longer droppers, fatter forks, coil shocks, tire inserts, internal storage, bigger cassettes, 4 piston brakes, wider rims, the list goes on and on.

You have to remember that many people here actually do race locally, it does matter to them and they post many gear optimization topics. Their online representation is much larger than their real world representation. Life happens mostly outside the internet.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Every single part on my bikes that can be Ti is Ti, including spokes, but I can't tell you what any of them weighs. i don't even know what I weigh.


----------



## dundundata (May 15, 2009)

I'm not a super weight weenie, never weighed parts or bike. But I did buy a carbon frame and try to buy close to top end parts for performance and reliability, and the lower weight of those parts is an added benefit.


----------



## throet (Oct 8, 2016)

When I bought my Intense Primer Factory Build in late 2016, it weighed 25.9 lbs leaving the shop with pedals installed and tubeless setup. Not bad for an all-purpose 130/130 FS 29er. Initially I was obsessed with keeping the weight under 26lbs and was spending a ton on magnesium pedals, XX1 cassettes, carbon seat rails, etc. As I've become more cost conscious approaching retirement, I'm focused more on reliability and overall performance. My DT Swiss XMC 1200 wheelset with 240s hubs have been bullet proof, but I run heavier tires now. Also running X01 cassette instead of XX1 and replaced my race saddle with a heavier, more comfortable model due to a ruptured hamstring tendon. I'm back close to 100% since returning from my injury and haven't noticed any weight penalty at all. For kicks I weighed my bike and it came in at 27.5, a full 1.5lb heavier than its original form. No question though that I notice a huge weight penalty when I jump on my 33lb aluminum FS backup bike - not enough though to keep me from having fun.


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

I do try to lose weight when I can if it makes since, like if a part is toast I’ll go for a better or lighter version of it, and I prefer light wheels. However, I just added 450 grams with a new set of tires. I took off the xc tires and put on sticky aggressive tires for the winter. The traction out weighs the weight.


----------



## Tommy E (Oct 30, 2019)

I'm all for buying the lightest stuff that your specific application will allow without sacrificing durability. I'm much better off riding a heavier bike than carrying a light one.


----------



## 2wls4ever (May 11, 2006)

Because a bicycle is a human powered machine. And when "mountain biking" 80% of the ride is spent climbing.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Depending on how you ride and what you ride, more weight might actually make the bike ride BETTER. A really light bike going fast on technical terrain is going to ping-pong off of rocks and roots and add to rider fatigue, where a heavier bike will do less of that and actually reduce rider fatigue. Aside from the extra fitness required to ride a heavier bike, that heavier bike will be a bit more stable, which will help reduce crashes (along with other aspects of the frame's geometry). Heavier is not ALWAYS worse.

Yeah, if you value climbing speed, a lighter bike is going to be more important. If you ride technical stuff with a lot of finesse, you can reduce the ping-pong effect.

Yeah, my hardtail is a bit heavy at over 31lbs (and it's not cheap). But that bike rides so well on the fun parts that I'll gladly climb slower for it.


----------



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

On a good road bike there is zero penalty with a lightweight bike and several advantages. I don't think the same can be said about mountain bikes, with them there will almost always be tradeoffs. Pick your poison!


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

To me reducing weight increases the fun factor. A lighter bike is more enjoyable going uphill, more manoeuvrable, faster to turn and generally more playfull. All other aspects being equal. 

I have 2 slayers built slightly differently. One is a park build with heavy wheels and standard bits. The other is my mountain Slayer built as light as practical to haul up 800m climbs to then ride down massive mountain runs. I hands down enjoy the lighter mountain slayer with its 1.5kg less weight over the heavy park slayer. .... . . . 

Now there is one exception to this rule. 
When I am at a super rocky/bumpy bike park where I shuttle to the top and blaze down rock infested black runs that require a dh wall tyre. It that instance I appreciate the hell out of my heavy build. 

That said. I am a believer of weight weenieing without the reduction of performance. As soon as you compromise performance for weight that is going to reduce the fun factor. I refuse to reduce the grin on my face to save grams.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

My 36# bike (170mm/160mm travel) is way more fun to ride than my 22# bike (100mm hardtail) because I don’t mind getting to the top a little slower if I can send it on the descent. If I were going to participate in a cross country race then I would pick a lighter bike. I’m highly unlikely to enter that type of race though.


----------



## scottg (Mar 30, 2004)

Everything on your bike is a compromise, and everyone has to make a choice somewhere along the line. For example I want a tire with really good traction, but I draw the line at a 2.4 because I can get more descents if it's easier to ride uphill. Weight isn't all about racing. My trail bike is 130/130 and about 27 pounds and that's a nice balance of climbing and descending capabilities for me, without breaking the bank. The easy and cheap method to drop weight would be to go for some lighter tires, but that's not worth the tradeoff IMO. I also have as much fun riding my outdated Raleigh steel singlespeed that comes in around the same weight. But if two items are similar cost and similar performance and one weighs less - I'm going for the lighter one.


----------



## Mark16q (Apr 16, 2006)

Harold said:


> Depending on how you ride and what you ride, more weight might actually make the bike ride BETTER. A really light bike going fast on technical terrain is going to ping-pong off of rocks and roots and add to rider fatigue, where a heavier bike will do less of that and actually reduce rider fatigue. Aside from the extra fitness required to ride a heavier bike, that heavier bike will be a bit more stable, which will help reduce crashes (along with other aspects of the frame's geometry). Heavier is not ALWAYS worse.
> 
> Yeah, if you value climbing speed, a lighter bike is going to be more important. If you ride technical stuff with a lot of finesse, you can reduce the ping-pong effect.
> 
> Yeah, my hardtail is a bit heavy at over 31lbs (and it's not cheap). But that bike rides so well on the fun parts that I'll gladly climb slower for it.


that sounds like suspension tuning on the light bike needs to be dialed in better, not a result of a bike being light but there may be science that says otherwise.


----------



## Tom15034 (Aug 18, 2020)

You may be interested in this article on Bikeperfect -- *Bespoken Word: Does cycling have an obesity problem?*









Bespoken Word: Does cycling have an obesity problem?


Guy Kesteven talks weight, but not in the sense you might think




www.bikeperfect.com


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Mark16q said:


> that sounds like suspension tuning on the light bike needs to be dialed in better, not a result of a bike being light but there may be science that says otherwise.


Wanna show me the bike with sideways suspension?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Tom15034 said:


> You may be interested in this article on Bikeperfect -- *Bespoken Word: Does cycling have an obesity problem?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who is the author and why do I want to read what he writes?


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Mark16q said:


> that sounds like suspension tuning on the light bike needs to be dialed in better, not a result of a bike being light but there may be science that says otherwise.


There is actually quite a bit of science/research on this subject.

The short version is that the closer the weight that the unsprung weight (things that aren't suspended by the suspension, like wheels, tires, rotors) is to the sprung weight (everything else, like the frame, handlebars, etc), the harder it is to make the suspension work correctly.

So the worst case scenario for suspension would be a super heavy wheelset with a super light frame/bike. While a heavy frame/bike with super light wheels would be the "best"/easiest to tune correctly/well.

The topic is actually one of the reasons that mountain bike suspension is a difficult space. As cars and motorcycles actually have very different ratios of sprung/unsprung weight. So you can't simply take motocross suspension, and slap it on a downhill bike and expect it to work as you'd hope.

Its really interesting. Or, at least I find it interesting to read about ?.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

ocnLogan said:


> There is actually quite a bit of science/research on this subject.
> 
> The short version is that the closer the weight that the unsprung weight (things that aren't suspended by the suspension, like wheels, tires, rotors) is to the sprung weight (everything else, like the frame, handlebars, etc), the harder it is to make the suspension work correctly.
> 
> ...


Then, if anything, that simply confirms what he says.

A good custom tune would help that low unsprung weight stick to the ground like glue.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Le Duke said:


> Then, if anything, that simply confirms what he says.
> 
> A good custom tune would help that low unsprung weight stick to the ground like glue.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Still doesn't address what I was ACTUALLY referring to. lateral deflection. again. show me the sideways suspension that I can tune.


----------



## kk2 (Sep 29, 2014)

Sparticus said:


> Speak for yourself. My 30 lb bike is light years more fun to ride than my 22 lb bike.
> Of course everything is not equal component-wise. The lighter bike doesn't even have suspension.
> When you say "everything is equal" are you including dollar investment?
> =sParty


I am talking geometry, wheel size, wheel width, suspension etc. And yes I am speaking for myself and my experience. Thats what forums are for. People expressing opinions and shearing experiences.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

At some point, you have to care about the weight of your bike. There may not be an appreciable difference between 19 and 21 pounds but even the most fashionably weight ambivalent riders will start to grumble a little when they start getting north of 30 pounds.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

I mostly grumble about my fitness when climbs feel harder than they should. I suspect I’d grumble about the same on most any bike, unless it was an ebike.

Also, I feel like 30lbs is really quite light for a modern trail bike/all mountain bike. Sure it’s possible, but it seems you are almost required to have carbon wheels/frames to make it down to that point.

Seems like most modern carbon bikes (other than XC bikes) with mid-level build kits come out in the 31-33lb range these days.

My low end build, alloy frame bike is nearly 37lbs. Dropping my bike even 4lbs would cost $2000-4000 pretty easily (carbon rims, xt or xx1 drivetrains, carbon frame). And while I would like my bike to be 4lbs less, I like keeping my $2-4k much more (as that is 100-200% of how much I paid for the bike).


----------



## Redlands R&C (Dec 14, 2013)

I weigh my bikes sometimes. Marginally care about weight, until I'm actually riding the damn things, then I just have a big grin on my face.
Also, my scales, depending on the time of day and temperature and the spirits in the garage, will often give a ~2lb different reading, so I don't put too much accuracy into what I weigh anyway. I really only care about weight when I'm shipping parts that were sold.


----------



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

Ailuropoda said:


> At some point, you have to care about the weight of your bike. There may not be an appreciable difference between 19 and 21 pounds but even the most fashionably weight ambivalent riders will start to grumble a little when they start getting north of 30 pounds.


I don't think so. Most sub-4k trail bikes are north of 30 pounds and most of their riders seem to be having fun ime.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't think so. Most sub-4k trail bikes are north of 30 pounds and most of their riders seem to be having fun ime.


My AM bike is fairly expensive and weighs over 30lbs. It's more fun and forgiving on my local trails than the former trail bike I sold.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mark16q (Apr 16, 2006)

ocnLogan said:


> There is actually quite a bit of science/research on this subject.
> 
> The short version is that the closer the weight that the unsprung weight (things that aren't suspended by the suspension, like wheels, tires, rotors) is to the sprung weight (everything else, like the frame, handlebars, etc), the harder it is to make the suspension work correctly.
> 
> ...


Good info and makes sense. Since the rider is part of the sprung weight I do feel that all else being equal (stiffness of frames, links etc) the lighter bike with proper damping will have an advantage. If it's a flexy noodle vs a stiff tank that's a different discussion. wish I had more rime and resources to experiment with this stuff but no doubt the good suspension tuners can quantify what we feel.


----------



## Mark16q (Apr 16, 2006)

Harold said:


> Still doesn't address what I was ACTUALLY referring to. lateral deflection. again. show me the sideways suspension that I can tune.


If I understand what you're saying, a flexy bike won't have as good a suspension feel as stiff. Agreed. But if a good quality light frame is equipped with lighter parts vs heavier and a proper suspension tune I see no drawbacks and less weight to shlep up a hill.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

kk2 said:


> I am talking geometry, wheel size, wheel width, suspension etc. And yes I am speaking for myself and my experience. Thats what forums are for. People expressing opinions and shearing experiences.


Sorry my previous comment came off flip. Agree this is what forums are for and I respect what you're saying.
Cheers,
=sParty


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Harold said:


> Depending on how you ride and what you ride, more weight might actually make the bike ride BETTER. A really light bike going fast on technical terrain is going to ping-pong off of rocks and roots and add to rider fatigue


Huh? Why would a bike be ping-ponging?, just because it's "light"? That makes no sense. So do F1 cars "ping pong" across the racetrack?


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

The concept is called power to weight ratio.

But beyond that, in order for me to understand the ramifications of any principle I simply exaggerate the question and imagine the result. I imagine myself riding a 1000 pound bike. Then I imagine myself riding a weightless bike. It is easy to imagine the results. I ride the lightest weight bike for the type of riding I am doing that I can afford. Loosing pounds on a bike is expensive. 

Some guys argue that it doesn't matter when the trail goes downhill. They could not be more wrong. I have a 8 inch travel bike that weighs 45 lbs. It will gobble up rock gardens and huge drops. It is stable and loves straight lines. But I am literally along for the ride on that bike. I have a 6 inch bike that weighs 30 lbs. I much prefer the 30 lb bike. It is nimble, quick and I direct where it goes.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I can honestly say that I have not purchased any bike parts because they were lighter.

I do purchase bike certain parts because they are more durable or because they are less expensive.

My Shred is all aluminum other than the main triangle which is a heavy carbon layup, my tires are heavy, I’m running a coil shock and a coil fork, my seat is heavy (steel Brooks Cambium), the damn bike is heavy but it rides great up and down hill.

I did buy a Valt coil spring, in a sense that was a weight saver ... for a coil spring 🙄

What gets me about discussions of bike weight is that comparing the same parts/groupos across bikes, only the bike frame changes the weight of the bike.

So yeah, a bike with an eight pound frame will weight two pounds more than that same bike with a six pound frame.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

my bike weighs 29lbs because I install enduro wheels. it was original lighter


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Jayem said:


> Huh? Why would a bike be ping-ponging?, just because it's "light"? That makes no sense. So do F1 cars "ping pong" across the racetrack?


F1 cars are not light. They create huge amounts of downforce, up to 5Gs


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

A friend lent me his 22 pound all-carbon 29er hardtail for about 6 months while he was overseas. Man, that thing was fun on mellow terrain and long rides. Thing was, it was terrible on the type of terrain I normally ride. Brakes were totally inadequate, very little traction, and on anything remotely technical it beat the crap out of me, and I do love hardtails.

Several years later I bought a Giant XTC 29er hardtail, which weighed 29 pounds. I put a shorter stem on it, a dropper, and 780mm bars and it was actually way more fun to ride than my friend’s bike, and literally didn’t feel any slower on the climbs, yet a lot more composed on the descents. I earned a couple Strava xc KOMs aboard that bike, and they still stand.

More recently, I traded that bike for a Kona Honzo, which is around 32.3 pounds. My best time on a local XC loop is +1:00 from my PR. It is staggeringly faster on the downhills, and I can ride legit DH terrain on it.

So in my case, as my bikes have gone up in weight, they’ve only gotten more fun.

I’ve got a 36 pound (37?) enduro bike sprung with coil suspension at both ends. I’ve toyed with the idea of putting a new 38 or Lyrik on the front because it would cut a pound and a half — but at the end of the day it wouldn’t make much, if any difference on the terrain I ride on that bike — which involves fire road climbs followed by aseninely steep tech. I don’t time those rides, and they are not on Strava — so what does it matter how fast I go? For that matter, going fast all the time and/or trying to win Strava segments and/or races can get old after a while. In the end, it doesn’t matter to anyone other than yourself.

I pretty much gave up on trying to win climbing segments this year, and most descending segments as well (as they are pretty much decided on who can pedal the hardest on the flatter sections anyway). There’s always someone who has the time to ride more and train harder and on a bike $6000 more expensive.

This year was the best season I’ve ever had. And part of that was because I stopped caring about how fast I rode and instead focused on finding unique, challenging terrain that truly challenged my skills.

If I had a money tree, of course I’d have lighter bikes, but at this point the cost wouldn’t justify the marginal increase in enjoyment.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Bacon Fat said:


> F1 cars are not light. They create huge amounts of downforce, up to 5Gs


740kg, 80kg of which must come from driver and seat. For a car that is designed to go 360kmh, that's pretty light.

NASCAR is around 3,300lbs.

Both give penalties for cars that are too light. Every team out there tries to make their car as close to the limit as possible.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

Bacon Fat said:


> F1 cars are not light. They create huge amounts of downforce, up to 5Gs


The down force the cars generate does not affect the weight of the car. The inertia remains tied to the weight and the downforce is tied to the friction of the tires. A 1500 pound car retains that mass regardless of the aerodynamics. With the added friction to the tires and the low inertia F1 cars will generate 5Gs.

Closer to an MTB would be a rally car analogy. They are obsessive about light weight and great suspension and together this makes a nimble car that can handle incredible jumps and varied surfaces. The light weight allows them a swift recovery if they do deflect off of some type of object like a rut or rock or a bad set up into a jump. Less weight allows quicker transitional movements. Stopping starting and turning all suffer as the weight goes up for all vehicles including bikes.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Bacon Fat said:


> F1 cars are not light. They create huge amounts of downforce, up to 5Gs


They don't deal with rock gardens either.

Weren't some downhill teams experimenting with adding weight to the frame? While I'm not about making things as light as possible I can't see adding weight would help improve times even for a gravity race on a downhill course.

The suspension needs to push against something. If the frame is lighter it's pushing more against the rider. If the frame is heavy it will smooth out the feel to the rider even with the the suspension tuned correctly for both setups. Being realistic and saying there might be a 6lbs difference of sprung weight between XC and Enduro that small percentage of the complete system with rider is pretty much irrelevant. The lighter the rider the more important it will be though.

I also understand just enjoying the feel of a light bike. I don't personally care about that feel and I'm not going to compromise component choice for it. I still think people obsess far to much about taking a little bit of weight of their bike and massively over exaggerate what effect that has.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> 740kg, 80kg of which must come from driver and seat. For a car that is designed to go 360kmh, that's pretty light.
> 
> NASCAR is around 3,300lbs.
> 
> ...


And how much does it weigh when it's going 360kph?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

I'm gunna go back to the runner analogy from earlier and just say you can't compare a mountain bike to a car of any sort. You can't even compare a mountain bike to a dirtbike because riding a dirtbike has a huge variance in extreme acceleration and speed. Weight plays a completely different role with that kind of acceleration which is simply impossible under human power.

More weight is clearly not a "good" thing but within a reasonable amount it's not worth getting worked up over or spending a ton of money to fix... Unless you're racing at a high level.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Bacon Fat said:


> And how much does it weigh when it's going 360kph?


It still weighs 740kg. The light weight plus downforce is what allows them to corner so fast. If they weighed 4,000lbs and had the same downforce they'd be a whole lot slower.

We don't have downforce on mountain bikes.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

.


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

Fajita Dave said:


> The suspension needs to push against something. If the frame is lighter it's pushing more against the rider. If the frame is heavy it will smooth out the feel to the rider even with the the suspension tuned correctly for both setups. Being realistic and saying there might be a 6lbs difference of sprung weight between XC and Enduro that small percentage of the complete system with rider is pretty much irrelevant. The lighter the rider the more important it will be though.


Gravity is pulling the rider and the sprung parts of the bike together into the unsprung parts of the bike. The wheels are not traveling up to the frame the frame is traveling down to the wheels in a bump. The rider and the sprung frame parts are essentially one unit. If the rider weights 180LBS and that part of the frame is 2 pounds heavier for frame x than frame y I'm not sure if it would be noticeable or not if all other things are the same. The ability for the rider to move the bike underneath them might be noticed with a 2 pound savings but that would probably depend some on the overall strength of the rider. The smaller the rider and less strength they have the more noticeable weight savings will be.


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

Bacon Fat said:


> And how much does it weigh when it's going 360kph?


Downforce does not effect the weight or inertia of the car. It give for friction to the contact patch if the tires and allows higher levels of cornering, stopping and acceleration (once the car is generating downforce).


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Zguitar71 said:


> Downforce does not effect the weight or inertia of the car. It give for friction to the contact patch if the tires and allows higher levels of cornering, stopping and acceleration (once the car is generating downforce).


It affects the weight of the cars, not the mass


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

Bacon Fat said:


> It affects the weight of the cars, not the mass


The car does not weigh more and the inertia (most important part) does not increase with downforce. Those two things are fixed. The low pressure under the car sucks it to the ground and if there was a scale under the tires it would show an increasing number as the force increases. That is the effect of the down force but not an actual weight increase, the car weighs the same at 200mph as it does at 0. The fact that the mass does not change with downforce proves the car does not weigh more. When a 747 takes off fully loaded it still has the same mass as it did at the gate, the inverse is true for a ground affect race car.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Mass is NOT weight. You cannot use those terms interchangeably.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Zguitar71 said:


> Gravity is pulling the rider and the sprung parts of the bike together into the unsprung parts of the bike. The wheels are not traveling up to the frame the frame is traveling down to the wheels in a bump. The rider and the sprung frame parts are essentially one unit. If the rider weights 180LBS and that part of the frame is 2 pounds heavier for frame x than frame y I'm not sure if it would be noticeable or not if all other things are the same. The ability for the rider to move the bike underneath them might be noticed with a 2 pound savings but that would probably depend some on the overall strength of the rider. The smaller the rider and less strength they have the more noticeable weight savings will be.


Not necessarily and depends on the exact impact. Hitting a root or rock on an otherwise smooth trail is pushing the suspension upward while gravity's effect on the rider/bike remains the same. What you explained is more representative of landing a jump or drop.


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

Harold said:


> Mass is NOT weight. You cannot use those terms interchangeably.


I'm not, the weight of an f1 is tied to its mass. If the weight changes the mass will change.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

The mass does not change while being affected by aerodynamics.

It also does not change while being subject to additional g-forces.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

I need a scotch, neat...


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Zguitar71 said:


> I'm not, the weight of an f1 is tied to its mass. If the weight changes the mass will change.


No, it does not. Mass is PART of weight. But weight also includes other forces acting upon that mass (like gravity).

My mass does not change if I am on Earth vs. Mars. Mass is a measure of the amount of matter. Because weight also includes forces acting upon said mass, my weight on Earth is greater than it is on Mars because gravity is stronger on Earth.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)




----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Alright, OneSpeed! Can we ride fvcking bikes now??
Ugh, folks are cramming round pegs into trapezoidal holes again around here!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BansheeRune said:


> I need a scotch, neat...


You sharing?


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

It's boxing day, so I went with Irish whiskey and cream in my coffee. Cheers.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Bacon Fat said:


> F1 cars are not light. They create huge amounts of downforce, up to 5Gs


You are confusing mass with force.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Jayem said:


> You are confusing mass with force.


Don't be too hard on him, Jayem. I'm confused, too.
Please don't take what I said to imply I want an explanation. I sincerely don't.
But I will take a scotch, too.
And I don't even like scotch.
=sParty


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Jayem said:


> You are confusing mass with force.


No I haven't. Their mass does not changes. Their force pushing down on the ground changes greatly depending on their speed


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Guys, I assure you, mountain bikes have no wings, and thus no aerodynamic downforce. If you want to discuss Formula 1, start a new thread.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Guys, I assure you, mountain bikes have no wings, and thus no aerodynamic downforce.


What about aero helmets?

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Guys, I assure you, mountain bikes have no wings, and thus no aerodynamic downforce. If you want to discuss Formula 1, start a new thread.


we also all pedal on earth, or at least I hope.

I'm going to go ride my heavy bike on chunky stuff today and enjoy it far more than I would my light weight bike.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Bacon Fat said:


> No I haven't. Their mass does not changes. Their force pushing down on the ground changes greatly depending on their speed


I assumed you were confused, because the light weight of an F1 is key to making directional changes, maximizing acceleration, minimizing the mass that has to be decelerated by brakes, etc. The effect of the downforce in the direction it acts, to "glue" the wheels to the pavement, is unique and not applicable to a bike, but the other weight-saving measures and reasons for that weight saving are.


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Guys, I assure you, mountain bikes have no wings, and thus no aerodynamic downforce. If you want to discuss Formula 1, start a new thread.


What about aerodynamic drag? Can we discuss that?
A narrow tucked position will save 23 minutes over a 100 miles race like Leadville.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

And 8 ounces of scotch will save 100 miles over that same race.


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

Fajita Dave said:


> Not necessarily and depends on the exact impact. Hitting a root or rock on an otherwise smooth trail is pushing the suspension upward while gravity's effect on the rider/bike remains the same. What you explained is more representative of landing a jump or drop.


Yes I agree, the small bumps push the wheels up towards the frame. So then the most important weight to save would be on the unsprung parts. That is how I see it anyway. The small bumps probably have more overall impact on the ride as a whole since there are usually many more of them.


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Let's see, OneSpeed has wings, Harold, Sparty and I are sittin back with our scotch. D. Inoobinati has a point... 
Who has the damnn bottle?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

*OneSpeed* said:


> View attachment 1908634


Physics is fun and you'll never get me to give it up


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

How do I unfollow this thread?

Pass the bottle, please.
=sParty


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

_passes the scotch to Sparty_


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I don't know any professional who has intentionally added total weight (independently of improving other aspects like stiffness) to improve performance. I've heard of adding weights to affect the balance of the bike but pro enduro/DH racers try to keep their bike light overall. There are better ways to increase stability than arbitrarily adding weight. On a lot of mellow descents my 120mm 29lb bike is significantly faster than my 160mm 33lb bike. Both have their place but I've been surprised by how added weight can be a disadvantage even going down hill.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jeremy3220 said:


> I don't know any professional who has intentionally added total weight (independently of improving other aspects like stiffness) to improve performance. I've heard of adding weights to affect the balance of the bike but pro enduro/DH racers try to keep their bike light overall. There are better ways to increase stability than arbitrarily adding weight. On a lot of mellow descents my 120mm 29lb bike is significantly faster than my 160mm 33lb bike. Both have their place but I've been surprised by how added weight can be a disadvantage even going down hill.


I remember a photo on PB from a DH WC a couple years back where a guy's Nicolai had weights duct taped to it.

I wish I was kidding.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> I remember a photo on PB from a DH WC a couple years back where a guy's Nicolai had weights duct taped to it.
> 
> I wish I was kidding.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm not surprised, I just haven't heard of anyone doing it to explicitly increase total weight.


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

I love the feel of a light bike, in particular light wheels and tyres.

But I'm a clumsy 220lb trail rider so a 30-32lb dually works just fine and is reliable.

Horses for courses - buy or build a bike to suit you and your conditions.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Ailuropoda said:


> At some point, you have to care about the weight of your bike. There may not be an appreciable difference between 19 and 21 pounds but even the most fashionably weight ambivalent riders will start to grumble a little when they start getting north of 30 pounds.


Uh, oh. I missed the memo. I've got about 15 years worth of grumbling I need to catch up on.


----------



## RacerLex (Jan 20, 2010)

The only bike trend I’ve not seen change is lighter weight = more expensive/higher quality. People chasing a lighter build isn’t going anywhere.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Bacon Fat said:


> F1 cars are not light. They create huge amounts of downforce, up to 5Gs


F1 cars are crazy light. Why do you think they make them from carbon?
When people say "light" they mean less mass, not less aero downforce.

The 5G turns are because of the ratio of downforce / mass. You can increase this ratio by either increasing downforce or by reducing mass. Add more mass to the car and the G force will go down. F1 teams even try to optimize the amount of gas to make the car lighter.

Mountain bikes don't have anything aerodynamic, so the downforce is proportional to mass.


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

jeremy3220 said:


> I don't know any professional who has intentionally added total weight (independently of improving other aspects like stiffness) to improve performance. I've heard of adding weights to affect the balance of the bike but pro enduro/DH racers try to keep their bike light overall. There are better ways to increase stability than arbitrarily adding weight. On a lot of mellow descents my 120mm 29lb bike is significantly faster than my 160mm 33lb bike. Both have their place but I've been surprised by how added weight can be a disadvantage even going down hill.


This!


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

A simple way of looking at the effect of bike weight on effort required is to consider the prospect of not riding, but instead carrying yourself and your bike up a climb or even along a flat trail. It doesn't matter if I am propelling the bike by pedaling or throwing the bike over my shoulder and outright carrying it. I am providing the work to get our combined weight to an end point. I'd prefer the lightest bike that still provides awesome performance. 

Additional principles apply when the trail pitches down. If the trail was straight down the mountain, we would simply want the heaviest bike we could manage to take full advantage of the pull of gravity. But downhill trails are not usually straight. There are techy narrow bits, tricky switchbacks and sections of flat trail and even some uphill riding. Portions of the trail that point down don't require me to necessarily carry my bike, but they do require me to wrestle my bike. I have had plenty of downhill rides that left me sore and exhausted because of the effort to wrestle a heavy, slack, long suspension bike through a challenging downhill course. So, in the case of a downhill ride, I also want the lightest bike that is slack enough, with adequate suspension for the challenges and still provides awesome performance. 

I own and still ride a 45 lb downhill bike. It babysits me through the nastiest stuff a trail can dish out but we are at our best when going in straight lines. Those are actually some very fun, adrenalin pumping straight lines, truth be told.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

If you need to wrestle a bike downhill either you're doing it wrong, it's a bad suspension setup, poor bike design or it's to much bike for that downhill. You aren't carrying your bike either, your bike is carrying you. Your legs don't need to support the weight of the bicycle while riding it but of course more weight will still need a bit more effort.

I don't think anyone's advocating for making bikes heavier for the sake of being heavier. I've just seen to many people sacrefice performance for a very superficial amount of weight. I've seen people shy away from an excellent fork because another brand's fork was about 150g lighter (0.15kg, 5.29 ounces, 0.33 Lbs) which had a crap damper. Or the person who NEEDS lighter tires but can't complete a single ride without getting a flat. Same goes for lighter rims but end up replacing them every year because they get bent.

Maybe it's just an exaggerated perception on the internet but people seem heartbroken that their bike weighs one or two pounds more than they'd like it to. Surely that extra one or two pounds is why they can't keep up on group rides or it's the major reason their bike doesn't handle well.

My enduro bike now weighs 34.3 Lbs thanks to a coil shock and some heavier tires. It rides by far the best it ever has and it hasn't slowed me down at all on the climbs. Whether it's faster downhill or not will have to wait for better trail conditions but it's looking very likely so far. Either way it's a much more enjoyable ride that I wouldn't have achieved without putting some extra weight on it.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Fajita Dave said:


> If you need to wrestle a bike downhill either you're doing it wrong, it's a bad suspension setup, poor bike design or it's to much bike for that downhill. You aren't carrying your bike either, your bike is carrying you. Your legs don't need to support the weight of the bicycle while riding it but of course more weight will still need a bit more effort.
> 
> I don't think anyone's advocating for making bikes heavier for the sake of being heavier. I've just seen to many people sacrefice performance for a very superficial amount of weight. I've seen people shy away from an excellent fork because another brand's fork was about 150g lighter (0.15kg, 5.29 ounces, 0.33 Lbs) which had a crap damper. Or the person who NEEDS lighter tires but can't complete a single ride without getting a flat. Same goes for lighter rims but end up replacing them every year because they get bent.
> 
> Maybe it's just an exaggerated perception on the internet but people seem heartbroken that their bike weighs one or two pounds more than they'd like it to. Surely that extra one or two pounds is why they can't keep up on group rides or it's the major reason their bike doesn't handle well.


There are a few areas where the tradeoff heavily favors the performance of the part, like brakes, suspension, etc. There are other areas where there is no reason except cost to go with the lightest parts. In some cases, the very lightest may not be as reliable, but they'll work great in a race and that's the tradeoff you make, reduced weight for reduced reliability. When it comes to performance though, like ability to stop and suspension, that's when a little extra weight is usually worth it. Unfortunately, the suspension companies moved to what allows them to maximize profits and minimize different tooling, like crap damping-circuits controlled by poppet valves and air springs. These let them make "one" shock and spring for applications, rather than having to do multiple damping tunes and coil springs, but performance suffers as a result. The good is that many people don't know what they are missing, so for them, ignorance is bliss.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Jayem said:


> There are a few areas where the tradeoff heavily favors the performance of the part, like brakes, suspension, etc. There are other areas where there is no reason except cost to go with the lightest parts. In some cases, the very lightest may not be as reliable, but they'll work great in a race and that's the tradeoff you make, reduced weight for reduced reliability. When it comes to performance though, like ability to stop and suspension, that's when a little extra weight is usually worth it. Unfortunately, the suspension companies moved to what allows them to maximize profits and minimize different tooling, like crap damping-circuits controlled by poppet valves and air springs. These let them make "one" shock and spring for applications, rather than having to do multiple damping tunes and coil springs, but performance suffers as a result. The good is that many people don't know what they are missing, so for them, ignorance is bliss.


Definitely agree with that! Saddles don't need to be heavy, neither do handlebars, pedals, hubs, quality carbon frames over aluminum all adds up to a decent chunk of weight. Those items just come at a premium price with minor performance gains in return compared to spending that money on suspension and tires (and brakes if there's enough downhill).

Tires need to fit your application and they'll just weigh what they weigh, no more and no less. Same goes with rims in my opinion as 100ish grams won't get you much with the trade off in durability after a certain point.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Le Duke said:


> I remember a photo on PB from a DH WC a couple years back where a guy's Nicolai had weights duct taped to it.
> 
> I wish I was kidding.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Was at an Enduro race a year back and about 4 Pros raced e-bikes as well as their bikes. I climbed a stage with them and asked them e-bike questions and they were telling me how amazing the e-bikes descended due to the additional weight. Then they all proceeded to have notably slower times on their e-bikes, every one of them and by a fair bit. 
I'll stick with the lightweight, yet capable bikes.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> I remember a photo on PB from a DH WC a couple years back where a guy's Nicolai had weights duct taped to it.
> 
> I wish I was kidding.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It did exist, there was a company selling what they claimed to be "tuning weights". It was quickly laughed off with science and ****. The things that have come up in this sport are mind-blowing, in a bad way, like z-torque cranks, claims that certain chainrings are 20% faster, etc. Snake oil. There are products that do give a tangible benefit and ones that start to get much less tangible as you spend exponentially more money, but these snake-oil products are in a totally different class. Like if these actually worked, the laws of physics wouldn't exist...


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Found it:









Tech Randoms in Fort William, Scotland - photo by rossbellphoto - Pinkbike


Photo of Tech Randoms in Fort William, Scotland. The Nicolai of Jack Reading leady to go.




m.pinkbike.com





Article it's from:









Tech Randoms – Fort William DH World Cup - Pinkbike


Fort William's rocky track is a tough test for body and bike alike, and that was obvious in the pits today. We went for a lap to get the scoop.




m.pinkbike.com





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Jayem said:


> It did exist, laughed off with science and ****. The things have mind-blowing, tangible exponentially more money, class actually worked, the laws of physics wouldn't exist...


This is why I've switched to nano-snake oil.

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

WHALENARD said:


> This is why I've switched to nano-snake oil.
> 
> Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


Absolute Black has tested that to be up to 32.1% more efficient!


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Lol

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Fajita Dave said:


> Definitely agree with that! Saddles don't need to be heavy, neither do handlebars, pedals, hubs, quality carbon frames over aluminum all adds up to a decent chunk of weight. Those items just come at a premium price with minor performance gains in return compared to spending that money on suspension and tires (and brakes if there's enough downhill).
> 
> Tires need to fit your application and they'll just weigh what they weigh, no more and no less. Same goes with rims in my opinion as 100ish grams won't get you much with the trade off in durability after a certain point.


After all, can't be cuttin into the fajita budget. 😁


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Orange bikes prototype had added weights:









Adding Weights to the Bike? Orange Bikes at Eurobike 2018


Orange Bikes had the latest version of their prototype Strange 329 29er DH bike on display. Designed from the ground up around 29-inch wheels, the bike is so light they've been experimenting with adding additional weight to the frame to give it a bit more stability. Additionally, the increase...




www.vitalmtb.com


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I added weight to my Grim Donut, making it 40 lbs. In actual riding, even when riding in a group, I liked it a lot better on my usual routes over a much lighter weight '18 Cannondale Jekyll Carbon 2. I've ridden both bikes to my bonked state, and also have tuned my refuel/hydration strategy to log 8 hour rides, while making 5-6 hour rides routine feeling. The heavier bike does use up more energy per hour, but I don't feel it in terms of increased body temp for some reason. I've had some of my highest heart rates on it though, but it's a good feeling rather than one of suffering.

I've opened up to heavier bikes (and 1500g tires), but I think there's something about my Grim Donut frame specifically that makes all that weight easier to carry. The pedaling feel doesn't feel excessively firm. I suspect that the frame flex at the BB has something to do with it, where that extra flex is a good thing. Is it the steel-is-real effect? I'm pretty convinced by my own experience, in which I've managed to wear a DH tire (Assegai) bald over 1500 miles of riding, including doing group rides on an even heavier ebike with some guys who like to climb, and pedaled my heavy beast of a bike to keep up just fine even while wearing a mask and more protective gear than a bike park rider and carrying extra supplies on my back, without motor assist.

To be fair, I once switched back to one of the most playful bikes I've ridden, a Rocky Mtn Thunderbolt BC Edition, weighing in at about 26 lbs, and I was literally riding circles around the group on the easy fireroad climbs (in an effort to get a decent workout). When it came to anything technical though, it felt sketchy as F. The bike had multiple mechanical issues that made me worry, so I never felt like I could open up on it. On the road ride back home from the trails, I broke a pedal axle on it. It was a true JRA fault, with no direct impact to pedal involved. Just the same hits I'd expect all my bikes to withstand from the trail itself. All I could think of is F weight weenism. It's like cheating on the climbs but is a liability in other parts. I much rather have the peace of mind of riding something properly equipped. On my better-equipped bikes, it feels like I'm riding a Kamaz Rally Truck, as opposed to a whiny high-pitched car that belongs more on the road than on the mountains.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Jayem said:


> Absolute Black has tested that to be up to 32.1% more efficient!


I remember this test. To be exact, they said that it's all snake oil and fake science, unless they produce it. In that case it's 32.1% more efficient.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I run full coil and full Ti kit so don't ask me.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

You think its bad here, take a look at any road bike site.


----------



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

kapusta said:


> You think its bad here, take a look at any road bike site.


Focusing on weight makes more sense for road bikes than mtb's imo.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

CrozCountry said:


> I remember this test. To be exact, they said that it's all snake oil and fake science, unless they produce it. In that case it's 32.1% more efficient.


"Stop calling it Biopace!!!!
This is completely diffferent!!"


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> Focusing on weight makes more sense for road bikes than mtb's imo.


Why? Road bikes don't have the need to manual, lift, wheelie, jump, swerve rapidly, climb very steep slippery grades, and so on that mountain bikes do.

Assuming both disciplines exert the same pedaling energy over a ride we get way more advantage of lower weight.

Seems like road bikes should stay light of course but primarily focus on low rolling resistance and low air resistance because of the much higher speeds.


----------



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

Suns_PSD said:


> Why? Road bikes don't have the need to manual, lift, wheelie, jump, swerve rapidly, climb very steep slippery grades, and so on that mountain bikes do.
> 
> Assuming both disciplines exert the same pedaling energy over a ride we get way more advantage of lower weight.
> 
> Seems like road bikes should stay light of course but primarily focus on low rolling resistance and low air resistance because of the much higher speeds.


I didn't mean to imply that mtb weight isn't important, just that there are bigger compromises involved when going light.l than with road bikes. For instance you could drop a lot of weight by installing 500 gram 2.0 tires but performance will suffer a lot. Most 30 pound mtb's are more capable, faster, and more fun than a 20 pound one but the opposite is true when comparing a 15 lb road bike to a 25 lb one.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

CrozCountry said:


> F1 cars are crazy light. Why do you think they make them from carbon?
> When people say "light" they mean less mass, not less aero downforce.
> 
> The 5G turns are because of the ratio of downforce / mass. You can increase this ratio by either increasing downforce or by reducing mass. Add more mass to the car and the G force will go down. F1 teams even try to optimize the amount of gas to make the car lighter.
> ...


This is Correct downforce does not add to inertia weight does.


----------



## ddoh (Jan 11, 2017)

"Most 30 pound mtb's are more capable, faster, and more fun than a 20 pound one but the opposite is true when comparing a 15 lb road bike to a 25 lb one." Nino Schurter's bike is about 20.5 lbs.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

obsession of particulars gives you plenty of excuses on why you just can't ride worth a sh!t...


----------



## Bacon Fat (Mar 11, 2016)

Cerberus75 said:


> This is Correct downforce does not add to inertia weight does.


Weight does not add to inertia, mass does


----------



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

ddoh said:


> "Most 30 pound mtb's are more capable, faster, and more fun than a 20 pound one but the opposite is true when comparing a 15 lb road bike to a 25 lb one." Nino Schurter's bike is about 20.5 lbs.


That's why I used the word "most". Ost people don't do the type of riding that Nino does and most people wouldn't have that much fun on his bike on their local trails. I bet Nino has a different bike that he uses for his fun days.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> That's why I used the word "most". Ost people don't do the type of riding that Nino does and most people wouldn't have that much fun on his bike on their local trails. I bet Nino has a different bike that he uses for his fun days.


I'd argue that the (vast) majority of people are doing XC riding.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Cerberus75 said:


> This is Correct downforce does not add to inertia weight does.


Downforce is created through aerodynamic drag though. Would you carry that drag through the straights where it isn't needed? You'd be more willing to make this trade-off on courses with a lot of corners.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> I'd argue that the (vast) majority of people are doing XC riding.


I'd argue that more people are actually doing enduro. I see few people out riding who take joy in getting to the top of the hill as fast as possible, compared to those who like to cruise up then descend as fast as possible. Though IMO that doesn't mean they should be riding enduro bikes (or XC race bikes). Guess that's why trail bikes exist?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

David R said:


> I'd argue that more people are actually doing enduro. I see few people out riding who take joy in getting to the top of the hill as fast as possible, compared to those who like to cruise up then descend as fast as possible. Though IMO that doesn't mean they should be riding enduro bikes (or XC race bikes).


Sure. I'll agree to that. Most people aren't interested in self-flagellation.

I'm just saying that there are a lot of people riding 150mm+ bikes on terrain that would be (or is) used on an XC race course.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Varaxis said:


> Downforce is created through aerodynamic drag though. Would you carry that drag through the straights where it isn't needed? You'd be more willing to make this trade-off on courses with a lot of corners.


Most racers adjust their aero to the course. Indianapolis oval that the turns are banked needs less downforce. Hence the higher speeds on the straits.


----------



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

Le Duke said:


> Sure. I'll agree to that. Most people aren't interested in self-flagellation.
> 
> I'm just saying that there are a lot of people riding 150mm+ bikes on terrain that would be (or is) used on an XC race course.


No doubt, but the guy on the 150 travel bike is probably having more fun on that terrain than the guy running 190bpm on a 100mm hardtail.


----------



## Ksanman (Feb 15, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> No doubt, but the guy on the 150 travel bike is probably having more fun on that terrain than the guy running 190bpm on a 100mm hardtail.


Considering the trek marlin 5 was one of the best selling bikes this year, I guess all those people aren't having fun.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Ksanman said:


> Considering the trek marlin 5 was one of the best selling bikes this year, I guess all those people aren't having fun.


People who buy a Trek Marlin 5 don't know how to have fun.
=sParty


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> No doubt, but the guy on the 150 travel bike is probably having more fun on that terrain than the guy running 190bpm on a 100mm hardtail.


Why do you say that?

I'm always mystified by the idea that someone riding hard can't be enjoying themselves.

Isn't the theory behind e-bikes that more speed = more laps = more smiles? If Rider A (120mm) does 5 laps of the local park, and Rider B (150mm) does 3, would you assume that Rider B had more fun, based solely on bike/travel? What about apparel?

If someone has beers in the parking lot, do you assume that they had more fun than the guy who heads home to his family? Why?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

Ksanman said:


> Considering the trek marlin 5 was one of the best selling bikes this year, I guess all those people aren't having fun.


First, I'm happy for anyone getting out on any bike and having fun for any reason but that said do you think Marlin owners bought their bikes based on ride qualities or price?


----------



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

Le Duke said:


> Why do you say that?
> 
> I'm always mystified by the idea that someone riding hard can't be enjoying themselves.
> 
> ...


I can relate to rider B, I am rider B. My only point was that (IMO!) for mountain biking weight isn't the end all because there are many factors at play. (e.g. tire weight vs grip/durability) If you disagree that's fine.

What's the deal with the "beers in the parking lot" ? Anything to do with what I said?


----------



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

Damn, don't know how to edit on this new format yet. Meant rider A, (not B) @ LeDuke


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> If someone has beers in the parking lot, do you assume that they had more fun than the guy who heads home to his family? Why?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Definitely! 
Just a hunch.

Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

J.B. Weld said:


> Damn, don't know how to edit on this new format yet. Meant rider A, (not B) @ LeDuke


Click on the 3 vertical dots in the upper right corner of your post.
=sParty


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> No doubt, but the guy on the 150 travel bike is probably having more fun on that terrain than the guy running 190bpm on a 100mm hardtail.


I guess I'm miserable on my rigid and I just haven't noticed.


----------



## surefoot (Dec 29, 2020)

TippyD said:


> I think bike weight is important to all of us to some degree; more so for some than others. Personally, I ride mostly slow and techy stuff, so I prefer the front of my bike especially be as light as I can afford to make it. Lesser degree on the rear. I still have a rather heavy crankset that doesn't seem to bother me. If I competed in XC or Enduro, I think it would annoy me to haul extra weight up hills when trying to keep up with the group. Since I don't compete, do I need the lightest bike? No, it makes little difference and there are diminishing returns to spend a lot of money for saving a few grams.


tru dat. any sport, speed cost, how fast can you afford to go.


----------



## surefoot (Dec 29, 2020)

surefoot said:


> tru dat. any sport, speed cost, how fast can you afford to go.


keep in mind tho, it doesn't matter if i have to tie it down at night to keep it out of the clouds, or it's so heavy i cant get it in the truck, i'm 63. i'm only going 5 mph.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> I'm just saying that there are a lot of people riding 150mm+ bikes on terrain that would be (or is) used on an XC race course.


And I'll agree with that too.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

This is a niche sport enthusiast website. The nichiest of the niche. It'll always draw the most extreme opinions.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

surefoot said:


> tru dat. any sport, speed cost, how fast can you afford to go.


Only at the highest levels of racing does this really matter. 99% of the people out there making weight-weenie gram-counting spreadsheets don't operate at that level. There're always fitter, faster, all-around-better riders out there on heavier, shittier bikes.

As with so many other examples, for most this isn't about riding, it's about shopping.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Damn, don't know how to edit on this new format yet.


Click the 3 dots at the upper right corner of your post.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> or price?


this is the reason. let's not pretend anything else...


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

I have always had at least one "good" bike in the stable all my life. Many times it was only one bike due to thefts, kids, careers, finances, and other interests. I was happy riding a "good" bike and would blend in on any group ride, I could ride all day and cover lots of ground. I never thought I needed a "nice" bike.

About twenty years ago, I went with a bunch of guys on a week long single track tour/vacation. We are a couple of days in and I am having a great time riding my mid level hardtail. Dean, one of the guys has a new Trek full suspension XC race bike that his factory sponsored brother actually raced on and let him borrow for the week. He insisted I try it out. I didn't feel like I needed to ride it as I was perfectly happy on my hardtail. But I rode it to humor him. That one ride changed my entire MTB outlook. I am so grateful that my friend Dean insisted that day. There have been many innovations in the MTB world over the last twenty years but I learned to appreciate technology that proves itself. I do not ride factory race bike level bikes but I do ride the "nicest" bikes I can afford

Light, strong and precise is where it is at. The idea that light components are weak is silly. There are always going to be junk components (that happen to be light weight) on the market. But the idea that a top of the line, ultralight component will fail before a heavy, entry level one has never been my experience. The bike industry is actually very sophisticated in this regard. There are affordable entry level components, made from strong materials that are cheap and durable but heavy. There are lighter mid level components that a more serious rider will appreciate for a few more bucks. There are premium quality, race level components for a premium price and there are the absolute cutting edge, you can't buy any lighter or better than this level components that cost stupid money. The total weight of a bike has always been the sum total of all its components. Picking and choosing according to your personal preference and budget is the name of the game. Something for everybody.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Your not going to make rims that are light weight but durable enough for enduro racing and downhill. Same goes for tires. Being a recent coil shock convert you won't be making one of those to light either but the ride quality is leaps and bounds better than an air shock. I've cracked two good "all mountain" bike frames so I'm now riding a 6.8lbs frame made for enduro. Definitely not going to be riding a fork with 32mm staunchions to save weight on this bike.

My bike weighs in at 34.3 Lbs and I wouldn't hesitated to add another pound if it means another aspect of performance improves like switching from an air shock to coil did.

A light bike has a nice nimble feel and it helps you get up climbs a little quicker. Neither of those are even on my list of priorities. As long as it can still climb which has more to do with gearing and fitness. Different strokes for different folks.

If I could afford it I would have a nice XC bike too. But I can't and I'm not sacreficing any cash I could be spending on my enduro bike.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Focusing on weight makes more sense for road bikes than mtb's imo.


Perhaps (though I don't necessarily agree), but the difference is that while folks here might fret over pounds, the guys on Roadie forums loose sleep over ounces.

There are folks who won't run disc brakes, because they are too heavy.

There are folks who won't ride a steel frame because they are too heavy.

There are folks who won't run a tire larger than 25mm because they are too heavy.

There are folks who won't bring more than one water bottle, and will plan rides around water sources, rather than just carry a second bottle because they are too heavy.

There are folks who won't carry any tools beyond a cell phone because they are too heavy.

It goes on.

Personally, I don't think weight is a bigger deal on a road bike than an mtb. When ditched my old CF road bike for a steel gravel bike with a rack on the back, I gained about 4 lbs on the bike. I barely notice it. I think I would actually notice it more on a mtb where I am tossing it around and accelerating hard more often. To be honest, if I could drop 4 lbs off of my mtb or my gravel bike, I'd choose the MTB (if there was not a performance sacrifice).


----------



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

kapusta said:


> To be honest, if I could drop 4 lbs off of my mtb or my gravel bike, I'd choose the MTB (if there was not a performance sacrifice).


I don't disagree with most of your points but the one I quoted is all I was really trying to say. I want the lightest bike that's feasibly possible whether it's a mtb or road bike but money aside it seems easier to lose weight without sacrificing performance on a roadie. To me anyway.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

The typical trail rider mindset of climbing for the descent, means the bikes trade downhill performance over climbing performance. It's a fun vs speed tradeoff. Speed matters if it's your job (or your hobby). It's Nino's job, not mine. That's why my bike is 10 pounds heavier.

Most of us prefer fun over flat out climbing speed. Nino on the other hand, cut his carbon handlebars shorter to save weight. I can't think of any person I know that will do that.

There is no denying that a lighter bike climbs faster (all other things being equal). I gave up on the idea of uphill KOMs a while ago. A few seconds more or less, who cares. I am going to stop at the top to east a bar anyways 😀


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

CrozCountry said:


> The typical trail rider mindset of climbing for the descent, means the bikes trade downhill performance over climbing performance. It's a fun vs speed tradeoff. Speed matters if it's your job (or your hobby). It's Nino's job, not mine. That's why my bike is 10 pounds heavier.
> 
> Most of us prefer fun over flat out climbing speed. Nino on the other hand, cut his carbon handlebars shorter to save weight. I can't think of any person I know that will do that.
> 
> There is no denying that a lighter bike climbs faster (all other things being equal). I gave up on the idea of uphill KOMs a while ago. A few seconds more or less, who cares. I am going to stop at the top to east a bar anyways ?


Here's the thing though, I can ride my XC bike much faster on many trails, both up and down, because it pedals so much better, this is partially due to weight, partially rolling resistance, partially suspension, etc. What this creates is FASTER cornering speeds. It's a blast, plus I can shoot off every little bump on the trail.

Sure, at some point my enduro/AM bike becomes faster, but most people never even ride that hard and it takes some serious black diamond terrain for that to be the case. While I like riding that kind of stuff, not every ride I do hits that terrain. Sometimes it's just a matter of repetition and not wanting to ride the same old trails, but I'm getting off my topic here. The point is that the XC bike isn't just faster at uphill, it's faster almost everywhere, except the nastiest of the nasty DH, the stuff that is super-chunk with big drops and jumps. So if I want to experience speed, fast cornering, excitement of trees zipping past, the XC bike is often the weapon of choice.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Lopaka said:


> I have always had at least one "good" bike in the stable all my life. Many times it was only one bike due to thefts, kids, careers, finances, and other interests. I was happy riding a "good" bike and would blend in on any group ride, I could ride all day and cover lots of ground. I never thought I needed a "nice" bike.
> 
> About twenty years ago, I went with a bunch of guys on a week long single track tour/vacation. We are a couple of days in and I am having a great time riding my mid level hardtail. Dean, one of the guys has a new Trek full suspension XC race bike that his factory sponsored brother actually raced on and let him borrow for the week. He insisted I try it out. I didn't feel like I needed to ride it as I was perfectly happy on my hardtail. But I rode it to humor him. That one ride changed my entire MTB outlook. I am so grateful that my friend Dean insisted that day. There have been many innovations in the MTB world over the last twenty years but I learned to appreciate technology that proves itself. I do not ride factory race bike level bikes but I do ride the "nicest" bikes I can afford
> 
> Light, strong and precise is where it is at. The idea that light components are weak is silly. There are always going to be junk components (that happen to be light weight) on the market. But the idea that a top of the line, ultralight component will fail before a heavy, entry level one has never been my experience. The bike industry is actually very sophisticated in this regard. There are affordable entry level components, made from strong materials that are cheap and durable but heavy. There are lighter mid level components that a more serious rider will appreciate for a few more bucks. There are premium quality, race level components for a premium price and there are the absolute cutting edge, you can't buy any lighter or better than this level components that cost stupid money. The total weight of a bike has always been the sum total of all its components. Picking and choosing according to your personal preference and budget is the name of the game. Something for everybody.


I agree with this, to a point.

On things like drivetrain, this is pretty much 100% true. Same with hubs. And then with other stuff, I'd imagine that you are correct, but only if you compare across equivalent categories.

The most obvious way to see that IMO, is with tires, rims and frames. I can't imagine a frame/rim built to cross country standards would have the desired lifespan if used in an enduro race/heavy all mountain riding. Same thing with tires. But again, it holds mostly true if you're comparing within similar useage categories (ie, a DT Swiss EX511 is both lighter, and stronger than my stock rim, as will a carbon rim meant for the same type of riding).

I think we've all touched on the crux of the matter. For any given type of riding, there are certain standards of durability/traction/etc that are met, that gives some sort of minimum weight they "can realistically" be. But, its up to the person to decide how much they want to spend to see how close they can get to that, and/or choose parts from a different category and make them work and/or blend genres to get what they want (which basically describes the "downcountry" genre imo).


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Who remembers strap on downtube weights in the 90s for training?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Definitely worth noting that modern XC bikes are incredibly capable and in most cases durable like Jayem said. A friend of mine doesn't hold back riding a Scott Spark down some very rough black diamond trails but certainly needs to check up for stuff that I don't need to. In the end it's only worth a handful of seconds if we were actually racing. As the trail gets easier the XC bike starts to get equal or even an advantage downhill.

It's also worth noting that my enduro bike is built for racing enduro (despite not having the chance to do so yet thanks to Covid and limited events here) and to handle anything I throw at it short of racing downhill at a bike park. I might spend 10% of my time actually using it's full capability and even that's probably optimistic. The rest of the time would technically be better spent on a trail or downcountry bike. With that being said even if I'm not going for Strava KOMs/PRs I much prefer my enduro bike for downhill and I don't mind hauling it up long climbs enough to consider riding less bike.


----------



## iLuveKetchup (Dec 21, 2020)

kapusta said:


> There are folks who won't run disc brakes, because they are too heavy.
> 
> There are folks who won't run a tire larger than 25mm because they are too heavy.
> 
> ...


I was a roadie and fell do these exact points. My old wheel-brake road bike (14.5lbs) is far lighter than a high-end modern disc-brake road bike. There's no way I'd make the switch.


----------



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

iLuveKetchup said:


> I was a roadie and fell do these exact points. My old wheel-brake road bike (14.5lbs) is far lighter than a high-end modern disc-brake road bike. There's no way I'd make the switch.


Far lighter than an Emonda slr9 @ 14.8lbs? I'm sure that one isn't the lightest out there.


----------



## iLuveKetchup (Dec 21, 2020)

J.B. Weld said:


> Far lighter than an Emonda slr9 @ 14.8lbs? I'm sure that one isn't the lightest out there.


Yes. Plus considering paying over $12k for these high-end road bikes for no weight advantage, no thanks!


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't know of any older road bikes that were down in the 14lbs range without being fixie or single speed.

I went from a 19lbs aero road bike to a 17lbs aero road bike. Rode the same 11 mile climb and ended up being slower on the newer lighter bike. I replaced the stiff rolling 25c stock tires with some nice 25c GP4000s (measure 28mm) and beat my old time by almost 15mins. Both of them rim brakes but I'm regretting not going with disc after riding my wife's disc brake road bike.


----------



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

iLuveKetchup said:


> Yes. Plus considering paying over $12k for these high-end road bikes for no weight advantage, no thanks!


You've always had to pay top dollar for high end bikes, top dollar was just a lot less in the past than it is now.

As mentioned new bikes are fast, significantly faster than older ones of equal weight. More evidence that weight isn't the end all.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> You've always had to pay top dollar for high end bikes, top dollar was just a lot less in the past than it is now.
> 
> As mentioned new bikes are fast, significantly faster than older ones of equal weight. More evidence that weight isn't the end all.


Sure. And those gains are coming from advances in aerodynamics. But, those advances are in part due to developments of light weight materials that allow for those aerodynamic structures (frames, rims, handlebars) to be built to a certain weight at an acceptable strength.

Whereas MTB has people saying things like this regarding perhaps the one thing that would contribute most to cheap, yet massive, gains in speed:

"Fair enough to Tracy (Moseley) if she wants to do that to win, but for the sport and the longevity of the sport, to wear cool race kit and to make an image for yourself is more important than the odd win here and there."


----------



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

Le Duk
[QUOTE="Le Duke said:


> Sure. And those gains are coming from advances in aerodynamics. But, those advances are in part due to developments of light weight materials that allow for those aerodynamic structures (frames, rims, handlebars) to be built to a certain weight at an acceptable strength.
> 
> Whereas MTB has people saying things like this regarding perhaps the one thing that would contribute most to cheap, yet massive, gains in speed:
> 
> "Fair enough to Tracy (Moseley) if she wants to do that to win, but for the sport and the longevity of the sport, to wear cool race kit and to make an image for yourself is more important than the odd win here and there."


Still, today's 25lb mtb is faster (and more importantly funner) than yesterday's 25lb mtb. Manufacturers could build lighter ones now but that would only make them slower.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> Still, today's 25lb mtb is faster (and more importantly funner) than yesterday's 25lb mtb. Manufacturers could build lighter ones now but that would only make them slower.


Can you please explain how a 24lb bike is less fun than a 25lb bike?

Why would a 22lb Scott Spark need to be 25lbs to be faster?


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Still searching for the "unfollow" button on this thread...
=sParty

EDIT: Just found it! Hallelujah!


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> Can you please explain how a 24lb bike is less fun than a 25lb bike?
> 
> Why would a 22lb Scott Spark need to be 25lbs to be faster?


If you need to hold back for concern of breaking something it's less fun. If you go for XC rims instead of trail or enduro, super light handlebars, flimsy fork, lighter tires just to name a few examples.

If you can take off a pound without sacreficing durability that's great. A pound one way or the other won't make any meaningful difference depending on where it's gained or lost on the bike.


----------



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

Le Duke said:


> Can you please explain how a 24lb bike is less fun than a 25lb bike?
> 
> Why would a 22lb Scott Spark need to be 25lbs to be faster?


Why not choose a 1994 norba race bike that weighs 24lbs over a modern xc bike that weighs 25 lbs?

I guess I'm failing (flailing?) in making my point clear.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why not choose a 1994 not a race bike that weighs 24lbs over a modern xc bike that weighs 25 lbs?
> 
> I guess I'm failing (flailing?) in making my point clear.


Correct. You are.

I'm struggling to understand why I'd want to go from my 23lb 120mm bike that makes it up the climbs in the top 0.1% and down the descents in the top 3-5%. What could adding 2lbs get me here?

Go up 10s slower to gain 2s going down? Great tradeoff.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

kapusta said:


> There are folks who won't run disc brakes, because they are too heavy.
> 
> There are folks who won't ride a steel frame because they are too heavy.
> 
> ...


And in case anyone thinks I am making this stuff up......


iLuveKetchup said:


> I was a roadie and fell do these exact points. My old wheel-brake road bike (14.5lbs) is far lighter than a high-end modern disc-brake road bike. There's no way I'd make the switch.


Sorry, just giving you crap, because your road bike is 8 lbs lighter than mine


----------



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

You could make that 22lb bike even lighter if you cut the bars to 560mm and switched to 400 gram 1.9" skinwall tires.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Le Duke said:


> I'm struggling to understand why I'd want to go from my 23lb 120mm bike that makes it up the climbs in the top 0.1% and down the descents in the top 3-5%. What could adding 2lbs get me here?
> 
> Go up 10s slower to gain 2s going down? Great tradeoff.


Bigger jumps? More fun? Sounds good to me.

I jest. I know you're more race-minded than I am. It makes sense for your purposes.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

If you rode the same bike back that was 3-4 pounds heavier for no other reason than $$ You would understand and wouldn’t ask these types of questions. 


When you are racing for podium, you should optimize everything you can. At mid pack, does it really matter if you het 11th or 9th? Maybe if you want to say “top ten”. Little do your friends and family know that only 16 entered. 

If you are shuttling, you probably don’t care, but if you rode the two bikes back to back, you might. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

It’s interesting to me that weight savings isn’t tied to performance anymore. When I was just starting into mountain biking in 1988 the top tier Shimano was XT and it was way better than the levels below it. Now Deore, SLX,XT and XTR all perform about the same and are good enough to be on a race bike. The real difference is the weight. There is a difference in the shifters at the XT level but not that significant. It’s a great time for MTBing, for 1/4 of the cost and 1.5 pounds a Deore bike can feel and perform like an XTR bike. Put the savings into the wheels and suspension.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> Can you please explain how a 24lb bike is less fun than a 25lb bike?
> 
> Why would a 22lb Scott Spark need to be 25lbs to be faster?


I don't think his primary comparison was weight, it was same or similar weight over time. Think Johnny Tomac rig with 550mm handlebars, 2.5" of suspension, those plastic disc wheels, 2.0" 26" rock hard tires, etc. For straight fire-road uphill, there might not be a noticeable difference in speed, but everywhere else, the modern bike will be gaining seconds, in the turns (even the uphill ones IMO), the downs, the tech bits, etc. The modern XC bike probably has a dropper post for nearly the same overall weight too.

One can argue that some modern bikes have gained weight with no benefit, like the added hub material and frame reinforcement necessary to run "super boost". Making the frame wider means it's flexier and to keep it stiff, more material is needed, even though your wheels are now stiffer, and what does that get you? The option to run heavy (slow) "plus" tires? Some people may want this, it may even be fun for some, but this is where the comparison starts to break down, because it's where you won't be gaining speed, only losing it, compared to a bike more fine-tuned for the terrain and use (tire size, frame and bike weight, etc.).

But back to the first paragraph, yes, the modern bike at the same weight will be faster IME. The % will vary with the course and as we all know, these differences are often very small, like say 30 seconds over 10 minutes (just throwing it out there), but anyone who races knows that fractions of seconds count and anywhere you can get seconds for free, you take it. It's also a lot funner to ride IMO due to the wider tires, 29er wheels, shorter stem and wider bars, droppper post, etc. I don't think the HTA should be relaxed much, you want that lightning-quick ability to change a line and make course corrections, up or down. The people needing more help with HTA specifically probably shouldn't be riding the racier XC rigs, but these changes over the years are more about the sum, not any one thing and they contribute to a much better riding machine. It's not about the new "modern geometry" from 2019, it's about the gradual changes over all the years.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Some in this thread are implying that light means less useful/ fast/ reliable/ etc., and I'll admit that some riders choose light before performance. 

But not all weight weenies do that. Some choose the best product that does the job well, and then search for the lightest variation or comparable product. I found the stem length and design I wanted, and then I choose one that was on the lighter side of the spectrum and still had great reviews and was totally strong. It was just a better engineered product in this case and in this example, it wasn't any more money. My buddy choose his stem based on looks mostly, and it weighs 60 grams more.

Tires are the only place where at times I'll intentionally choose a tire with a bit less traction because it rolls way faster (weight is secondary to rolling resistance) and results in me be faster overall. It also has the added benefit of improving my DH performance because I'm fresh when I get to the top.

Some people live in places where the climbs are boring jeep roads, so in their case I totally get why they choose 5% better DH performance and are willing to lose 20% climbing performance in pursuit of that goal. But where I live the climbs are just as much of the ride (more when considering time instead of miles) than the descents so a wise rider chooses the components that allows them to cover as much all of their terrain as quickly as possible.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> I'm struggling to understand why I'd want to go from my 23lb 120mm bike that makes it up the climbs in the top 0.1% and down the descents in the top 3-5%. What could adding 2lbs get me here?


You personally? Maybe not much, though it might be an interesting experiment for you to ride an enduro bike for a week and see if/how much you can improve your descending times. But I think you're an anomaly. I'm sure we've had this kinda conversation before, but I think if you were 15kg heavier and a little less finessed in your riding style the answer to "what would gain from a heavier bike" would be a whole lot more reliability, comfort and ultimately enjoyment.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

David R said:


> You personally? Maybe not much, though it might be an interesting experiment for you to ride an enduro bike for a week and see if/how much you can improve your descending times. But I think you're an anomaly. I'm sure we've had this kinda conversation before, but I think if you were 15kg heavier and a little less finessed in your riding style the answer to "what would gain from a heavier bike" would be a whole lot more reliability, comfort and ultimately enjoyment.


I feel there's still a big misconception out there that "DH orientated" bikes are "always faster on downhills". A full on DH bike at a full on bike-park with a full on DH (no groomed flow) trail, sure, but that's not what people are riding "downhill" 99.9% of the time. Like Predator (double black) may be steep enough to make a DH rig faster, but OTG and NOTG (black)? No way. People simply aren't doing double-black diamond runs back to back USUALLY. Some are, no doubt, but most people enjoying DHs are doing so at lesser grades on lesser terrain and yes, sometimes an enduro or bigger travel bike may be more "comfortable" or "secure" for some people, but the idea that they are automatically "faster downhill" is ridiculous IME They are usually slower, they are slower because they pedal soggy, slow to accelerate and change direction, etc. Now, you can go to the full other extreme to something like a super-caliber or hardtail that is going to start to suck pretty badly at going fast in DH terrain, but my point is for the general majority of XC bikes out there, 4 to 120mm travel rigs, they are not slower downhill, they are faster. *They are faster until you get to the point where the terrain no longer lets them, but this is usually a lot further than most people will push their bikes to.*


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

I don't know if I agree with that completely. I think for a skilled/advanced rider that is likely true, but there are a lot of us (myself included, as a intermediate-ish rider) in the "weekend warrior" sort of situation that I don't know if an XC bike would be faster in as many situations as you describe.

The sensation of being more "comfortable" or "secure" as you say, lets people (like me), who are less than Nino Schurter/Sam Hill gain the confidence to go faster, try new (faster) lines, and ride less tense. And I'd wager that for many people, they "are" faster on trail/all mountain types bikes on more gravity type trails even if the bike itself isn't holding them back.

Case in point, just this week I went riding with 2 friends. One is still on an XC style hardtail. I let him try out my bike for a lap of a green/blue trail at our local trail system. We both use trailforks, and looking at the data later, he was 18 seconds faster than his first run on his own bike (1:02 vs 1:20), dispite it being a tad small for him/not setup for his weight, and not being familiar with it. And that trail is neither steep, or rough (avg grade of only 7%).

A lot of that is due to geo of course. But the "safety" factor afforded by the extra squish, heavy tires/etc, even at the cost of at least 5 pounds seemed to be worth the trade off for him (and yes, he had to pedal it to the top to do the lap). He didn't comment anything about the extra weight, but did talk about the increased confidence going down.

For what its worth, I talked about this with my buddies that day (the topic of weight). They all agreed that if they had the funds, their bikes would be as light as they could make them without them being unreliable. But as that isn't the situation, they don't seem to worried about if their bike weighs a few pounds more, and makes their climbs a bit longer.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Bikes Are Getting Lighter (Again)-And We Couldn't Be Happier About It


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

chazpat said:


> Bikes Are Getting Lighter (Again)-And We Couldn't Be Happier About It


This article is far to reasonable for this site. They're implying we need balance between weight and performance. What kind of BS is that?

I think it also applies a bit more to road bikes. I gotta say the frame of my 17.5lbs road bike feels pretty fragile and flexy. I'm sure better ones exist but there's limits to how much material you can take away before flex and durability are a problem. Also at 15mph+ aero will still be king if you want speed. If you like climbing on a super light nimble bike it would be nice to have more options at lower prices.

I can't imagine my mountain bike weighing less than 30lbs without sacreficing performance and durability.


----------



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

Fajita Dave said:


> I think it also applies a bit more to road bikes. I gotta say the frame of my 17.5lbs road bike feels pretty fragile and flexy. I'm sure better ones exist but there's limits to how much material you can take away before flex and durability are a problem.


My 17# road bike has by far the stiffest frame I've ever owned and previous bikes I've had feel noodley in comparison. I've got over 15,000 miles on it and the former owner(s) probably logged a lot more miles on it than that. It's been raced, wrecked, and looks pretty beat up but is still rock solid and silent. A beast of a bike.

For sure there's a limit to how much material you can remove before problems arise but the lower limits are pretty amazing, my newer road frame is even lighter than the one I mentioned above but if anything it feels even more solid.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

chazpat said:


> Bikes Are Getting Lighter (Again)-And We Couldn't Be Happier About It


That article brings up a really good point: while it is great that MTBs are much less likely to break these days, a 125 lb person could get away with much lighter frame, rims, fork, bars, tires, cranks (and a few other things) compared to a 225 lb rider. But other than slight weight differences in frame sizes, they are mostly having to run the same equipment.

A 30lb bike means something different to someone 225 lbs and someone 125 lbs.

In short, light people are riding bikes much heavier and overbuilt than they need to be.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Light bikes are cool. You can achieve a great platform if you are willing to spend. And spend. But what the masses are exchanging for heavier bikes is a lot of latitude in general builds that produce bikes with amazing large sweet spots. The light general bikes of yesteryear had narrow sweet spots - requiring very precise handling skills and finesse to ride with a competency we take for granted these days. And even in capable hands, the part replacement cycle was a prohibitive. These days, manufactures can throw a bit of material at a build and pop out approachable bikes that inspire confidence because the feedback and tolerance to error are so positive. Not only are you more likely to hit that 4'' take off zone, but even if you miss it or case it - the bikes have so much composure that you just go about your ride. I think it's great - we would have given our left nut to have bikes that didn't penalize you so severely in the old days. This range of capabilities, across terrain has a been incremental in terms of materials - bigger and wider tires, need bigger and wider rims which need suspension and platforms that can handle these bigger levers and, man, where would we be without longer droppers and bigger n badder brakes?

But here's the deal, if you want to either spend or narrow the intention vs generalizing - you can pretty easily start to close the weight gaps. If you are a light, small ripper handler guy or gal who is going mainly ride XC like a whip and never see lift serve terrain - well, why suffer a needlessly heavy bike? But if you are a 200lber who wants to just have a bike that won't routinely break when you go from local trails to resort and you want it to feel confidence inspiring regardless of being a class A or C rider - well, there's a cost to get that


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

kapusta said:


> That article brings up a really good point: while it is great that MTBs are much less likely to break these days, a 125 lb person could get away with much lighter frame, rims, fork, bars, tires, cranks (and a few other things) compared to a 225 lb rider. But other than slight weight differences in frame sizes, they are mostly having to run the same equipment.
> 
> A 30lb bike means something different to someone 225 lbs and someone 125 lbs.
> 
> In short, light people are riding bikes much heavier and overbuilt than they need to be.


Tell me about it, I'm under 145lbs. And my bikes are not light!


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I focus on choosing components that compliment my wife's weight (about 105#s) and lack of aggressiveness on her AM bike. That means 34mm forks, lightweight wheels, 31.8mm handlebars, 2 piston brakes, faster & lighter tires. 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## Father Brown (Jan 1, 2021)

At 240lb's I need a stout frame!😀


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

It would be cool if each size frame had a light flexible layup and a stiff layup option and the same consideration for the shock linkage. One for heavy people and one for light. Of course then the average people in the middle might struggle to get the ideal setup.

When shopping I run from bikes that are considered 'rigid' or 'stiff' in their reviews (Pivots, Evils & Santa Cruzs primarily) because I'm 180#s but if I was big I'd specifically hone in on those brands.

Imagine the options for additive manufacturing that could be available someday. You give a non-refundable deposit when ordering a frame and in addition to specifying dimensions they could engineer the appropriate flex and linkage ratios to work with your body size and aggression level.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Suns_PSD said:


> It would be cool if each size frame had a light flexible layup and a stiff layup option and the same consideration for the shock linkage. One for heavy people and one for light. Of course then the average people in the middle might struggle to get the ideal setup.
> 
> When shopping I run from bikes that are considered 'rigid' or 'stiff' in their reviews (Pivots, Evils & Santa Cruzs primarily) because I'm 180#s but if I was big I'd specifically hone in on those brands.
> 
> Imagine the options for additive manufacturing that could be available someday. You give a non-refundable deposit when ordering a frame and in addition to specifying dimensions they could engineer the appropriate flex and linkage ratios to work with your body size and aggression level.


Norco claims to do exactly this with their "Ride aligned" setup they do. They do thinner tubing for smaller sizes, and thicker for larger (although they don't list weights for each frame size, or wall thickness or anything like that).

Raaw does different shock rocker links for heavier riders as well. Which honestly is a great idea.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Suns_PSD said:


> It would be cool if each size frame had a light flexible layup and a stiff layup option and the same consideration for the shock linkage. One for heavy people and one for light. Of course then the average people in the middle might struggle to get the ideal setup.
> 
> When shopping I run from bikes that are considered 'rigid' or 'stiff' in their reviews (Pivots, Evils & Santa Cruzs primarily) because I'm 180#s but if I was big I'd specifically hone in on those brands.
> 
> Imagine the options for additive manufacturing that could be available someday. You give a non-refundable deposit when ordering a frame and in addition to specifying dimensions they could engineer the appropriate flex and linkage ratios to work with your body size and aggression level.


I've never found a frame that was "too laterally stiff". Do people try to make their hardtails flexier (lateally)? Every time I've ever heard of lateral flex with a hardtail, it's been a bad thing...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

Back to the OP...
There is one word that describes the weight obsession, it is ego primarily. Sure there are folks that race extensively and that makes sense in their case however, discipline in competition also can change the metric on weight being a major contributor. The average rider that does a race on occasion can make the choice for themselves as to bike choice and key features and attributes of the bike they choose, afterall, it is their wallet, their desires and dream bike in the balance!


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

BansheeRune said:


> There is one word that describes the weight obsession, it is ego primarily.


Is focusing on weight reduction different to focusing on any other aspect of building a bike though? All these people spending big $$ on 11-6 coil shocks to drop 1% off their fastest strava time on the local loop, for example, or anyone running SRAM ASX because they need the most perfect crisp shifting ever. It's all just money at the end of the day, and as much as we like pretend otherwise I doubt any of the big-dollar builds we lust over (or create) actually make a night-and-day difference to our riding experience. The two fastest guys I regularly ride with ride bog standard Treks ('19 Fuel EX and Remedy, both still on stock Bontrager tyres even) and one hasn't even bothered to figure out which way around his flip chip is installed. So maybe it is ego, but I guess you could say the same about anyone who is riding anything more that what is simply adequate, which TBH is probably most of us. Some people like bikes, some people just like riding bikes...


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

David R said:


> Is focusing on weight reduction different to focusing on any other aspect of building a bike though? All these people spending big $$ on 11-6 coil shocks to drop 1% off their fastest strava time on the local loop, for example, or anyone running SRAM ASX because they need the most perfect crisp shifting ever. It's all just money at the end of the day, and as much as we like pretend otherwise I doubt any of the big-dollar builds we lust over (or create) actually make a night-and-day difference to our riding experience. The two fastest guys I regularly ride with ride bog standard Treks ('19 Fuel EX and Remedy, both still on stock Bontrager tyres even) and one hasn't even bothered to figure out which way around his flip chip is installed. So maybe it is ego, but I guess you could say the same about anyone who is riding anything more that what is simply adequate, which TBH is probably most of us. Some people like bikes, some people just like riding bikes...


When it becomes obsessive-compulsive, it is nothing short of ego. 
Fraankly, I do ride some fine hardware but have no need make it a car payment over the next 7 years kinda thing. 
As the rest of my post that was clipped intentionally stated, go with what tickles ya and makes your dream bike happen.

Unredacted...


BansheeRune said:


> Back to the OP...
> There is one word that describes the weight obsession, it is ego primarily. Sure there are folks that race extensively and that makes sense in their case however, discipline in competition also can change the metric on weight being a major contributor. The average rider that does a race on occasion can make the choice for themselves as to bike choice and key features and attributes of the bike they choose, afterall, it is their wallet, their desires and dream bike in the balance!


So, get the credit card out, purchase the bike you want to enjoy and have a great ride!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

For a lot of people, the gear is as much of the hobby as the sport itself. That's why we see people riding high end bikes that they can't take advantage of that last 5% of performance that they paid an extra $3000 for. That's why people spend time and money putting colorful bits on their bikes. A guy with a Rockhopper started a thread about how his goal is to get it below 25lbs but without using carbon bits; he's bought lots of titanium bolts and is using narrow bars to try to accomplish his goal. I'm pretty sure he won't be racing or trying to get KOMs on Strava.

It's not that weight isn't important, it's just not something most people need to obsess about a lot. Like anything, there are tradeoffs that the rider has to decide which is more beneficial; dropper post adds weight but allows better/easier weight positioning, lighter fork costs a lot more money, etc, etc, etc. And as I mentioned, I think bike manufactures have taken advantage of less focus on weight to beef up their frames so they don't have as many warrantee claims.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chazpat said:


> For a lot of people, the gear is as much of the hobby as the sport itself. .


Shopping is a completely different hobby than riding.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> Shopping is a completely different hobby than riding.


Researching, purchasing/ bartering, installing, dialing in, selling the old one are all part of the game in any equipment intensive activity.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Suns_PSD said:


> Researching, purchasing/ bartering, installing, dialing in, selling the old one are all part of the game in any equipment intensive activity.


I see nothing wrong in appreciating the gear itself. Bikes are nice to look at. Think of it as a sculpture you can actually use.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

I'm starting to have a whole lot of fun with suspension tuning despite not having much of an idea of what I'm doing . Initial results on my fork have been pretty good so far.

I can see the appeal to making a bike have a lighter more nimble feel along with geeking out over parts. I've also met a few people who were a little to smug about how light and fast their bike is. Very small minority of people like that though. Usually you'll find them mid pack in the sport XC racing category.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Nat said:


> I see nothing wrong in appreciating the gear itself. Bikes are nice to look at. Think of it as a sculpture you can actually use.


Some of us have always been fascinated by machinery.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

dysfunction said:


> Some of us have always been fascinated by machinery.


I'm one. This is why running forums are so dull.

"What'd you get?"

"Shoes."

"Cool. What else?"

"Shorts."

"Sweeeet."


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Nat said:


> I'm one. This is why running forums are so dull.
> 
> "What'd you get?"
> 
> ...


With my wife being an ultra marathon runner I can attest to this.

There is some cool and very specific tech in running shoes and hydration packs. It's certainly not machinery though.


----------



## wayold (Nov 25, 2017)

The argument against light weight gear is kind of the argument against e-bikes: It makes climbing easier, but if you want that you must be a pussy. Well hey, I'm old and weak. I like small chainrings and light bikes. No motors for me yet, but in another 10 years who knows.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I'm attached to my shoes, I hate it when they change.. but yea. forums are booooring.


----------



## David R (Dec 21, 2007)

BansheeRune said:


> When it becomes obsessive-compulsive, it is nothing short of ego.
> Fraankly, I do ride some fine hardware but have no need make it a car payment over the next 7 years kinda thing.
> As the rest of my post that was clipped intentionally stated, go with what tickles ya and makes your dream bike happen.


For sure. I wasn't disagreeing with you, more just suggesting that ego is probably the reason why any of us upgrade our bikes beyond what is simply adequate. I feel like people love to beat up on anyone who is even slightly concerned with the weight of their bike, as though it is somehow different to obsessing over other aspects of the bike that also yield miniscule real-world gains for big dollars spent. At the end of the day it's your bike and your money, do what makes you happy!


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

David R said:


> For sure. I wasn't disagreeing with you, more just suggesting that ego is probably the reason why any of us upgrade our bikes beyond what is simply adequate. I feel like people love to beat up on anyone who is even slightly concerned with the weight of their bike, as though it is somehow different to obsessing over other aspects of the bike that also yield miniscule real-world gains for big dollars spent. At the end of the day it's your bike and your money, do what makes you happy!


I agree, and it's unfortunate that (those on the extreme generally) many feel that you need to have the same view as they. Nothing can be further from the truth, the world after all is shades of grey.

btw, if you think this is bad.. try audio.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

ocnLogan said:


> I don't know if I agree with that completely. I think for a skilled/advanced rider that is likely true, but there are a lot of us (myself included, as a intermediate-ish rider) in the "weekend warrior" sort of situation that I don't know if an XC bike would be faster in as many situations as you describe.
> 
> The sensation of being more "comfortable" or "secure" as you say, lets people (like me), who are less than Nino Schurter/Sam Hill gain the confidence to go faster, try new (faster) lines, and ride less tense. And I'd wager that for many people, they "are" faster on trail/all mountain types bikes on more gravity type trails even if the bike itself isn't holding them back.


That is the gist of it, and a common theme in forums. Advanced riders think that what applies to someone at their skill level applies to everyone.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

I don’t upgrade my bike due to ego. I don’t really care if someone else sees or knows what’s on my bike. I upgrade parts because I want to see how it affects the ride.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

CrozCountry said:


> That is the gist of it, and a common theme in forums. Advanced riders think that what applies to someone at their skill level applies to everyone.


Isn't the opposite also true?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Nat said:


> I don't upgrade my bike due to ego. I don't really care if someone else sees or knows what's on my bike. I upgrade parts because I want to see how it affects the ride.


This.

I build my bikes for me. Often with used parts. My bikes are not pretty. I don't post reviews of them, or show my shitty riding, (hint hint, YouTubers) on YouTube. I'd rather keep my level of hackery unknown.

If someone is impressed by them, cool.

If someone thinks it's a turd, cool.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

As with EVERYTHING in life, it's all about compromise. Choosing something that fits your weight, style, & budget. Pretty sure that anyone faced with a choice of 2 bikes, at the same price point, yet one weighing say 25% less than the other, would choose the lighter bike. As long as the lighter one wasn't light to the point of fragile.
Even though my own bike that I built from a selection of all new, cheapish parts, is not super light in a WW sense (11.2 kg for a ready to ride Al trail hardtail) I think it's pretty light for something that's comfortable, & bomb proof for my 96kg weight. However, it took a little bit of research & what you might possibly call obsession to certain details, to achieve that, espicially at the price point I built it to. At what point though, do you start calling it obsessive, or just careful? Running tubeless tyres without sealant? Running ultralight tyres that rip & puncture easily? Smaller brake rotors that weigh less but perform less well? Sanding off the paint? Lighter but uncomfortable items such as un-upholsted seats, & tiny, less ergonomic pedals? Personally, I want something that all I ever have to do, is throw the occasional chain, cassette, or set of brake pads at it, & ride. Yet doesn't weigh a ton. I think everyone has their own level of obsession accordig to their budget, whether they admit to it or not


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Suns_PSD said:


> Researching, purchasing/ bartering, installing, dialing in, selling the old one are all part of the game in any equipment intensive activity.


LOL @ 'equipment intensive activity'.

Spending a bunch of time buying/selling/staring at/messing with stuff isn't riding. It's fine if that's what some people like to do, but if you're not in the saddle, you doing something other than mountain biking, be it shopping, wrenching, or simply wasting time on the internet.


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> LOL @ 'equipment intensive activity'.
> 
> Spending a bunch of time buying/selling/staring at/messing with stuff isn't riding. It's fine if that's what some people like to do, but if you're not in the saddle, you doing something other than mountain biking, be it shopping, wrenching, or simply wasting time on the internet.


It may not be riding at you put it, but I'd say tinkering, upgrading, discussing, shopping for bike related crap is all part of our stoke. If that's all you do and you don't ride then that's another story. Not sure I agree being on the internet for bike related passion is a waste. I enjoy it a lot. BTW, I'm 59 years old and rode 2712 miles and 235,000 elevation gain last year alone. Point is you can tinker, discuss, shop AND ride the crap out of your bike too. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

trmn8er said:


> It may not be riding at you put it, but I'd say tinkering, upgrading, discussing, shopping for bike related crap is all part of our stoke. If that's all you do and you don't ride then that's another story. Not sure I agree being on the internet for bike related passion is a waste. I enjoy it a lot. BTW, I'm 59 years old and rode 2712 miles and 235,000 elevation gain last year alone. Point is you can tinker, discuss, shop AND ride the crap out of your bike too.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Excellent work on the mileage and vert ?. I did far less than that this year, even though it was my biggest year yet. Maybe some year I'll get there.

I have a buddy who self identifies as a "mountain biker". But I think he primarily shops for the sport. He may have had 5-10 rides this year, tops. But, does have laser engraved grips that color match his pedals ?.

The fact that his bike is absolutely lighter and than mine, isn't really an indicator of anything other than how different our budgets are.

ie, there isn't really a need for any correlation between price of bike and skill level/how serious people are about riding. Just enjoyment.


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

Thanks. I will add I also like a light bike and quality build. Even though I weigh over 200lbs, I used to race XC and I still am competitive. Compared to past passions I’ve had like having very fast cars, owning high end bikes is fairly affordable vs other sports and/or hobbies one can get into. I can no longer afford fast cars and other toys so this is my passion and I prefer biking. It helps keeps me fit. I see nothing wrong with those who enjoy counting grams and having a light bike. One could spend money on worse things. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

trmn8er said:


> It may not be riding at you put it, but I'd say tinkering, upgrading, discussing, shopping for bike related crap is all part of our stoke. If that's all you do and you don't ride then that's another story. Not sure I agree being on the internet for bike related passion is a waste. I enjoy it a lot. BTW, I'm 59 years old and rode 2712 miles and 235,000 elevation gain last year alone. Point is you can tinker, discuss, shop AND ride the crap out of your bike too.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Quoted for the truth. I enjoy tinkering, experimenting, upgrading, sidegrading, downgrading, & keeping an eye out for bike parts bargains on the interwebz every bit as much as riding. I haven't done as much riding as I'd like to have the last 20 odd months, not because I can't be bothered or I'm wasting too much time on the interwebz, but because I'm doing physiotherapy 2-3 times a week, as well as other non riding physical exercises, recovering from a broken hip & other injuries. Inattentive drivers can ruin your day in the blink of an eye unfortunately. These things take much longer to recover from as you get older as I've discovered. It won't be like this forever. If I'm going to the trouble of building a new bike to try different geometry, drive trains & the like, why not make it as light as I can within my budget? It's not all about spending big money on big name parts either by the way. If I build it lighter, I can ride further, for longer, possibly faster, for less pain & discomfort in return. That's my excuse anyway & I'm sticking to it


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Dec 25, 2003)

speedygz said:


> Quoted for the truth. I enjoy tinkering, experimenting, upgrading, sidegrading, downgrading, & keeping an eye out for bike parts bargains on the interwebz every bit as much as riding. I haven't done as much riding as I'd like to have the last 20 odd months, not because I can't be bothered or I'm wasting too much time on the interwebz, but because I'm doing physiotherapy 2-3 times a week, as well as other non riding physical exercises, recovering from a broken hip & other injuries. Inattentive drivers can ruin your day in the blink of an eye unfortunately. These things take much longer to recover from as you get older as I've discovered. It won't be like this forever. If I'm going to the trouble of building a new bike to try different geometry, drive trains & the like, why not make it as light as I can within my budget? It's not all about spending big money on big name parts either by the way. If I build it lighter, I can ride further, for longer, possibly faster, for less pain & discomfort in return. That's my excuse anyway & I'm sticking to it


Sorry to hear about your injury and hope recovery goes well. I'm a roadie (for the most part) during the warmer months and something like that is always in the back of my mind.
As far as the original post, 'run what you brung', whether you enjoy riding a 35 pound Full-on DH bike or 20 pound XC bike, just ride.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

This thread is funny. It consists in xc dudes trying to convince trail and enduro dudes that light weight xc bikes are better and more for most things. Enduro dudes stating they don't want to compromise performance for weight reduction. Logical dudes saying loose weight without loosing performance. Illogical dudes saying heavy is better. (No it isn't!)

Me, I'm in the camp of choose the bike for the terrain and riding style. Set it up for best performance first. Then reduce weight second. 

The highest performing lightest bike for any given riding style will be the best option. I have never experienced an instance where weight its self has increased performance.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Then go to the old triangle of weight, performance/strength, cost. 

You can choose 2. If you want light weight with performance it will cost. If you want to spend less you will get lower performance at a higher weight..... You dont get high performance/strength at low cost. .... Choose where you sit on that triangle.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Well, lighter is faster. 

Not a new argument or point of discussion at all.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

One man's ceiling is another's floor. Be happy with your SLX if that's what you can afford, or if that's what you're ok with. I spend my money on brakes and suspension; not so much on shifting now that 1X is easy to come by.


----------



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

Crankout said:


> Well, lighter is faster.
> 
> Not a new argument or point of discussion at all.


Not always, have you seen some of the bikes in the ww forum?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Crankout said:


> Well, lighter is faster.
> 
> Not a new argument or point of discussion at all.


 Definitely not true. There's quite a few changes you can make that end up being heavier but help you go faster. Depends on where you want to be faster and the intended use. Full suspension bikes in general are heavier but have proven to be faster uphill. Rather than terrain constantly robbing you of forward momentum the suspension helps you keep it. If it were a smooth trail suspension won't help so much and the weight would be a burden.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Fajita Dave said:


> Definitely not true. There's quite a few changes you can make that end up being heavier but help you go faster. Depends on where you want to be faster and the intended use. Full suspension bikes in general are heavier but have proven to be faster uphill. Rather than terrain constantly robbing you of forward momentum the suspension helps you keep it. If it were a smooth trail suspension won't help so much and the weight would be a burden.


Take a group of those bikes, and all else being equal, the lightest will be the fastest up those ascents.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Toss some XC tires on a downhill bike and go ride chunk. 

I mean, come on.. common sense please


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

dysfunction said:


> Toss some XC tires on a downhill bike and go ride chunk.
> 
> I mean, come on.. common sense please


If you don't compromise performance, lighter is faster.

Also, I hunt out ride a lot of natural chunck. The steeper the gnarlier the better. For ages I ran a dh rig down the chunkiest of those tracks thinking it was faster/better. Then I discovered my enduro bike was faster. Sure the rig handled the super chunk better and was faster on individual parts of the track, everywhere else the enduro bike ruled.

I also discovered for the rooty loamy tracks a 3c exo max grip minion was faster than a dh casing super tacky minion on those hardest tracks. Sure I gave away some traction on the gnarliest bits. The lighter, less rolling weight but still grippy tread option wins the day. I've now killed the dh wall tires for everything except stupid rocky bike park like wairoa gorge.

So.... It you have to get to a rediculousness level of chunk or rock to make dh casing worthwhile. Plus challenging what you think is true might yeild some interesting results.

Lighter almost always better if you dont compromise performance, even if you let go of some performance in one area you might gain it in another area..... It's finding that balance that suits your style.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Ahh but my point was simply about weight. There are things you can really only make more durable by adding weight. Tires are one of those. Not much is lighter and stronger than dyneema currently (is anyone using dyneema for casing reinforcement? I honestly don't know), at least until we can make graphene components. 

You're correct, it's about balance. I do ultra-light backpacking as well.. and that stuff is expensive, and requires more skill to use without destroying it as well. There are always trade-offs. Choosing those is important.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fajita Dave said:


> Definitely not true. There's quite a few changes you can make that end up being heavier but help you go faster. Depends on where you want to be faster and the intended use. Full suspension bikes in general are heavier but have proven to be faster uphill. Rather than terrain constantly robbing you of forward momentum the suspension helps you keep it. If it were a smooth trail suspension won't help so much and the weight would be a burden.


They CAN be faster up hill in certain conditions.

But, like for like, a lighter bike is faster up and down. If there is no loss of traction, suspension performance, fit, or gain drivetrain or tire friction, a lighter bike is faster.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Fajita Dave said:


> Definitely not true. There's quite a few changes you can make that end up being heavier but help you go faster. Depends on where you want to be faster and the intended use. Full suspension bikes in general are heavier but have proven to be faster uphill.


Um...I don't agree. Elite racers run them locked out uphill too. You start getting pretty far in the weeds as far as time saved by a 20lb HT vs 21lb FS bike, BUT, certain courses make either one the better weapon. You might save 23 seconds over each 4 mile lap with the HT due to the climbing advantage, but now we are getting down into where FS could make a difference on the flat/downhill in terms of being able to make up some seconds, also fighting off fatigue and being able to "hold on" at higher speeds. There are a few situations where FS does better digging into tech terrain uphill, allowing you to continue to pedal, but from experience, that's generally not faster than getting off the bike and running nor does it make up for the sections in between where it's not necessary.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

You are changing bikes entirely. The discussion is about equal traction/ suspension/ frame rigidity/ wheel width/ etc.

Lighter is always faster.

If you remove your 650 gram GX cranks and swap in 400 gram Eewing cranks (no appreciable change in rigidity/ strength/ etc) , that bike will be faster, even if it's imperceptible. 

If you swap your GX cassette that weighs 475 grams for an identical gear ratios X01 cassette that weighs 350 grams, that same bike will in fact become faster up and down. Also more reliable in this case.

And that's before you even consider the weight savings of having less cash to carry around... 

It all adds up when you shop carefully.

And there are even a few spots where you may give up some small aspect of performance, to gain performance in other areas and get a net gain in performance. Tires being the obvious one. Assagais have mad traction, they really do. But if you give up some traction in search of lower weight and a less aggressive tread pattern you will find that you can (for example) lose 3% time/ speed going downhill yet gain 15% everywhere else, resulting in a huge net gain.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

We keep dragging things like suspension performance, durability, budget, and stiffness into the weight argument.

And I can see why..... but that's not what "all other things being equal" means.

If I could I could _JUST_ lower the weight without compromising those other things, I would.

And compared to bikes of yesteryear, I can. I think that's always good and never bad.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> They CAN be faster up hill in certain conditions.
> 
> But, like for like, a lighter bike is faster up and down. If there is no loss of traction, suspension performance, fit, or gain drivetrain or tire friction, a lighter bike is faster.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What climbs faster HT and FS is a super complex question. Having done a ridiculous amount of testing over the years I still can't say for sure.

At the same power output the lighter bike is always faster. But I have found that FS seems to make it easier to climb at a higher power output. In the end, at least with my testing, they always seem pretty darn close to the same speed. Close enough that both are within the margin of error.

One test I always do is the smooth pavement test. I want to know what is my FS giving up the HT if I am on terrain that is optimal for the HT. The FS is always slower but not a lot.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

High power output doesn't help much if your drive wheel is bouncing.. true on road bikes too.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

At this point it seems like everyone is saying pretty much the same thing but with different word choice.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

...
Sent from my moto g(6) forge using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

ghettocruiser said:


> We keep dragging things like suspension performance, durability, budget, and stiffness into the weight argument.
> 
> And I can see why..... but that's not what "all other things being equal" means.
> 
> ...


If I swap out a heavier part, let's say a stem, for a lighter part, that costs the same amount of money, and I lose no stiffness or durability, isn't that a "all other things being equal" comparison?

Or, to take it further:

I build my own bikes. My current ride cost less than the closest equivalent from the manufacturer. Using the same frame, fork, shock and tires as the manufacturer, I've build a bike with a) better durability, b) better warranty c) has better brakes and d) is lighter than the stock bike at that pricepoint.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> If I swap out a heavier part, let's say a stem, for a lighter part, that costs the same amount of money, and I lose no stiffness or durability, isn't that a "all other things being equal" comparison?
> ...
> Using the same frame, fork, shock and tires as the manufacturer, I've build a bike with a) better durability, b) better warranty c) has better brakes and d) is lighter than the stock bike at that pricepoint.


This is true. And some components are subject to be both lighter and functionally equivalent or improved by mfging, design and material changes. But - in practice, there are limits - if you want a 180mm fork, well there's only so much weight you can recoup by materials. At some point, to go lighter you are downgrading the class... flexier chassis or less travel, etc.. I think more people are referencing this sort of compromise when saying "heavier = performance".


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

And of course, if you don't race, like the vast majority of riders, who GAF about a handful of grams/seconds?
Lot of people like to pretend they're some sort of high level rider where it actually makes a difference, when in reality, meh.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> And of course, if you don't race, like the vast majority of riders, who GAF about a handful of grams/seconds?
> Lot of people like to pretend they're some sort of high level rider where it actually makes a difference, when in reality, meh.


Do you have the same level of disdain for all of the overweight men riding custom bikes, or with custom suspension tunes?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Le Duke said:


> Do you have the same level of disdain for all of the overweight men riding custom bikes, or with custom suspension tunes?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


At least with my current budget, both my bike, and I are overweight by about the same amount .


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I dropped a pound off my bike by swapping every bolt for Ti for the same amount as my bar tab the other night. If I didn't have a bar tab I could lose more pounds. Splitting hairs.


----------



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

Anyone remember this bike?










Sure is light. Fast?

That's the gist of what I (and many others) are saying. Totally get and agree with what Duke and others are saying too. Both viewpoints are compatible.


----------



## Mark16q (Apr 16, 2006)

The fun part is keeping all else equal and making it lighter. Ceteris peribus, lighter is faster. Comparing a 20 lb ht to a 35 lb dh bike is meaningless as they are different tools for a different purpose.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> Anyone remember this bike?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldn't ride that on the road. Let alone a dirt surface.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> I wouldn't ride that on the road. Let alone a dirt surface.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd rather ride it on dirt, it hurts slightly less when you slide along it


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

J.B. Weld said:


> Anyone remember this bike?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That the one with the cork "brake pads"?

That level of weight-weenie-ism is a medical disorder. Even the most hardcore XC racers don't do anything like that, their bikes are heavier. They need them to work when they are thrashing them in an XC race, on the downhills, the uphills, etc. There's a line that you don't cross IMO in the pursuit of weight weenie-ism that when crossed, quickly diminishes the bike's off-road capability, no matter what off-road category. Most of the sane people don't approach this, but every once and a while you get the project guys and a few crazy people who think this is a good idea. It either doesn't get ridden, or the person starts breaking stuff and they realize how stupid it was. Again, what is interesting to me is you don't see the hardcore (fast) XC racers doing ridiculous stuff like this. They may run skinnier tires, lighter wheels, less suspension, shorter bars, but they're not putting on the 118 schmolke handlebars, wheels with 8 spokes or any of that other dipsh*t stuff.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Sure lighter for the same performance is faster, but that is not really the subject here. No one thinks you will be faster if you put another water bottle on your bike. The subject is that riders do not look at weight as the holy grail as they used to. Riders and bike companies make tradeoffs that make their bikes heavier. Years ago, they would not.
Funny my buddy told me last year that he will probably never get a carbon bike again after he sold his super build mega carbon (cranks, wheels, everything) enduro bike.

Getting lighter by using equivalent components for a lot more money works only in some places, and it has a limit.
How many people choose to use a smaller range cassette to save weight? Shimano actually made it for the pros.

Droppers: Longer is heavier, for every manufacturer.
Tires: No such thing as light weight without huge performance penalty. I can tell you from riding years on Schwalbe tires with different casings that the lighter they are the more fragile pretty proportionally. Those are expensive tires.

It's not a case of "light strong cheap, pick two". There is no light, strong, expensive in tires.

2020 schwalbe trail tires almost all across the board gained 100+ grams for stronger casings. They know that the market changed. Weight used to be king, now performance, especially pointing down. They are doing what the consumer wants.


----------



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

Jayem said:


> That the one with the cork "brake pads"?
> 
> That level of weight-weenie-ism is a medical disorder. Even the most hardcore XC racers don't do anything like that, their bikes are heavier. They need them to work when they are thrashing them in an XC race, on the downhills, the uphills, etc.


No doubt. I know people who race at pretty high levels and am aware of what kind of bikes they ride, as you say they don't always use the lightest equipment available because lightest isn't always fastest. I only posted the cork brake bike as an extreme example to emphasize that point.

To put things in perspective for riders who aren't racing for their meals, 1 pound will cost you about 3 seconds on a 1 mile 8% climb, from 11.74 minutes to 11.79 minutes @200 watts. Not saying it isn't worth it for amateurs to lose that pound, I love light bikes too.


----------



## 13MikeH (Dec 5, 2020)

I guess I am just a rider. I have a standard hard tail I bought to ride without a lot of issues, I didn't buy based on weight, I bought based on budget and reliability. I couldn't tell you what it weighs off the top of my head. I recently purchased a fat tire, because I wanted to ride in snow/soft sand and found one at a really budget-friendly price for fun cruising rides. That's been my goal. I don't time my rides, I keep track of my heart rate, I keep track of my distance for the sake of my fitness not my PR. There is unquestionably a difference in effort and how much energy I use riding the clearly heavier fat tire. I am riding to make my heart and legs stress...that's the extent of the weight dilemma for me. The post about the internet being a dick measuring contest is spot on. A friend in the early 90's was a NY stock trader...had more money than he knew what to do with it...I offered to help, he laughed instead. He purchased an incredibly light bike...it was cool. That's the value I put in bike weight.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> Do you have the same level of disdain for all of the overweight men riding custom bikes, or with custom suspension tunes?


😄
Simply pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> Simply pointing out the obvious.


I've yet to see you "pointing out the obvious" in any of the recent threads on custom suspension tuning.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Anyway, 29'rs are better than 27.5'rs.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> I've yet to see you "pointing out the obvious" in any of the recent threads on custom suspension tuning.


I guess that makes sense, since I didn't know those threads even existed (nor would I have bothered clicking on them if I did). ?

But if you want, I'd be happy to whip a little reality on people there too. Let me know.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> But if you want, I'd be happy to whip a little reality on people there too. Let me know.


Oh brother


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

Crankout said:


> Anyway, 29'rs are better than 27.5'rs.


No they aren't. 27.5 wheels are smaller, therefore lighter for the same strength. 😝


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

SS rigid 26ers with pinner tires are obviously fastest.
Cuz grams.


----------



## 02_NRS (Jan 27, 2004)

better to ride a tank of 40 lbs.+ a shorter distance & get a better workout.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

02_NRS said:


> better to ride a tank of 40 lbs.+ a shorter distance & get a better workout.


If the power output and time are the same, it's the same workout...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

02_NRS said:


> better to ride a tank of 40 lbs.+ a shorter distance & get a better workout.


If that's all you're interested in, better to just go to the gym and do a weights program


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

02_NRS said:


> better to ride a tank of 40 lbs.+ a shorter distance & get a better workout.


My dad does specifically this actually. Had a heart attack a few years ago, and still wants to ride, but doesn't want to get far from home/out of the neighborhood area so he's within easy reach of help if something goes wrong.

He rides an all steel huffy 26'er (mine when I was a kid). He intentionally rides with low air pressure to increase drag, and actually recently had an issue because he'd apparently worn straight through the rear axle at the bearing interface (the wheel fell out of the frame), and had to source a "new" rear wheel for him.


----------



## billq0000 (Oct 22, 2008)

Ok I haven't posted on a forum in a long time but I read every post and I'm going to chime in. As someone who has a few more advantages than most on being able to test and try 6 to 10 bikes a year all of different levels and test lots of components I can honestly say weight makes a big difference on how a bike feels everywhere. 

Half a pound or more in tires, wheels, crank, cassette, or pedals will all give you noticeable gains if you are in tune with your current bike. If you try tell me that you wouldn't want to make each ride a little more fun and have your bike feel like it wants to take off a little faster and go up hill with a little less effort I wouldn't believe it. 

Now the real reason behind making your bike as light as possible comes down to a few aspects. 
First think of backpacking and how taking 2 pounds out of your pack might not seam like much on day one but by day 2 you will notice it. Shave that extra extra weight where ever you can and on mile 100 on an endurance ride or race you will notice it. This is where the gram counting can start to pay off.

There's the performance gain weight loss for fun that make your every day rides more enjoyable. This is the wheels, tires, crank, pedals, cassette... anywhere there is rotational mass to be lost. Rotational mass lost will always net some performance gains even if doesn't feel like it. 

So I keep reading on this last one here and this is the one that I almost never see and I ride with hundreds of different people each year. This is the aspect of making your bike as light as possible just to do it or brag about it. This just doesn't pay off in a nonpractical application. I've ran into a few people over the years that will do it on the road side of things but this a mountain bike forum so speaking about the mountain bike crowd this is a really low percentage.

Its obvious that this year the sport blew up and we gained a massive amount of new people riding and many are looking to gain performance anyway they can on there new or new to them ride. Weight saving is the easiest way to do this so it makes sense that there are a crazy amount of new people posting about the weight topic.


----------



## 13MikeH (Dec 5, 2020)

Le Duke said:


> If the power output and time are the same, it's the same workout...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually there is a lot of research on short burst/Hiit style training and the benefit of more force less time as well as recovery time. I've never believed the idea walking a mile and running a mile is equal.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

13MikeH said:


> Actually there is a lot of research on short burst/Hiit style training and the benefit of more force less time as well as recovery time. I've never believed the idea walking a mile and running a mile is equal.


Do you run and walk a mile at the same power output, and does it take you the same time?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 13MikeH (Dec 5, 2020)

Le Duke said:


> Do you run and walk a mile at the same power output, and does it take you the same time?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's my point...some theorized it's the same output and your point is accurate. Walking doesn't have the exertion or heart rate increase. Thinking that walking a mile and running a mile are equal is not reasonable. Short burst more intense heavy load is intense. That burst intensity is now proving more beneficial long term compared to lighter resistance over longer duration with power output irrelevant. The idea of the intense up down recover is key.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

13MikeH said:


> That's my point...some theorized it's the same output and your point is accurate. Walking doesn't have the exertion or heart rate increase. Thinking that walking a mile and running a mile are equal is not reasonable. Short burst more intense heavy load is intense. That burst intensity is now proving more beneficial long term compared to lighter resistance over longer duration with power output irrelevant. The idea of the intense up down recover is key.


My point was that whether you are riding a 20lb bike or a 35lb bike, riding at 200w for 20min is the same workout.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

billq0000 said:


> Half a pound or more in tires, wheels, crank, cassette, or pedals will all give you noticeable gains if you are in tune with your current bike. If you try tell me that you wouldn't want to make each ride a little more fun and have your bike feel like it wants to take off a little faster and go up hill with a little less effort I wouldn't believe it.


No way known can I feel 1/2 a pound weight difference. That's the difference between running sealant, and not running sealant in a tubeless tyre setup. Which I've actually done for a couple of weeks, and then changed. Even a couple of pound I'd be very hard pressed to notice. I have to wonder how much of it is all actually psychological.
There's a MTB Park within riding distance of my place that I incorporate a loop of the long track, into my general fitness week night after work rides. I've been riding it for about 5 years now. Conventional wisdom says that my Carbon 29er XC bike with fast rolling tyres should be the faster of my 2 bikes. Yet, the 2 fastest times I've done is on my 27.5 HT aluminium trail bike. They both weigh within a pound of each other, the 29er "feels" faster, yet the GPS doesn't lie. And I'm probably a bit less fit now (recovering from a broken hip) than all the times I set on my Carbon 29er.


----------



## 13MikeH (Dec 5, 2020)

Le Duke said:


> My point was that whether you are riding a 20lb bike or a 35lb bike, riding at 200w for 20min is the same workout.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ok I say we hit the gym. I'll curl 20 pound for 20 minutes and you curl 35 for the same 20 minutes...deal?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

13MikeH said:


> Actually there is a lot of research on short burst/Hiit style training and the benefit of more force less time as well as recovery time. I've never believed the idea walking a mile and running a mile is equal.


Energy wise vs. impact and irritation of joints, also the energy that's required for your body just to function over a longer period of time, I don't think there is a massive difference. The answers are always things like "it depends", but both modes using your feet to propel you, the main difference I see with running is it has a higher impact on your body, but your body is extremely efficient with energy, any way you do it, so just because you feel like running is harder, doesn't mean it takes more energy to do so IMO.


----------



## UK-FLATLANDER (May 22, 2008)

I'm closing in on 60 and have been MTBing for nearly 30 years. Whilst I would never describe myself as a weight weenie, it is an important consideration for me. But then again so is fit, geometry, kinematics and longevity. I think it very much depends on what you like to ride and where you like do it. If you like to climb as well as descend then there is no doubt that, all other factors being equal, a light bike is more fun. This becomes ever more the case if hike-a-bike comes into the equation, another 7lbs on the back is noticeable ( at least to me) after a very short distance. What amazes me these days is that for all the great changes in technology over the past decade or so, is that the bikes have not only got considerably heavier but massively more expensive too.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

billq0000 said:


> First think of backpacking and how taking 2 pounds out of your pack might not seam like much on day one but by day 2 you will notice it. Shave that extra extra weight where ever you can and on mile 100 on an endurance ride or race you will notice it. This is where the gram counting can start to pay off.


This makes sense. But how many people are actually doing 100 mile endurance rides?

To stick with the hiking analogy, a lot of weigh weenies remind me more of someone who cuts down their shoelaces and fanny pack straps down to walk around the neighborhood. 
And of course, they rock a titanium water bottle. 😄


----------



## PierreR (May 17, 2012)

These weight weenie threads always go viral in number of posts within a short time. The banter is always between those whom hang their hats on Newtonian physics, those whom hang their hats on anatomical theory and those whom claim they can feel the real differences.
A small but significant percentage of the general population uses touch and feel as their primary means of interacting with the world. They are largely misunderstood because formal education is based on audio/visual and largely excludes them. Many of them end up underemployed or primarily working with their hands but not always. Many of them are gifted athletically. These folks are the types that are most likely to be true weight weenies. The feel of the bike is everything and they need a bike that feels like its part of them. They know it when they feel it but more often cannot explain why and search for answers. Weight is usually one of those answers. As soon as it is, the analytical types jump all over them to no avail.
I have a unique perspective as I am one of those touchy feely type people but happen to have ended up with a dual degree in Engineering. Metallurgical and Chemical Engineering. My primary mode of operation is touch, feel and perception, not logic. I have to have that "feel" from a bike. If that feel is not there I don't like the bike.
My engineering degrees give me logic to figure things out from the analytical and building perspective.
I have now been mtb for about 9 years. Like everyone else, I presumed that weight was the deal. I pursued that with a high priced carbon full suspension light 22 lb trail bike. Yes I achieved the feel but light and flickable also means its likely to dump you quicker and has low momentum to get you over stuff.
I am now 65 and my reaction times do not match a light flickable bike. My current bike is a 70lb titanium fat bike and I built that bike with that exquisite feel. This bike started out at 44 lbs and has put on considerable weight. For me the things that matter is perceived rolling resistance, low weight tires and where the weight is located on the bike and acceleration. From my perspective the bike has a light feel, but the bike is definitely not light. Touchy-feely types like technical terrain but old bodies do not keep up and I am pursuing a different direction. E fatbike dirt touring.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

JFC


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

Easy answer.

Because it's easier to pedal a 25 lb. bike up a hill vs. 32 lb bike. It takes less energy to do so and makes for a less sore body at the end of the day.

Why do you think car manufactures keep trying to lighten up their cars? Better gas mileage because the engine (just like your body) has to work less.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

13MikeH said:


> That burst intensity is now proving more beneficial long term compared to lighter resistance over longer duration with power output irrelevant. The idea of the intense up down recover is key.


They are two distinct, but important, aspects of training.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Nat said:


> JFC


Jerk-fried chicken? Just for Cix?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Crankout said:


> Jerk-fried chicken? Just for Cix?


lol, Jesus H. Christ

Edit: I know it's only 8:30am but I could go for some chicken...


----------



## Jim in Colorado (Dec 22, 2020)

1) weight matters when climbing; the steeper the climb the more it matters
2) when comparing parts that will perform about the same (I.e. wheels), weight can be a useful criteria
3) it is objective and easy to compare
4) weight is with you for every inch of every mile of every ride for years


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

I'd say it gives me pause when people online are complaining about their 34 pound 29" MTB, and I'm sitting here with a 26" MTB at 37 pounds wondering if I am missing something by not trying to at least weenie down to 34 or less.

Half the people who dismiss weight concerns are like "your bike weighs 34 pounds so what??" .... But my bike has small wheels, a lefty fork, and weighs 37 lb... what's the threshold I should care at?

That's a rhetorical question. I just ride my pig and let God bless it. But it still has me wondering if I am leaving something on the table... Cannondale was supposedly claiming back in the 90's bikes with this frame were in the 25lb range....


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Whiterabbitt said:


> I'd say it gives me pause when people online are complaining about their 34 pound 29" MTB, and I'm sitting here with a 26" MTB at 37 pounds wondering if I am missing something by not trying to at least weenie down to 34 or less.
> 
> Half the people who dismiss weight concerns are like "your bike weighs 34 pounds so what??" .... But my bike has small wheels and weighs 37 lb... what's the threshold I should care at?


Depends. Seriously, there are so many variables that simply stating weight and wheel size means.. not much.


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

I think conventional wisdom on this forum says that GENERALLY, (seriously, generally speaking here. Just general) bigger wheels weigh more than smaller wheels. Especially when it comes to tires. For God's sake, this is generally speaking.

Lefty, outside this forum (we don't talk about it here, it seems), is considered the "light fork". 

So, frame Cdale says in 90's is on a 25lb bike. Fork supposedly light. small wheels which, generally speaking, generally, should be lighter than those bomber 29'ers with DH tires. Yet I'm 37 lbs. Running XT.

The sentiment of "good grief, just go ride" speaks to me more than to be a weight weenie. But again, those folks follow up with 34lb as the benchmark. What if my bike were 40 lb? 42 lb? When should I be caring? never? Just go ride? 

(for the record, that's exactly what I do, cause the bike is 20 years old, still a joy to ride, and has too much sentimental value to sell. But it's still a tic in the back of the head when not riding)


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Whiterabbitt said:


> I think conventional wisdom on this forum says that GENERALLY, (seriously, generally speaking here. Just general) bigger wheels weigh more than smaller wheels. Especially when it comes to tires. For God's sake, this is generally speaking.
> 
> Lefty, outside this forum (we don't talk about it here, it seems), is considered the "light fork".
> 
> ...


Did you leave your bike unattended around friends who may have accidentally dropped some lead weights into your frame? Maybe your scale is broken? If using a bathroom scale to weigh your bike have you wondered why you've been considered overweight for so many years but appear skinny?


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

hehe yeah, I hear you on these. Maybe after 20 years some water got into the tubes? 

nope, none of those things. unless being 6'3" and 145 lb, my scale broken would be a sign of severe health issues for me!


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

prj71 said:


> Easy answer.
> 
> Because it's easier to pedal a 25 lb. bike up a hill vs. 32 lb bike. It takes less energy to do so and makes for a less sore body at the end of the day.


My 25 year old Wheeler is around 26lbs. My son's more modern X-Cal 6 29er was around 31lbs. I can absolutely tell the difference in the weight when putting them on a bike rack. It's a "woah this bike is way heavier" immediate feel when lifting it up on the truck.

But taking a 2 hours ride on either one? At my pedestrian speeds I don't notice the difference in energy output or exhaustion in taking either bike out. Lets think about the physics. Work is force applied over a distance. For us Force is directly proportional to weight. But I'm not just moving the bike I'm moving myself + the bike. I'm 195 and my bike is 26 so I'm moving 221lbs over the course of the trail. On my son's bike I'm moving 226 lbs. That's about a 2.2% difference the amount of work through the course of the ride. As an amateur I'm not pushing the edge far enough to notice a ~2% change in energy output. I'm sure there are some that are pushing the envelope that hard but it isn't me and probably isn't most of us posting on this board.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

prj71 said:


> Easy answer.
> 
> Because it's easier to pedal a 25 lb. bike up a hill vs. 32 lb bike. It takes less energy to do so and makes for a less sore body at the end of the day.


Having a bike with better suspension, dropper post, and tire inserts (all heavier) makes for a less sore body after descending though. It's worth the weight penalty.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Nat said:


> Having a bike with better suspension, dropper post, and tire inserts (all heavier) makes for a less sore body after descending though. It's worth the weight penalty.


It's all about tradeoffs. I'll use a somewhat extreme example of V-brakes versus disc brakes. V-brakes are lighter, cheaper, and less complex than disc brakes. But who in their right mind these days would ever choose the huge performance disadvantage of Vees over disc brakes? Talk about being worth the weight penalty!

A lighter bike is nice, but I think it's a good idea to try to save weight in places that won't affect performance too much. Then you can sacrifice weight for better performance in parts that matter like a dropper, brakes, etc.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> It's all about tradeoffs. I'll use a somewhat extreme example of V-brakes versus disc brakes. V-brakes are lighter, cheaper, and less complex than disc brakes. But who on their right mind these days would ever choose the huge performance disadvantage of Vees over disc brakes? Talk about being worth the weight penalty!
> 
> A lighter bike is nice, but I think it's a good idea to try to save weight in places that won't affect performance too much. Then you can sacrifice weight for better performance in parts that matter like a dropper, brakes, etc.


That's actually a great example.

So in other words, lighter is better as long as it doesn't sacrifice performance. All things being equal, heavier is okay if it provides improved performance and/or durability without being unnecessarily heavy for no reason, and your bike should be tailored to your particular riding situation.

I plan to come back in about 30 more posts to say this same thing again after everyone else has too.


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

What do you suppose about less obvious examples such as tires, maybe cassettes? Forks, and shocks? I suspect the grey is where folks get caught up in.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Whiterabbitt said:


> What do you suppose about less obvious examples such as tires, maybe cassettes? Forks, and shocks? I suspect the grey is where folks get caught up in.


I think a cassette is a great place to save some weight without losing performance.

Tires? Hooboy, I think tires are a very personal choice based on rider preferences, terrain, etc. I don't think you can generalize very much about tires.

Suspension? Well, I guess that's like tires and will depend a lot on the individual rider preference, intentions, and terrain.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

I don't feel like "you" really get to choose tires.

You can choose your riding speed, and the conditions that you ride in... but then you kind of have to run a certain category of tires based on that. I am heavier than the avg rider (200lbs), live/ride in one of the "its wet and slippery" most of the year part of the world (PNW), and according to trailforks data, I'm not super slow. My tires reflect that (~1100-1200g).

Cassette is a great example of weight that many people don't think about. Effectively, you pay to play here, for 12 speed at least. There is something like a 300g difference between NX, and XX1 Eagle in weight.

This is personally where I find the wide range 9 through 11 speed cassettes are most interesting. The Microshift Advent X cassette weighs less than the 12 speed Shimano XT/SRAM GX Cassettes... and costs $65. An interesting value proposition for those that feel they are having to choose between wide range, and a small budget.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

So in other words, lighter is better as long as it doesn't sacrifice performance. All things being equal, heavier is okay if it provides improved performance and/or durability without being unnecessarily heavy for no reason, and your bike should be tailored to your particular riding situation.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Crankout said:


> So in other words, lighter is better as long as it doesn't sacrifice performance. All things being equal, heavier is okay if it provides improved performance and/or durability without being unnecessarily heavy for no reason, and your bike should be tailored to your particular riding situation.


_Furthermore_, if you're uphill-oriented you might favor something different than if you're downhill-oriented, all things being equal of course.

Has anyone mentioned taking a pre-ride dump before your ride being as effective as buying expensive parts yet?


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Nat said:


> Has anyone mentioned taking a pre-ride dump before your ride being as effective as buying expensive parts yet?


it can also be a great motivator to get back to the parking lot as fast as possible.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

DeoreDX said:


> it can also be a great motivator to get back to the parking lot as fast as possible.


Well, or a good way to avoid just that 

Keeps the bibs cleaner too. I prefer it when mine just smell of noxema.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Nat said:


> _Furthermore_, if you're uphill-oriented you might favor something different than if you're downhill-oriented, all things being equal of course.
> 
> Has anyone mentioned taking a pre-ride dump before your ride being as effective as buying expensive parts yet?


If your pre-ride dumps are resulting in you losing 5+ lbs, call the CDC and local health authorities, because you might have Ebola.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

To be fair even a half pound is a lot more weight savings than most very expensive parts will get you.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> If your pre-ride dumps are resulting in you losing 5+ lbs, call the CDC and local health authorities, because you might have Ebola.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're kind of over-blowing this whole weight delta thing by... a lot.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Nat said:


> _Furthermore_, if you're uphill-oriented you might favor something different than if you're downhill-oriented, all things being equal of course.
> 
> Has anyone mentioned taking a pre-ride dump before your ride being as effective as buying expensive parts yet?


For the record, I take no less than 4 dumps prerace. (Never done one in race and I've raced up to 11 hours)

Directed at the question of tires from another poster.:

I find race tires to be no less durable than party tires. 
I may give up 1-3 seconds on a descent, so when you are on the clock for the full effort (not just downhill enduro) but you gain far more time kn flat singletrack, not just up hill. Minions are so incredibly slow. my threshold for sketchiness is much higher and i am used to bombing on a semislick. These internet test video feature normal riders who arent hadd to it and give up huge gaps. When switching to an XC bike. My margin is very very tight.

People think their terrain dictates a 1100-1300 dhf. Thats pure poppycock. I guarantee you there are people rolling the same thing on less tire. If you were poll people in bentonville for example, you will get an 80% bias towards DD and exo+ enduro tires to reliably ride the b40. I rode the trails for months on racing semi-slicks and had the same number of punctures as did on enduro tire. At the end if the day its about line choice. Im a heavy guy but ride light.

There are some places i throw a much more aggressive tire on for safety and pure fun. Sedona for example has wicked fun exposure and i want a big lug so i don't slide off an off camber 400 foot cliff. The off camber rock there also would eat my semi slick rubber off and i would wear through a tires shoulder log in 1 week. So there is that. Braap!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

dysfunction said:


> You're kind of over-blowing this whole weight delta thing by... a lot.


Nit really, you are just conversing with some very analytical fairly successful racers who know exactly how dramatic 3 pounds is. The layman has no idea.

Also, 3 pounds is less dramatic when you are 220. Its like an anchor if you are lightweight.

For reference, people may "train" all year for a 2-3% gain in power. If you are 150 pounds, buying a year's worth of gains isnt such a bad idea?

Plus lighter bikes are zippy and fun. You would have a lot more fun on my 29 pound enduro than the same bike at 32 lbs as it comes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

FJSnoozer said:


> Nit really, you are just conversing with some very analytical fairly successful racers who know exactly how dramatic 3 pounds is. The layman has no idea.
> 
> Also, 3 pounds is less dramatic when you are 220. Its like an anchor if you are lightweight.
> 
> ...


Really? so you're expecting this weight delta to be over 3 kilograms on average? For a casual rider? Considering the total weight savings from the cheapest to the most expensive cassette alone is less than 500grams.. AMAZING

This has now been funnier to read than the last one of these on RBR.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

dysfunction said:


> Really? so you're expecting this weight delta to be over 3 kilograms on average? For a casual rider? Considering the total weight savings from the cheapest to the most expensive cassette alone is less than 500grams.. AMAZING
> 
> This has now been funnier to read than the last one of these on RBR.


What are you talking about?

I believe you are quoting a line of discussion which is not talking about cassettes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Fajita Dave said:


> To be fair even a half pound is a lot more weight savings than most very expensive parts will get you.


This is why one persons bike is wildly different from another.

Here are some of the parts on my bike. Several of them are wear items thats you just upgrade when you need to replace. Thats my strategy. Savings are in "( )"

My comfortable Grips $2 (60g)
My comfortable Seat $40 ( 115g)
Seatpost $100 (110g)
Bar $100 (90g)
Cassette $200 (120g lighter than GX 30 lighter than XX1)
Tires $120 (120g lighter than what came on my bike. And they are better)

Anything in the $1 per gram ratio is a solid investment. There are a lit of random small parts in this category that people dont pay attention to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

FJSnoozer said:


> For the record, I take no less than 4 dumps prerace. (Never done one in race and I've raced up to 11 hours)
> 
> Directed at the question of tires from another poster.:
> 
> ...


I would say that labeling your tires "race" vs "party" tires is a bit of a misnomer. I assume you mean "cross country" tires when you say race. But Enduro, and Downhill tires are still "race" tires, depending on your intentions.

Also, you have had the same number of punctures with "enduro" tires as with "race" (cross country) tires? Are you meaning "enduro" tread patterns, or the heavier casing tires. I've personally not had any punctures since I stepped up to a heavier casing tire, despite going faster. I punctured an EXO DHF straight through the center of the tread.

In the end though, aren't you saying basically the same thing that I was?

You're said you're ok with giving up 1-3 seconds on the downs, to be faster overall in most situations. Great. But then also say that in other situations with higher consequence, you prefer the safety and fun of a more aggressive tire. Also great.

I'm say the exact same thing. I prefer the *safety*, and *fun *of a tire with traction, vs one without where I live (Seattle area of PNW, where its wet and muddy half the year). Because crashing due to a hidden patch of mud under some leaves/etc, or an especially slippery root, isn't very appealing. And since I ride for fun, I gladly accept this tradeoff, and accept being a bit slower on the flats, and climbs. And since I've flatted through thin casing tires, and want traction, that leaves me with the ~1000-1200g tires that I tend to run.

To your point, I'm positive that there are people riding the same trails that I am with less tire, more speed, or both. But I don't think that "I" would ride them faster or having more fun with less tire. The riders going faster, are likely just better riders than I am.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

_Actually,_ lighter is better as long as it doesn't sacrifice performance. All things being equal, heavier is okay if it provides improved performance and/or durability without being unnecessarily heavy for no reason, and your bike should be tailored to your particular riding situation.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

FJSnoozer said:


> For the record, I take no less than 4 dumps prerace. (Never done one in race and I've raced up to 11 hours)
> 
> Directed at the question of tires from another poster.:
> 
> ...


What's your preferred all around trail tires these days?
Also, I'm in complete agreement about taking the overall speed improvement over the 2% faster in the aggressive parts that Minions provide. 
The truth is with smooth riding I can ride pretty aggressively on a more trail oriented tire and I really enjoy the extra speed they can provide overall.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim in Colorado (Dec 22, 2020)

Don’t have to stay who is the guy in front of you? Wait, what!?!


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Jim in Colorado said:


> Don't have to stay who is the guy in front of you? Wait, what!?!


What guy in front of me?


----------



## titopresi (Apr 4, 2006)

it's easier to watch the finger than....the moon.....


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Nat said:


> Has anyone mentioned taking a pre-ride dump before your ride being as effective as buying expensive parts yet?


Another effective technique is to eat a Burrito on the top of the mountain before the descent. The problem is that most trail riders have to carry the Burrito to the top in their backpack, so it evens out. This is why Enduro racers never do it.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

CrozCountry said:


> Another effective technique is to eat a Burrito on the top of the mountain before the descent. The problem is that most trail riders have to carry the Burrito to the top in their backpack, so it evens out. This is why Enduro racers never do it.


The proper technique is to carry the burrito fixings separately. You assemble the burrito at the top of the climb and it's lighter that way.


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

Nat said:


> The proper technique is to carry the burrito fixings separately. You assemble the burrito at the top of the climb and it's lighter that way.


As long as the burrito is not attached to the bike, it doesn't count. Same technique is used when weighing bikes without pedals.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

speedygz said:


> As long as the burrito is not attached to the bike, it doesn't count. Same technique is used when weighing bikes without pedals.


Great idea! From now on I will drag my burrito in a B.O.B trailer behind me.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

One can hit more taco trucks and burrito stands in a given ride with a lighter, faster bike.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Le Duke said:


> One can hit more taco trucks and burrito stands in a given ride with a lighter, faster bike.


I will see if the taco truck will shuttle me to the top then make the burrito. Hot and fresh as possible!


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Nat said:


> I will see if the taco truck will shuttle me to the top then make the burrito. Hot and fresh as possible!


Taco truck at the top, restrooms at the bottom?
That might be the incentive for the fastest laps ever 😁.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Nat said:


> The proper technique is to carry the burrito fixings separately. You assemble the burrito at the top of the climb and it's lighter that way.


Please remember that Continental Black Chili is not actually made of chilis, and Salsa bikes are also not really made of Salsa.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Dec 25, 2003)

CrozCountry said:


> Please remember that Continental Black Chili is not actually made of chilis, and Salsa bikes are also not really made of Salsa.


What!?!?!?!?!?
Next you're gonna say Hawaiian Rolls aren't made in Hawaii and Moon Pies aren't made on the moon.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Nat said:


> The proper technique is to carry the burrito fixings separately. You assemble the burrito at the top of the climb and it's lighter that way.


My friend carries an ear of corn 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

FJSnoozer said:


> My friend carries an ear of corn
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Now that's one I haven't heard of before. I rode with a guy once who took out some Indian curry chicken and rice. I was pretty jealous.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

Suns_PSD said:


> What's your preferred all around trail tires these days?
> Also, I'm in complete agreement about taking the overall speed improvement over the 2% faster in the aggressive parts that Minions provide.
> The truth is with smooth riding I can ride pretty aggressively on a more trail oriented tire and I really enjoy the extra speed they can provide overall.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


Central Texas blown-out loose over hard, i dig a forekasters front and rear. Its incredible when the limestone is wet and will save you from going down.

Though. I've been rolling on the rekon race. Because 1. They are so fast and still have an edge i can lay into almost as hard as any trail tire.

If you cant make these work and want more volume, nobby nic, F/R have a large casing that has been reliable for me throughout texas, Sedona and around the US.

For people who cant make a nobby nic work on the front, i run a 2.35 schwalbe Magic Mary and it is fantastic. I like the way it hooks better than a DHF, and it is way faster riding to trails on pavement.

The only place i really didnt enjoy the forekaster was on kitty litter trails at high altitude like some of the New Mexico high altitude and some Colorado trails that fit that description.

In bentonville, i can make almost anything work, but the Nono/magic i can push as hard as Im capable of in pretty much any trail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Nat said:


> _Actually,_ lighter is better as long as it doesn't sacrifice performance. All things being equal, heavier is okay if it provides improved performance and/or durability without being unnecessarily heavy for no reason, and your bike should be tailored to your particular riding situation.


_In addition_, if you're uphill-oriented you might favor something different than if you're downhill-oriented, all things being equal of course.


----------



## GKelley (Sep 4, 2018)

Unless I loose the 40 extra pounds from my body first, it does me no good to worry about bike weight.


----------



## bikeranzin (Oct 2, 2018)

I think racer types tend to be very concerned about weight because their physiology tends to be at a point where it's not exactly easy to lose body weight. This is the "last few pounds" issue in dieting, but there's also the problem where it's extremely hard to simultaneously lose weight and also get stronger/faster. And, the lines at the port-o-potty at races suggest that the dieting technique of taking a dump has also been discovered.

Losing the forest for the trees is, in general, a bad thing. Be it fixating on weight, suspension, geometry, traction, etc.


----------



## titopresi (Apr 4, 2006)

what about saving weight for the bike.......i prefer be focused on FUN and pleasure being in the nature sometimes with friends....on a honest bike.....


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

bikeranzin said:


> I think racer types tend to be very concerned about weight because their physiology tends to be at a point where it's not exactly easy to lose body weight. This is the "last few pounds" issue in dieting, but there's also the problem where it's extremely hard to simultaneously lose weight and also get stronger/faster. And, the lines at the port-o-potty at races suggest that the dieting technique of taking a dump has also been discovered.
> 
> Losing the forest for the trees is, in general, a bad thing. Be it fixating on weight, suspension, geometry, traction, etc.


This is exactly how I feel on this.

It makes the most sense to me if you're already in your peak physical form. Because losing weight off of the bike (if you care about time reductions) is really the only way to improve. This is why its a huge thing at cross country world cups.

If you're not able to drop your own weight further (for any reason, health, limited time to exercise, already in great shape/whatever), and have the cash, then I can see the desire to reduce the total power output on climbs.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I had a thought last night that applies to this topic. I've been mountain biking for a very long time and have seen bikes get heavier over the years. However, the trails and type of riding have also changed a lot. Back in the day, you'd ride a light bike on what was pretty much hiking trails at slower speeds. Now with dedicated MTB trails, the speeds and steepness of the trails are much greater. People now are hitting big jumps and slamming down steep slopes on their bikes that were unthinkable in the past. 

Of course all this causes a much greater stress on the bike to handle what amounts to near motocross impacts. So new bikes need to be heavier to handle this greater stress. I highly doubt that one of the bikes that I used to ride could stand up very well to the trails and impacts that I'm doing these days.


----------



## titopresi (Apr 4, 2006)

it could be.......but aluminium and carbon bikes are weaker in terms of resistance in front of a good steel bike of the past...


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

titopresi said:


> it could be.......but aluminium and carbon bikes are weaker in terms of resistance in front of a good steel bike of the past...


That's a pretty broad statement.


----------



## Travolta (Oct 26, 2016)

I never weighed my bike, but my cranks alone are arround 1kg.
so, I wouldn't know


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Travolta said:


> I never weighted my bike, but my cranks alone are arround 1kg.
> so, I wouldn't know


My cranks look like they went through the Battle of the Bulge. And they're heavy.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Curveball said:


> I had a thought last night that applies to this topic. I've been mountain biking for a very long time and have seen bikes get heavier over the years. However, the trails and type of riding have also changed a lot. Back in the day, you'd ride a light bike on what was pretty much hiking trails at slower speeds. Now with dedicated MTB trails, the speeds and steepness of the trails are much greater. People now are hitting big jumps and slamming down steep slopes on their bikes that were unthinkable in the past.
> 
> Of course all this causes a much greater stress on the bike to handle what amounts to near motocross impacts. So new bikes need to be heavier to handle this greater stress. I highly doubt that one of the bikes that I used to ride could stand up very well to the trails and impacts that I'm doing these days.


That's probably the best explanation. Even smooth jump lines put way more load on a modern bike compared to what a typical 90s mtb went through. Force drastically increases with velocity and speeds are consistently higher than they used to be due to trail design, bike design and better riders.

There are some gnarly rocky downhills that I hit just as fast or a little faster than I would on a motocross bike. In some cases there's just to much mass on a dirtbike compared to what you can skip over on a mtb. Riding harescramble trails average speeds could be as low as 10 or 12mph.

I'll continue riding my nice 34lbs enduro bike everywhere which hasn't had a single failure in 1200 miles so far. Same can't be said about my last 30lbs trail bike that I broke three times in a row going to a downhill park and the frame cracked around 1500 miles.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

titopresi said:


> what about saving weight for the bike.......i prefer be focused on FUN and pleasure being in the nature sometimes with friends....on a honest bike.....


Hunh?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Just want to point out that this discussion being framed around climbing speed, efficiency, racing, etc is very much an MTB type discussion. It's not uncommon for freestyle bmx riders to pick tires based on weight or to run 18" tubes or tubolitos to save weight at the wheels. I'd say very few are 'obsessed' with weight but they recognize it affects your ability to bunny hop, spin, etc. If you ride dynamically at all, weight has some importance.


----------



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

jeremy3220 said:


> Just want to point out that this discussion being framed around climbing speed, efficiency, racing, etc is very much an MTB type discussion. It's not uncommon for freestyle bmx riders to pick tires based on weight or to run 18" tubes or tubolitos to save weight at the wheels. I'd say very few are 'obsessed' with weight but they recognize it affects your ability to bunny hop, spin, etc. If you ride dynamically at all, weight has some importance.


Wut? All the freestyle bmx bikes I've worked on are absolute tanks, you could hammer nails with those frames. Saving 10 grams by using an 18" tube instead of a 20" one seems inconsequential.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

jeremy3220 said:


> Just want to point out that this discussion being framed around climbing speed, efficiency, racing, etc is very much an MTB type discussion. It's not uncommon for freestyle bmx riders to pick tires based on weight or to run 18" tubes or tubolitos to save weight at the wheels. I'd say very few are 'obsessed' with weight but they recognize it affects your ability to bunny hop, spin, etc. If you ride dynamically at all, weight has some importance.


Depends on what they're doing. My BMX bike was a tank and it was great for casual dirt jump lines. If you're doing tail whips and spins lighter is probably better but even pro bikes are pretty heavy.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> Depends on what they're doing. My BMX bike was a tank and it was great for casual dirt jump lines. If you're doing tail whips and spins lighter is probably better but even pro bikes are pretty heavy.


The midschool bikes were much heavier. Bikes now are anywhere between 23-30 lbs. Regardless, my point is that even guys who don't have to worry about climbing still consider weight to some degree.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Fajita Dave said:


> Even smooth jump lines put way more load on a modern bike compared to what a typical 90s mtb went through.


Didn't we all "Huck to flat" in the 90s? Was it just me? 

Because I broke pretty much everything on my mountain bike being an idiot in the early 90s.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

If I had ridden those 1990s bikes in the old-man fashion I ride now, they _probably_ would have been fine.

Eventually I bought a BMX too around '97 and stopped breaking my MTB. Mostly.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

jeremy3220 said:


> The midschool bikes were much heavier. Bikes now are anywhere between 23-30 lbs. Regardless, my point is that even guys who don't have to worry about climbing still consider weight to some degree.


I have a 1999 freestyle BMX bike from when I was a kid (Haro Cozmo). And you are right, it is incredibly heavy, with 1/2" axles, and 3/8in dropouts, and 48 spoke wheels.

I know guys like Brandon Semenuk run a really light bike, and that at least one of those top slopestyle guys worked with WAO to build their first 26" carbon slopestyle rim. Because yes, when you're worried about if you'll be able to rotate a bike around enough times for a 1080 tailwhip or whatever, it does totally make a difference.

That said, at this point in my life, I'm more likely to ride an enduro or XC race than I am become a slopestyle/freestyle BMX competitor .


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

ocnLogan said:


> Because yes, when you're worried about if you'll be able to rotate a bike around enough times for a 1080 tailwhip or whatever, it does totally make a difference.


No no no, it only makes a difference if you do a double backflip 1440 triple tailwhip. That's when the physics kick in.


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

1. Lift to car rack
2. Car rack weight limitations
3. Aircompanies limmitation on luggage
4. It is easy to spin around in case you do some of this
5. Similar to feeling when length compared


----------



## {|xDi|} (Dec 2, 2020)

I love XC bikes, so naturally for me the lighter it is without compromising durability is top priority. I wouldn't call myself a weight weenie. More of a weight conscious bike rider.


----------



## PEK (Aug 21, 2018)

I have to carry my bike 3 floor up to apartment. If not...stolen immediately. It helps if bike is light.


----------



## Edslittleworld (Jun 6, 2015)

Harold said:


> Mass is NOT weight. You cannot use those terms interchangeably.


On Earth or a similar planet you can.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

Never really gave it much thought. 

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk


----------



## cdn-dave (Jan 6, 2007)

i’m a flyweight surrounded by mountains...


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

It is common (though also lazy and sometimes counterproductive) to ascribe more value in what you can easily measure and quantify.

Weight is a lot easier to quantify and compare than ride quality, geometry, performance, or reliability.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I have discovered the truth:

Humans are inherently lazy and are prone to slovenlyness, to counteract this tendency they employ alternative means to lose weight, such as drinking diet soda while eating a hamburger or choosing non fat milk in their quadruple mocha frapachino.

Outfitting your bike with lighter parts makes it easier to mount said bike on the wall stand for you viewing pleasure. You can gain greater appreciation of said bike by mounting it adjacent to your computer or video monitoring devices.

👍👍


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Nurse Ben said:


> I have discovered the truth:
> 
> Humans are inherently lazy and are prone to slovenlyness, to counteract this tendency they employ alternative means to lose weight, such as drinking diet soda while eating a hamburger or choosing non fat milk in their quadruple mocha frapachino.
> 
> ...


Akin to cheating?


----------



## Whiterabbitt (May 16, 2020)

You guys are making me feel great about my 57 lb e-bike. Why sell it to buy an Orbea Rise or Levo SL? That would be lazy of me. If I have any trouble whipping it around compared to a lighter bike (with the same wheel base and chainstay etc), it's just my lack of skill, technique, and fitness. Afterall, grand masters of professional jumping who are sponsored by red bull and make YT videos, they have no problems on such bikes.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Ignorance is what makes people on this forum chatter with each other endlessly/inconclusively. This isn't an obsession, it's just curiosity. It's a desire for information to combat ignorance. People can't even tell between truth and lies. Weight can be measured at home, so it's something concrete that people can use as a foundation to build information up off of.

Carbon parts offer weight savings. At what cost though? If they were the same weight as other parts, do they offer increased strength/stiffness (str/stiffness to weight ratio)? Ignorance fuels the chatter. Got people faithfully paying for an opportunity to try, to test their beliefs/assumptions. They're paying for that experience as much as that mysterious piece of reinforced plastic. Promises made by manufacturers are examined like snake oil marketing.

People wonder what went into a formed chunk of aluminum that makes it better than another. They don't know, but if they trust a brand isn't the type that puts out parts that break, they might consider it and judge by what they can: weight, appearance, desirability, uniqueness, price, etc. Used to be a time when people would buy from brands simply because they were Canadian.

When people only have a supply of unreliable info like speculation, rumor, re-interpretation, opinion, extrapolation, related anecdote, etc., it's a game of prediction. If you get too into it, you might end up putting money where your mouth is and personally seeing if those predictions are true. People pledging to put money down are "followed" by people expecting reports. The blind leading the blind...

It's like a stage in a cycling lifestyle, from beginner to enthusiast, in which people begin to learn what their needs are. The idea of something being "_proven to work for many_" is doubted, with people thinking they are uniquely special, requiring something more custom. People's purchases are basically trial and error, turning into lessons and experiences to learn of their personal preference.

This is just something that people with money to burn do, with passion/love getting involved and leading to odd decisions. Looking back/down on this kind of stuff makes you seem like some old boomer, veteran, or whatever, which greener generations would reject. Naivety, pride... I don't know what it is that makes them defend their passionate beliefs with calls for justice and respect, but what can you do about it? The industry profits off it and that makes some vets let it happen, for the sake of growth, until they need to shop the market and are appalled by the sorry state it is in. If someone posts conclusive wisdom, the thread-killing nature of it "spoils the fun" and is ignored.


----------



## downcountry (Apr 27, 2019)

Varaxis said:


> Ignorance is what makes people on this forum chatter with each other endlessly/inconclusively. This isn't an obsession, it's just curiosity. It's a desire for information to combat ignorance. People can't even tell between truth and lies. Weight can be measured at home, so it's something concrete that people can use as a foundation to build information up off of.
> 
> Carbon parts offer weight savings. At what cost though? If they were the same weight as other parts, do they offer increased strength/stiffness (str/stiffness to weight ratio)? Ignorance fuels the chatter. Got people faithfully paying for an opportunity to try, to test their beliefs/assumptions. They're paying for that experience as much as that mysterious piece of reinforced plastic. Promises made by manufacturers are examined like snake oil marketing.
> 
> ...


Or...
Folks who can afford light bikes generally have them, and folks that can't, don't.


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

Cause when u try light bike u have no way back; however it is more about n+1 rather then better


----------



## vanamees (Oct 10, 2009)

Why hikers have an obsession with backpack and boots weight?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Sparticus said:


> Akin to cheating?


if not riding makes you faster, then yeait's kinda like cheating ?

I ride a heavy bike, all aluminum with a beefy carbon frame, Trust Shout or Helm Coil for, heavy tires, flat pedals, and I'm not slow climbing or descending.

I think bikes should be built for the way you're gonna ride.


----------



## downcountry (Apr 27, 2019)

Nurse Ben said:


> if not riding makes you faster, then yeait's kinda like cheating ?
> 
> I ride a heavy bike, all aluminum with a beefy carbon frame, Trust Shout or Helm Coil for, heavy tires, flat pedals, and I'm not slow climbing or descending.
> 
> I think bikes should be built for the way you're gonna ride.


Of course bikes should be built for how we ride. That's why "light" weight is relative. 
A "light" dh bike is gonna be heavier than a 
" light" enduro bike, is gonna be heavier than a "light" trail bike is gonna be heavier than a "light" cc bike. That's just generally speaking, of course. 
But my experience over the years is that
Mtb enthusiasts tend to buy the lightest
weight bike that suits their needs and which
they can afford at the time.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

downcountry said:


> Mtb enthusiasts tend to buy the lightest
> weight bike that suits their needs and which
> they can afford at the time.


Meh.
I can afford any bike out there, and yet in 30+ years MTB, I've never weighed a bike, nor a part for that matter.
It's not about money, some people just don't GAF.


----------



## downcountry (Apr 27, 2019)

slapheadmofo said:


> Meh.
> I can afford any bike out there, and yet in 30+ years MTB, I've never weighed a bike, nor a part for that matter.
> It's not about money, some people just don't GAF.


It isn't about the money, lol. 
Practically every thread on mtbr about which bike to buy asks which is the better value, based on price and features. 
Guess you didn't notice I said "tend to", eh?
There are outliers, like yourself. 
But preferring light bikes is a thing, whether
someone agrees with whatever the reason.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

downcountry said:


> It isn't about the money, lol.





downcountry said:


> Folks who can afford light bikes generally have them, and folks that can't, don't.


Saying someone can or can't afford something makes it about money.
That's what those words mean.

Funny thing is, light weight is actually LESS of a thing now when it comes to high end bikes than it was years back. 
People are spending more money and caring less about what the scale says.
I run into far fewer weight weenies IRL these days; mainly just online, whereas bitd, it was a much bigger deal, until people figured out it just meant they spent way too much money for stuff that broke way too quickly.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

silly wabbits


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

I am currently riding the best FS MTB I have owned (My 7th since 2000).

It is also the heaviest.


----------



## Mounttesa (Aug 21, 2017)

So glad it's not. Even as a weight-minded person. The idea that a bike is worthless and not a real bike because it's 1-2 lbs up is so pathetic. Got a light bike, that's sweet. Got a heavier bike, that's sweet too.

That said... I hope there are still options for both ends. Big guys don't need fragile parts. Flyweights don't need heavier built options and can benefit from a lighter bike.

Besides... you all are HTA weenies now. If your fork isn't parallel to the ground, it's already obsolete.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

For me, capability trumps (sorry) weight.

That said, I’ll pick a strong aluminum part over an equally strong (& heavier) steel part. No CF on my bikes. My fav bike is also my heaviest. For me, cost rarely factors into the equation — I choose workhorse components over those that are a few grams lighter/fancier regardless of cost. I figure any additional bike weight makes me stronger. Personally I’d rather have more bikes that function dependably & durably than one uber light wonder machine.

But there was a time when I was in the other camp, so I relate to those who’re obsessed with building that lightweight wonder machine. In my case, I eventually tired of chasing my tail in that regard. Considering how often bike standards change, it can become a hollow pursuit.
=sParty


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Yea, people set arbitrary targets for everything: price range, susp travel, HA, SA, reach, ETT, stack, STL, CSL, weight, availability of direct customer support and close-by service, etc.

Weight's just one of those checkboxes to be marked off. I doubt it'll go away. People are too married to these old habits.

I know people will still shop tires by weight. If Maxxis Minion EXO increases in weight to address the issue of easily pinch flatting, I wonder how many would be looking for an alternative. Being too light is why I stopped buying them, and the DD version's 50% more expensive. I was open enough to try a 1500g tire and then a 1300g tire after it. The 1500g tire rolled way faster and lasted longer, and generally was more of a joy to ride, but the 1300g tire was a very unique and worthwhile experience. Most my regrets were from shopping lightweight and expensive...


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

kapusta said:


> I am currently riding the best FS MTB I have owned (My 7th since 2000).
> 
> It is also the heaviest.


I'm currently riding (my SJ) the best FS MTB I have owned (my 16th mtb since 1989).

It's also one of the lightest.

I tend to pick a carbon frame, then throw a bunch of carbon at it and see what sticks...


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Sparticus said:


> For me, capability trumps (sorry) weight.
> 
> That said, I'll pick a strong aluminum part over an equally strong (& heavier) steel part. No CF on my bikes. My fav bike is also my heaviest. For me, cost rarely factors into the equation - I choose workhorse components over those that are a few grams lighter/fancier regardless of cost. I figure any additional bike weight makes me stronger. Personally I'd rather have more bikes that function dependably & durably than one uber light wonder machine.
> 
> ...


Unless you're doing bicep curls, no, a heavier bike doesn't make you stronger. You just ride slower with a given effort.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

Le Duke said:


> Unless you're doing bicep curls, no, a heavier bike doesn't make you stronger. You just ride slower with a given effort.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm okay with this.
=sParty


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

The more I weight save on the bike the more my wallet decreases in weight also. 

The more my wallet decreases in weight the more annoyed my wife gets at the ever diminishing pool of cash. 

So........

The calculation becomes a weight reduction V rage factor increase. Its not a straight line either. As the weight gains become less and the spending becomes more the rage factor compounds into ever increase levels of annoyance. .....


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

plummet said:


> The more I weight save on the bike the more my wallet decreases in weight also.
> 
> The more my wallet decreases in weight the more annoyed my wife gets at the ever diminishing pool of cash.
> 
> ...


Eventually there is an equilibrium reached but there is hell to "pay" on the road to it.


----------



## walkerwalker (Jul 17, 2020)

I'm not at all obsessed with weight, but when buying new parts it should be on your mind. Why not? If two parts cost the same, function the same, and have the same reliability than why not get the one that weighs less? 

I just got some blackburn slick bottle cages for $10 a piece. They're only 22 grams. The carbon fiber ones at that weight are $60, $80, $100+ dollars. Again, I'm not weight obsessed at all, but at $10 why not get the lighter one?


----------



## Dan Zulu (Jul 5, 2008)

I'm not obsessed with weight and prefer durability. I will, however pay more for quality components that are of reasonable weight to keep the bike reasonable. Sometimes you have to either lift the bike over obstacles or just go home. If the bike is 40 pounds it is a problem. Same with long ascents on logging roads.


----------



## David C (May 25, 2011)

Real weight wheenies still rides 26" wheels. Bigger wheels = more weight.

That's the only truth you'll ever find in life.


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

Many of my friends do and their stuff breaks far more often haha. Ridiculously light saddle clamps, brake levers, posts, spokes, carbon hoops, fancy colored aluminum nipples, eggbeater self-exploding pedals and thin walled tires to name a few.

I tend to go for things that last. "Heavy" Chris King hubs, brass nipples on my wheel builds, non-titanium bolts, beefier carbon bars and posts, ...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Dan Zulu said:


> Sometimes you have to either lift the bike over obstacles or just go home. If the bike is 40 pounds it is a problem.


Are you disabled in some way?


----------



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

slapheadmofo said:


> Are you disabled in some way?


I'm skinny & weak so yeah, sort of. Lifting a 40# bike over a fence might f- up my back.

30 lb > 40 lb. Strength & functionality being equal the only reason to buy a heavier bike is lack of funds. IMHO.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm skinny & weak so yeah, sort of. Lifting a 40# bike over a fence might f- up my back.
> 
> 30 lb > 40 lb. Strength & functionality being equal the only reason to buy a heavier bike is lack of funds. IMHO.


LOL! You ride trails that involve jumping a lot of fences often? And that extra few pounds would be the make or break between continuing and and having to turn around and go home. I call BS. 

The bike I currently ride the most is definitely heavier and 'cheaper' than many here (though I do have a number of other bikes). I could drop $7-8k on a top of the line bike right now without batting an eye if I felt like it, but IME it wouldn't really add much to my overall riding experience and would be little more than an exercise in conspicuous consumption, which is of obviously a huge part of MTB (and life in general) for a lot of people. I ride with a lot of people with the same mindset. Just like I could afford new vehicles every year, or a bigger house, or a lot of other stuff, but don't because I'm fine with what I have. I actually spent a lot more on bikes when I was much less able to afford them than I can currently. ?‍♂


----------



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

slapheadmofo said:


> LOL! You ride trails that involve jumping a lot of fences often? And that extra few pounds would be the make or break between continuing and and having to turn around and go home. I call BS.


It's nice that we can both do what we want. I promise I won't berate your porky sled but please return the favor


----------



## Dan Zulu (Jul 5, 2008)

Let’s put it this way; I have had twelve surgeries in the last nine years. Bicycling is one of the few fitness activities that isn’t painful (and without Ergon grips it is).


----------



## BansheeRune (Nov 27, 2011)

plummet said:


> The more I weight save on the bike the more my wallet decreases in weight also.
> 
> The more my wallet decreases in weight the more annoyed my wife gets at the ever diminishing pool of cash.
> 
> ...


Translation, plummet isn't gettin any after the Mrs. sees the credit card statement... Then The Mrs. lowers the boom!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> It's nice that we can both do what we want. I promise I won't berate your porky sled but please return the favor


For sure. Just don't think a porky sled necessarily equals a skinny bank account.


----------



## r-rocket (Jun 23, 2014)

I just skimmed through the posts on this thread, and all the posts about poop stuck out.

I'll rather spend the extra money on light but strong parts, vs having to force pinching off a loaf before every ride to make up for heavy cranks, and grunting out anther stinker to counter heavy bars, and bearing down hard for that 1/2 lb frame difference. With all the light parts on my bikes, I'd have to take entire ex-lax bars to make up the difference!


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

Varaxis said:


> I know people will still shop tires by weight. If Maxxis Minion EXO increases in weight to address the issue of easily pinch flatting, I wonder how many would be looking for an alternative.


Yet another reason I just can't wrap my head around the weight obsession. Many of the same people who pour over frame weights and which bike saves them 10oz here or there are the same people that are happy to run a tire like the Minion. 10oz on your frame is uber important, but running a tire that rolls like it's coated in peanut butter is no biggie.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

r-rocket said:


> With all the light parts on my bikes, I'd have to take entire ex-lax bars to make up the difference!


Ex-lax comes in bars now?! This sounds like a fun Saturday experiment... Last one to finish the whole thing loses.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Yet another reason I just can't wrap my head around the weight obsession. Many of the same people who pour over frame weights and which bike saves them 10oz here or there are the same people that are happy to run a tire like the Minion. 10oz on your frame is uber important, but running a tire that rolls like it's coated in peanut butter is no biggie.


Cause they need the grip or puncture resistance. Pretty simple really. 10oz is 10oz.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Yet another reason I just can't wrap my head around the weight obsession. Many of the same people who pour over frame weights and which bike saves them 10oz here or there are the same people that are happy to run a tire like the Minion. 10oz on your frame is uber important, but running a tire that rolls like it's coated in peanut butter is no biggie.


If Minions roll like they're coated in peanut butter, then my current tires must be coated in like... cookie dough, or maybe crunchy peanut butter. But its because I ride in peanut butter (mud, wet roots, and mossy rocks), and I'd prefer to keep my face out of it. Minions don't do great in loose mud, as they're more of a "hero dirt" to hardpack tire IMO.

I actually consider Minions to roll fairly well for what they are. In fact, I've considered throwing one of my old DHF's on the back for the summer to save some weight/rolling resistance. Maybe I'm twisted though.


----------



## r-rocket (Jun 23, 2014)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Ex-lax comes in bars now?! This sounds like a fun Saturday experiment... Last one to finish the whole thing loses.


LOL!

I have to admit I don't really know anything about Ex-lax. But the humor value of the visual was just too good to pass up.

I'll have to start another thread on who can take the most laxatives and poop out the entire weight of their bike.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

jeremy3220 said:


> Cause they need the grip or puncture resistance. Pretty simple really. 10oz is 10oz.


If you think the Minions are the best rolling tire that offer puncture resistance, you really need to try a few new tires. EXO is nothing special and the Minion has horrible rolling resistance. Vittoria's TNT is just as reliable as EXO, and they have a handful of tires that grip and roll better than the Minion.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> If you think the Minions are the best rolling tire that offer puncture resistance, you really need to try a few new tires. EXO is nothing special and the Minion has horrible rolling resistance. Vittoria's TNT is just as reliable as EXO, and they have a handful of tires that grip and roll better than the Minion.


Didn't say they were the best rolling tire.


----------



## Travolta (Oct 26, 2016)

the question rather is where one draws the line. 
if weight didn't matter at all why not ride 50kg bikes?

of course weight matters.
more to some, less to others.
still, to at least some degree, to everyone.

idc much about weight. my XC bike is arround 15kg.
wouldn't want it to gain additional weight though. loss is appreciated.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

r-rocket said:


> LOL!
> 
> I have to admit I don't really know anything about Ex-lax. But the humor value of the visual was just too good to pass up.
> 
> I'll have to start another thread on who can take the most laxatives and poop out the entire weight of their bike.


Maybe run a search on the 50+ forum for a colonoscopy thread?


----------



## r-rocket (Jun 23, 2014)

MOJO K said:


> Maybe run a search on the 50+ forum for a colonoscopy thread?


I STFA'ed that thread, but that thread was useless without pics. 🙈
Sounded like all I needed was to mount my gopro on my 175mm dropper post to DIY.

(seriously though, for grins I searched. And there actual IS a thread titled "colonoscopy" in the 50+ forum!!! Lots of stuff I never knew. They made it sound so fun I think I'll have 2 colonoscopies Friday night)


----------

