# Looking into new bikes..anyone else notice the weight of bikes now?



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

Ive never been much of a weight weenie, but Ive noticed some pretty hefty weights on some new bikes.
I was looking at the polygon sisku line.. Seems like descent bikes that rate well and are just under 2k.
But I noticed the weight on their own site 36.5 pounds!!
Does that number not ring bells for people?
So is 2k for a descent bike at 36 pounds normal?
Ive heard 34 or so is pretty normal.
But even thats kind of high in my opinion and these bikes dont get weighed with pedals or a dropper post!!
So again another big question arises in my mind is spending 2k and getting a size bigger wheel and a couple degrees slacker head tube and an inch more travel worth the heft?
Im riding an old sworks enduro and just for compairison.. Here it is on a scale 31lbs with pedals and dropper post no really crazy light parts either.
Over 5 lbs lighter!!! thats not chump change!!
I might as well ride an old downhill bike at 37 38 pounds!
Am I the only one seeing this?? I doubt it ..seems like a lot of bike to get up steep climbs.
Is weight now somehow a non issue?


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

Yeah and is why I don't ride full suspension. The price to get under 30 lbs is nuts. I had a ProFlex back in the day, weighed 26.5 lbs and was all I needed. My alu HT is at that weight now and is as heavy as I want a bike to be. I see no point in 35 lbs.


----------



## ehfour (Oct 17, 2016)

New Geo>Weight


----------



## OldMike (Apr 30, 2020)

The new size tires (29") add weight as does the longer Frame needed to house them.
But IME the new Geo more than compensates the difference.
I had my old 2003 Jamis Dakar out today and I was struggling with climbs I normally easily clean
on my 2021 SJ Comp Carbon.
Both weigh the same and the climbs were not technical so the main difference was........Geo!

The newer Geo and body placement easily overcomes signifciant weight IME.


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

You're looking at a $2k Polygon and comparing to an S-Works enduro and confused about the difference? Really? The current S-Works Enduro weighs about 32.5 lbs.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

PhillipJ said:


> You're looking at a $2k Polygon and comparing to an S-Works enduro and confused about the difference? Really? The current S-Works Enduro weighs about 32.5 lbs.


Yes im comparing it to a 17 year old bike!! READ!!


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

Catmandoo said:


> Yeah and is why I don't ride full suspension. The price to get under 30 lbs is nuts. I had a ProFlex back in the day, weighed 26.5 lbs and was all I needed. My alu HT is at that weight now and is as heavy as I want a bike to be. I see no point in 35 lbs.


I MISS MY 957!! minus the girvin fork though!!! Lol


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

Bigger wheels = more weight

Tubeless setups - when I swapped it saved maybe 200g (I was using lightweight tubes to be fair) but then people are throwing in inserts to protect their expensive wheels so even more weight.

Used to be a 24mm inner rim width was big. Now if under 30 you are not a real biker. = Moar weight.

Durable tires for more support (especially tubeless) = weight

Sub 30lb bikes (29ers) are becoming more rare for sure but they are more durable.


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

Yeah so in 17 years the S-Works Enduro is physically bigger (for any given size), has bigger wheels, more travel, better tyres, suspension and brakes, pedals better, descends better and is only about half a kg heavier. Sounds like a win to me.


----------



## Grinchy8 (Jul 6, 2021)

I'm also from the past and think the current bike weights are nuts. I'm in the process of building a steel hardtail (mid budget) and it's pretty amazing how fast the weight adds up, even when trying to be weight conscious. 

A rear i35 singlespeed wheel with 29+ tire (825g) and a cushcore+ is 2519 grams . . . And that's using a light hub and triple butted spokes and a single speed cog. Drop the cushcore and it's only 2250 grams, but still . . .

Right now (unbuilt with some placeholder weights) the total bike with pedals and dropper is 28 1/4 lbs


----------



## wayold (Nov 25, 2017)

Just waiting for someone to say "capable" as the catch all excuse for new bikes being heavy as tanks.


----------



## Grinchy8 (Jul 6, 2021)

I should add my 1998 FSR restomod with a DHF on it is around 30lb at 130/130 travel. It started at 29ish in 1998 with 100/100.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Dangit, I'd almost forgotten I want this bike. Y'all old curmudgeons feel free to ride your old rattly no-dropper ejecto-bikes with V-brakes and complain about how things used to be great. 😂


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

wayold said:


> Just waiting for someone to say "capable" as the catch all excuse for new bikes being heavy as tanks.


A mid-range Scott Spark is 31lbs. Hardly heavy and likely just as capable as a 17 year old Enduro. At the other end of the spectrum my mid-range alloy 29" All Mountain bike is 36 lbs but it's way more capable than a 17 year old Enduro headed down and much nicer to pedal up. 

Options for everyone, disregarding current bike shortages. Some people just like to complain.


----------



## spaightlabs (Dec 3, 2011)

Lift some weights, grow some quads, glutes and hams and quit whining.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

From my perspective, the bikes that can handle the trails I like to ride and the way I like to ride them have come down in weight significantly in the last 20 years. A big travel, durable bike like my old SC Bullit used to weigh 42 pounds or more. The modern enduro bike is 8-10 pounds lighter and still every bit as capable if not more so because of better geometry.

If you like XC riding you can still get a very light bike, but it’ll also have better geo and will be a lot more stable should you choose to push it beyond general XC terrain.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

PhillipJ said:


> Yeah so in 17 years the S-Works Enduro is physically bigger (for any given size), has bigger wheels, more travel, better tyres, suspension and brakes, pedals better, descends better and is only about half a kg heavier. Sounds like a win to me.


Maybe im missing your meaning im comparing my old enduro to a new sisku a 2k bike at 36+lbs.
Im pretty sure the new enduro is 32 33 lbs ya but its more than a 2 k bike.
I guess im trying to justify spending good money for a heavy bike.
Isnt the weight an issue??


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

PhillipJ said:


> A mid-range Scott Spark is 31lbs. Hardly heavy and likely just as capable as a 17 year old Enduro. At the other end of the spectrum my mid-range alloy 29" All Mountain bike is 36 lbs but it's way more capable than a 17 year old Enduro headed down and much nicer to pedal up.
> 
> Options for everyone, disregarding current bike shortages. Some people just like to complain.


I dont see it as complaining its more just wondering!!
Espcially at the money you plunk down for these bikes.
Well over 3k if you want anything under 34lbs.
And the new geo makes the extra weight just go away?


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

RETROROCKS said:


> Maybe im missing your meaning im comparing my old enduro to a new sisku a 2k bike at 36+lbs.


Yeah, you're comparing an S-WORKS, that is, the absolute best Enduro you could buy, to an entry level bike from a brand that mostly prioritises affordability. Your comparison makes no sense. In 2010 the FRAME ALONE of an S-Works Enduro was almost $3000. 

If you compare your S-Works to a current S-Works then that's a more valid comparison but your complaint about weight no longer makes sense because an S-Works Enduro isn't heavy.



RETROROCKS said:


> I guess im trying to justify spending good money for a heavy bike.


Then don't? There are plenty of options around 31lbs.



RETROROCKS said:


> Isnt the weight an issue??


Seems like it is for some people and not for others, that's why there are options from ~30lbs up to ~38lbs in the trail, all-mountain and enduro segments.


----------



## DeeCount (Oct 3, 2020)

RETROROCKS said:


> Maybe im missing your meaning im comparing my old enduro to a new sisku a 2k bike at 36+lbs.
> Im pretty sure the new enduro is 32 33 lbs ya but its more than a 2 k bike.
> I guess im trying to justify spending good money for a heavy bike.
> Isnt the weight an issue??


I read his response to mean you're comparing a very high end bike from 2004 to an entry level-ish bike from today. Your 2004 S-Works Enduro retailed at $4,880, which in 2021 dollars is $7,086. So if you spent $7k today you could get a bike that is larger but with better geo than your 2004 that probably weighs the same or less.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

cookieMonster said:


> From my perspective, the bikes that can handle the trails I like to ride and the way I like to ride them have come down in weight significantly in the last 20 years. A big travel, durable bike like my old SC Bullit used to weigh 42 pounds or more. The modern enduro bike is 8-10 pounds lighter and still every bit as capable if not more so because of better geometry.
> 
> If you like XC riding you can still get a very light bike, but it’ll also have better geo and will be a lot more stable should you choose to push it beyond general XC terrain.


I guess id agree with that but your gonna spend 4k for that lighter more capable bike.
So how much more capable bike do i need for trails I was riding back in the day with 3" travel bikes??
Its just a hard to justify purchase in my opinion.
But ya new bikes are cool!


----------



## xjbaylor (Sep 22, 2006)

RETROROCKS said:


> Isnt the weight an issue??


Yes and no. Is it ideal? Not really. Do all of the other changes make the weight worthwhile? Yes, for most people. 

Again, you are comparing a bike that was top of the line in its day. Your Enduro has travel comparable to a Transition Spur, and had a similar price tag as well in it's day. The Spur can easily be built around 25 lbs. That means it is lighter, with better suspension, better geometry, better brakes, better roll over, better tires, stronger wheels, etc. It is a cherry-picked example, but so is yours. 

A newer bike will probably also have the length of a bike 2-3 sizes larger than your enduro, meaning a lot of extra material. The current Enduro, though it shares a name, isn't even close to a comparable bike. It is more capable than any downhill bike from the early 2000's, and also pedals better (at least in technical terrain) than any full suspension _race_ bike from the same era. 

Yes, modern affordable full squish bikes are heavy. It is the trade off to allow them to perform well in so many other areas. But many of them are getting fully modern geometry, and that alone should be celebrated. In the past a lot of entry level bikes got hand-me-down geometry so they wouldn't compete with the flagship bikes.

I love my old SS, but make no mistake, my modern bikes are better in every way. The old bike is only fun because it makes easy trails more exciting.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

PhillipJ said:


> Yeah, you're comparing an S-WORKS, that is, the absolute best Enduro you could buy, to an entry level bike from a brand that mostly prioritises affordability. Your comparison makes no sense. In 2010 the FRAME ALONE of an S-Works Enduro was almost $3000.
> 
> If you compare your S-Works to a current S-Works then that's a more valid comparison but your complaint about weight no longer makes sense because an S-Works Enduro isn't heavy.
> 
> ...


Yeah it does im comparing a 17 year old bike with old descent parts.
Im not sure why your throwing a 2010 enduro frame in the mix thats a whole diff bike.
I realize you can buy lighter bikes.. but your now in the 3 to 4k range!!
So is it worth that price tag to get that level of a bike versus keeping the old ride.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

No one is forcing you to buy. But there's no way I want to go back to early 2000s geometries.


----------



## rtsideup (Mar 21, 2012)

Meh, back in the day we had light XC bikes (25lbs), and heavy DH bikes (40+lbs). Now we've got a full spectrum from sub 20 to E-bike madness. I like the options.
Last fall I spent $3500 for a used 2019 150/140 trail bike with modern geo; 30.5lbs with pedals and dropper. I'm sure that I could have found a shorter travel XC bike in the 25lb range, for a similar price, if that was my jam.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

RETROROCKS said:


> I guess id agree with that but your gonna spend 4k for that lighter more capable bike.
> So how much more capable bike do i need for trails I was riding back in the day with 3" travel bikes??
> Its just a hard to justify purchase in my opinion.
> But ya new bikes are cool!


If you were happy riding a 3” bike with old school geo, would you consider a modern hardtail? You could get a lot more bang for your buck that way and they are very capable in most situations.

I had an aluminum Kona Honzo and this year got a Honzo ESD. It weighs about 33 pounds, but honestly I love it for everything, including long backcountry rides with a lot of elevation gain. I intend to shave some weight, but honestly it doesn’t feel heavy when I ride it. I could drop quite a bit of weight just with tires.

It really comes down to what’s important to you. If you’re all about going fast uphill and race XC and time all your climbs, then yes, you need a lighter bike. But at 30-33 pounds and good climbing geo, you can still ride all day, just maybe not at XC World Cup speeds. For me, the durability, suspension, and traction on the downhills are worth the heftier weight.


----------



## fly4130 (Apr 3, 2009)

I think some people need to get out of the spec sheets and actually ride a bike. My current hardtail (RIP for the moment with a cracked chain stay, here is to hope not for long) weighs something like 4-6 pounds more than my last one depending on winter vs summer mode. I never actually weighed either. Went from an older 26er to a newish fat bike with a 29+ wheelset. Tires alone added several pounds. 

I am much faster on the new bike and it is far more capable at nearly everything. On the trail, in the real world, the weight makes no material difference. The odds of a 35ish pound modern bike having a better ride than a 26ish pound 15-20 year old bike are pretty darn high. And a 2k Polygon or any other ID bike in that range is still very much entry level. Even 4k today is not going to get light plus strong tier components.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

2k for a full suspension is basically not worth it new. For 2k you get a great hardtail. For 2k you can get a great 2 to 3 year-old full suspension. 

Weight doesn't really matter. But 37 does start to feel heavy.

My modern hardtails are in the range of 27 to 33 pounds depending on intended purpose. But are also $3.5k to 5k each.

I would be okay with 37 pounds for an enduro bike, for trails I "was happy back in the day with 3 inches of travel" I would want a modern hardtail. Those trails sound perfect for today's hardtails.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

cookieMonster said:


> If you were happy riding a 3” bike with old school geo, would you consider a modern hardtail? You could get a lot more bang for your buck that way and they are very capable in most situations.
> 
> I had an aluminum Kona Honzo and this year got a Honzo ESD. It weighs about 33 pounds, but honestly I love it for everything, including long backcountry rides with a lot of elevation gain. I intend to shave some weight, but honestly it doesn’t feel heavy when I ride it. I could drop quite a bit of weight just with tires.
> 
> It really comes down to what’s important to you. If you’re all about going fast uphill and race XC and time all your climbs, then yes, you need a lighter bike. But at 30-33 pounds and good climbing geo, you can still ride all day, just maybe not at XC World Cup speeds. For me, the durability, suspension, and traction on the downhills are worth the heftier weight.


Yep, my paradox is just over 27 lbs currently


----------



## Calsun (May 12, 2021)

Want a lightweight mountain bike for less than $3,000 you will need to find a used carbon frame bike on Craiglist. Even my aluminum alloy hardtail in a medium weighs 28 lbs.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

2k is an entry level bike, so I am not sure what you are expecting.

My first ever mountain bike was a 2011 norco wolverine hardtail. It was a 34 pound 26er with a 120 coil fork. 


You are comparing a janky Sworks you own to a new heavy boutique bike that doesn’t prioritize weight. 

For comparisons sake, my wife’s 2018 Sworks enduro is 160/160 and weighs 29 pounds. It’s a dream bike. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

RETROROCKS said:


> Yeah it does im comparing a 17 year old bike with old descent parts.
> Im not sure why your throwing a 2010 enduro frame in the mix thats a whole diff bike.


I couldn't find any prices for your "17 year old bike", the 2010 was the closest that was easy to find.

I'm unsure how you're missing the point so badly here some I'm going to use bigger letters and less words.

YOUR BIKE IS EXPENSIVE.

CHEAP BIKES ARE HEAVIER THAN EXPENSIVE BIKES.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

spaightlabs said:


> Lift some weights, grow some quads, glutes and hams and quit whining.


Haaw


xjbaylor said:


> Yes and no. Is it ideal? Not really. Do all of the other changes make the weight worthwhile? Yes, for most people.
> 
> Again, you are comparing a bike that was top of the line in its day. Your Enduro has travel comparable to a Transition Spur, and had a similar price tag as well in it's day. The Spur can easily be built around 25 lbs. That means it is lighter, with better suspension, better geometry, better brakes, better roll over, better tires, stronger wheels, etc. It is a cherry-picked example, but so is yours.
> 
> ...


Yes I get its an IT bike the one to have but its 17years old!!


cookieMonster said:


> If you were happy riding a 3” bike with old school geo, would you consider a modern hardtail? You could get a lot more bang for your buck that way and they are very capable in most situations.
> 
> I had an aluminum Kona Honzo and this year got a Honzo ESD. It weighs about 33 pounds, but honestly I love it for everything, including long backcountry rides with a lot of elevation gain. I intend to shave some weight, but honestly it doesn’t feel heavy when I ride it. I could drop quite a bit of weight just with tires.
> 
> It really comes down to what’s important to you. If you’re all about going fast uphill and race XC and time all your climbs, then yes, you need a lighter bike. But at 30-33 pounds and good climbing geo, you can still ride all day, just maybe not at XC World Cup speeds. For me, the durability, suspension, and traction on the downhills are worth the heftier weight.


Cant do a hard tail too much for my bad ankle.
I guess for me. Im having a hard time justifying the cost.
I get that they are beefier and better angles and tech and all that but how much MORE do we really need?
I may be an oddity.. I used to race motocross so I know how to throw a bike around. So for me angles, thru axles, tire size dont really matter.
Just how much "more" does a bike really need??


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Then keep your 17 year old bike. I'll get off your lawn


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

PhillipJ said:


> I couldn't find any prices for your "17 year old bike", the 2010 was the closest that was easy to find.
> 
> I'm unsure how you're missing the point so badly here some I'm going to use bigger letters and less words.
> 
> ...


and im having trouble understanding why you dont see that and ill say this slow.. its 17. year. old. tech!!
And im not exclusively limiting it to the polygon line im talking new bikes in general.
So ok then.. Lets move beyond that point. So what are we at.. 3k to get a descent/good 34lb bike??


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

It's obvious that you're going to automatically ignore anything anyone says so.. Keep your bike, you're clearly happy with that. Nothings wrong with it. 

I guess you just want to argue.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

RETROROCKS said:


> and im having trouble understanding why you dont see that and ill say this slow.. its 17. year. old. tech!!
> And im not exclusively limiting it to the polygon line im talking new bikes in general.
> So ok then.. Lets move beyond that point. So what are we at.. 3k to get a descent/good 34lb bike??


Its interesting how people are turning this im actually considering a newer bike and instead of getting helpful comparisons and advice im getting negativity!!
Im quoting facts just would like to hear how the newer stuff justifys the weight for starters


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

RETROROCKS said:


> Am I the only one seeing this?? I doubt it ..seems like a lot of bike to get up steep climbs.
> Is weight now somehow a non issue?


Bike weight [within reason[ is not a big deal. The previous obsession with bike weight was stupid.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

dysfunction said:


> It's obvious that you're going to automatically ignore anything anyone says so.. Keep your bike, you're clearly happy with that. Nothings wrong with it.
> 
> I guess you just want to argue.


Nope far from it


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

RETROROCKS said:


> I get that they are beefier and better angles and tech and all that but how much MORE do we really need?
> I may be an oddity.. I used to race motocross so I know how to throw a bike around. So for me angles, thru axles, tire size dont really matter.
> Just how much "more" does a bike really need??


I know people who used to race motocross at a very competitive level. They still prefer modern bikes. 

Modern bikes are better. But, you have to ride it to believe it. 

However, no one is trying to sell you anything here. If you don't see that it's worth it. Don't buy one. You riding an old used to be great bike doesn't impact my enjoyment of the sport at all.

New bikes are better in everyway. Droppers, suspension, 1x drivetrain, "modern" geometry. It all makes the experience better.

Doesn't mean that 17 years ago your bike wasnt killer and a ton of fun. Just means stuff is better today.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

vikb said:


> Bike weight [within reason[ is not a big deal. The previous obsession with bike weight was stupid.


Ya i agree back in the day sure.
Im talkin lets say 35lbs do you now not feel the weight??
Is the new geo making weight a non issue??
Ok how??
Im really looking for info!! not debates and arguing thanks


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

RETROROCKS said:


> 17. year. old. tech!!


I'm not sure why you think that's such a big deal. Aluminium isn't new, there's no huge strength/weight improvements happening.

It does mean that everything on your bike is smaller. Smaller wheels, smaller frame, smaller suspension, smaller cassette. All made of roughly the same metal as they're made from now.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Due to the state of things right now, you can think of entry level full suspension bikes as being in the $2500-3500 range. 

At that price point, all will be pretty heavy. This is because of heavy wheels, heavy cassettes, heavy… well, everything.

My bike is a base model (low end) aluminum long travel bike from 2018, and it arrived at my door weighing ~36.5lbs, without pedals. So seeing the polygon is the same doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. 

Honestly, I don’t really notice the weight though. Since it’s my only bike… I just get used to it, and still take it on any and all rides I can think of.

The only time I’ve ever kind of noticed it is when a buddy flew out and we rented him a Yeti sb130 with high end everything. And I noticed the difference loading them up in the truck.

But he still lagged on the climbs .


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

dysfunction said:


> No one is forcing you to buy. But there's no way I want to go back to early 2000s geometries.


Nope noone is but im looking for info and advice on how a new heavier bike is better and is worth investing in.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

PhillipJ said:


> I'm not sure why you think that's such a big deal. Aluminium isn't new, there's no huge strength/weight improvements happening.
> 
> It does mean that everything on your bike is smaller. Smaller wheels, smaller frame, smaller suspension, smaller cassette. All made of roughly the same metal as they're made from now.


Ok so what about the new bikes even though heavier are worth the investment?
Advice/ examples ??


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

My 150/160 bike is noticeably heavier than my hardtail was at 30lbs. I haven't weighed it, because to be honest I do not care. It's a much better ride than anything I rode back when the 70° hta was the norm. It's also heavier. It's faster, and more comfortable down hill, it's less abusive on the body, the wider bars and slacker head tube means less fatigue. Bigger wheels handle bumps better, and carry speed better. Wider (and heavier) tires grip better, absorb more chatter, and just ride better. It also climbs way better, considering the rear travel. It's just more pleasurable to ride.

Because of that, yea.. I don't care about the weight as much. Then again, I'm riding to have fun, not race.

Edit: it also pedals better, and breaks less.. Oh and the brakes are sooooo much better.


----------



## lil byke (Jun 16, 2021)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ya i agree back in the day sure.
> Im talkin lets say 35lbs do you now not feel the weight??
> Is the new geo making weight a non issue??
> Ok how??
> Im really looking for info!! not debates and arguing thanks


My 2019 Stumpy alloy was 33 lbs and with tubeless and new wheels it is close to 30 lbs. I don’t know where you are getting 35 lbs, but if you are fine with a great trail bike then you can do that with the new Stumpy for around 3500-4500. It is a great very capable bike that climbs super well, double blacks at the lift park are still doable even. 

For $2000 you definitely will have to find a used bike, prices are just going up up.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

ocnLogan said:


> Due to the state of things right now, you can think of entry level full suspension bikes as being in the $2500-3500 range.
> 
> At that price point, all will be pretty heavy. This is because of heavy wheels, heavy cassettes, heavy… well, everything.
> 
> ...


Ok so do you feel the new angles and parts make it easier or are you just a stronger rider now?


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

lil byke said:


> My 2019 Stumpy alloy was 33 lbs and with tubeless and new wheels it is close to 30 lbs. I don’t know where you are getting 35 lbs, but if you are fine with a great trail bike then you can do that with the new Stumpy for around 3500-4500. It is a great very capable bike that climbs super well, double blacks at the lift park are still doable even.
> 
> For $2000 you definitely will have to find a used bike, prices are just going up up.


I meant 35lbs for new bikes.. im starting to think that yes 3500 is when bikes get lower weight with better parts and they wont be going down!!


----------



## lil byke (Jun 16, 2021)

RETROROCKS said:


> I meant 35lbs for new bikes.. im starting to think that yes 3500 is when bikes get lower weight with better parts and they wont be going down!!


Yeah, I think part of that is also because companies generally run really crappy components unless you get one of their highest level builds so to get the weight down you have to spend money on wheels and component upgrades unfortunately.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

FJSnoozer said:


> 2k is an entry level bike, so I am not sure what you are expecting.
> 
> My first ever mountain bike was a 2011 norco wolverine hardtail. It was a 34 pound 26er with a 120 coil fork.
> 
> ...


My point for the comparison was the fact that my janky sworks is 17 years old!!
And the parts are nothing special so when I saw 36lbs i thought id weigh mine.
I honestly thought it would be heavier. But anyway what new bikes should I look at and why? How is new tech and an inch more travel worth the investment?
Thats my point of the thread. Thanks!!


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

You will feel the weight primarily in the tires. Change them up for your traction needs / riding style and it could change the entire demeanor of the bike.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ive never been much of a weight weenie, but Ive noticed some pretty hefty weights on some new bikes.
> I was looking at the polygon sisku line.. Seems like descent bikes that rate well and are just under 2k.
> But I noticed the weight on their own site 36.5 pounds!!
> Does that number not ring bells for people?
> ...


2005 Specialized Enduro S works was $5,500 which is $7,775 in 2021 dollars. Specialized Enduro was a 130mm bike then. There are plenty of 120-130mm bikes well under 30 pounds for $7,775. Transition Spur X01, $6,500 and 25.2 pounds. Specialized Stumpjumper Pro 28.2 pounds. Tallboy X01- 28.9 pounds. All far more capable than the old enduro. Compare apples to apple.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

This bike is better than yours in every way and has more travel and rollover.

It’s 30 pounds









Trance 29 3 (2021) | Trail bike | Giant Bicycles US


This super-versatile trail machine is built on a lightweight, stiff and super-strong ALUXX SL frameset that blends our latest Maestro suspension technology with progressive, trail-oriented geometry. To soak up every bum...




www.giant-bicycles.com






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ok so what about the new bikes even though heavier are worth the investment?
> Advice/ examples ??


Nothing. You should keep riding what you have, as it is clear you either 1) just want to argue, or 2) want to rationalize why your old bike is superior to a new, far less expensive bike.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

RETROROCKS said:


> My point for the comparison was the fact that my janky sworks is 17 years old!!
> And the parts are nothing special so when I saw 36lbs i thought id weigh mine.
> I honestly thought it would be heavier. But anyway what new bikes should I look at and why? How is new tech and an inch more travel worth the investment?
> Thats my point of the thread. Thanks!!


I once bought a 2006 enduro for my cousin so he could learn to ride with me. It was such a piece of shot I’d rather ride a 97 rockhopper than that bike. I ended up spending 300 to modernize it enough to ride and basically gave it away to a kid who wanted to ride off staircases. 

Almost anything is better than what you have and you are cherry picking some heavy bikes. What you have would be decimated on the trails by any modern XC race bike. THAT is what you should be using as a comparison. Lots of weight on many bikes is just in the tires alone. Modern specd 29 tires on many bikes weight 4 pounds. 

A Trek Stache would be a significant upgrade to what you are on. (RIP). Pretty much any 120 travel bike is light years better and could be had at the weight you desire to compare. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## r-rocket (Jun 23, 2014)

Same thing is going on with cars. 2022 BMW M4 is around 3800lbs. 2005 M3 was around 3400lbs. 

I think gravity is getting heavier...


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I will take that 36lb Siskiu over a 17 year old Specialized...even if its heavier. Friend of mine bought a 2007 Spesh Enduro last year as a toss around bike...as a bike he would ride into his pool. It has that odd double crown fork Spesh had at the time. Compared to bikes now...it has a super short wheelbase...its awkwardly tall which puts the rider high on the bike. It also has a steep front end. He let his brother ride it when we were at the bike park. Good thing I let his brother borrow my pads. I rode that Enduro and compared to my bike...I kept feeling like I was going to be pitched forward and off the bike.

Modern bikes are longer and lower which puts the riders center of gravity lower in the bike.

Polygon has a Siskiu T8 at $2500 that they claim is ~34lbs. It's got a 1x12 SLX drivetrain and a Fox 34 fork. That seems like a pretty decent deal to me.









SISKIU T8 | Mountain Bikes | Polygon Bikes


Polygon SISKIU T8, a mountain bike built with cutting-edge cycling technology, is the best value bike brand in the market.




www.polygonbikes.com


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Weight is over-rated. My full-carbon Stumpjumper is just over thirty pounds but only because I'm not running a dropper post. Doesn't matter. I'm building an Enduro from a 2021 frame and I expect it will tip the scales at 34 pounds. Again...doesn't matter. The advantages...ruggedness, big tires, and travel...outweigh any disadvantage from five or six extra pounds over a lightweight bike.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)




----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

RS VR6 said:


> I will take that 36lb Siskiu over a 17 year old Specialized...even if its heavier. Friend of mine bought a 2007 Spesh Enduro last year as a toss around bike...as a bike he would ride into his pool. It has that odd double crown fork Spesh had at the time. Compared to bikes now...it has a super short wheelbase...its awkwardly tall which puts the rider high on the bike. It also has a steep front end. He let his brother ride it when we were at the bike park. Good thing I let his brother borrow my pads. I rode that Enduro and compared to my bike...I kept feeling like I was going to be pitched forward and off the bike.
> 
> Modern bikes are longer and lower which puts the riders center of gravity lower in the bike.
> 
> ...


Ya know I just looked at that t8 and was going to ask about that. My sworks is a great bike with the longer travel fork slacks it out a bit also has that flip link for the slightly slacker head angle. Kids and bills limit my budget but that t8is looking pretty good!!


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

just looked at a polygon t8 thats about 33 lbs with an slx group. And fox 34 for $2500 that one looks like a legit option!!
Its interesting how even when asking for advice.. people just see what they want.
Its not arguing its debating pros and cons... Peace!!



Cary said:


> Nothing. You should keep riding what you have, as it is clear you either 1) just want to argue, or 2) want to rationalize why your old bike is superior to a new, far less expensive bike.


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

RETROROCKS said:


> Its interesting how even when asking for advice.. people just see what they want.


Dude on the first page of this discussion I gave you an example of a decent trail bike that's about 31 lbs and not super expensive and all you could do was tell me that Your. Bike. Is. 17. Years. Old.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

Cary said:


> 2005 Specialized Enduro S works was $5,500 which is $7,775 in 2021 dollars. Specialized Enduro was a 130mm bike then. There are plenty of 120-130mm bikes well under 30 pounds for $7,775. Transition Spur X01, $6,500 and 25.2 pounds. Specialized Stumpjumper Pro 28.2 pounds. Tallboy X01- 28.9 pounds. All far more capable than the old enduro. Compare apples to apple.


I actually thought mine weighed more!!
Im just asking about newer weights they seem kinda high apparently the sisku t7 was a horrible example as its a lower end bike therefore im comparing a cadillac to a pinto even though the cadillac is 17 years old.
I found the t8 which is few pounds lighter and has slx and fox 34 for 2500 that may be the option im looking for.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

So i just saw a polygon t8 with slx and fox 34 that looks like a good option for the money.
Cant remember your recomendation but this one looks like a good deal.
Would you think so?
Then I now have to figure 27.5 or 29..
I think some peeps are thinking im trying to rag on new stuff far from it.. Thats why im interested in possibly getting one.
I should have leaned on the scale i guess!!


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

Ok


cassieno said:


> You will feel the weight primarily in the tires. Change them up for your traction needs / riding style and it could change the entire demeanor of the bike.


Good thought rotational weight is really felt.
How about a sisku t8 looks like a good deal!!


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ok so do you feel the new angles and parts make it easier or are you just a stronger rider now?


This is a complicated question for me. Mostly because the bike is my first full suspension bike.

But here is my take.

While the difference between a 30lb bike, and a 37lb bike is huge in terms of percentage of just the bike. But when you consider the system weight (bike + rider + gear), 7lbs isn’t that much in the grand scheme of things (in terms of percentage of the whole system).


When grinding away uphill, I don’t really “notice” the weight. I tend to find a gear that my legs and lungs can sustain, and just plug away. But what I can say is changing tire casings on my full suspension was more noticeable to me than my switch from a 30lb hard tail to a 37lb full squish bike, at least in terms of pedaling effort

Thats not to say weight doesn’t matter at all. But personally as a non-racer, if it takes me 3% longer to climb a hill (a few seconds, maybe a few minutes depending on the length of the climb), but that sacrifice has meant some combination of more fun when descending, parts that fail/get damaged less, tires that don’t puncture, etc, then it’s usually worth it to me. So sometimes I take an intentional weight hit, to increase reliability (I’m not sponsored, so no free parts I’d I break stuff).

For top lever racers it absolutely makes a huge difference. They already are at their peak physical form, and have nowhere else to improve other than their bike. And as much as I’d like to pretend I’m still in great shape… the reality is that doesn’t really describe me. Hence my perspective.

So I try to be conscious of bike weight, and reduce it when I get a chance that doesn’t limit me in another way (like when I found a good deal on a light saddle, or replaced my cassette). But I don’t stress over it, and also don’t wish I’d spent $1-3k more on my bike to drop another lb or two.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

ocnLogan said:


> This is a complicated question for me. Mostly because the bike is my first full suspension bike.
> 
> But here is my take.
> 
> ...


Thanks for a well thought out explanation.


----------



## r-rocket (Jun 23, 2014)

Here is my Grand Unified Theory of Bike Weight:

Bike weight has two major areas of impact. First the total weight impacts your momentum. That's like trying to throw a basket ball vs. throwing a medicine ball. Second, there is the impact of weight on moving the bike around underneath you to steer and put english on the bike (sometimes called "pop").

The extra medicine ball effect of the extra weight is real vs old 26'ers, but it is countered by better rollover and bump absorption that slows you down more on old-school bikes. So it ends up as a wash in real speed, while having the side effect of not wearing you out as much with all the bumps and keeping you feeling fresher. The net benefit is less energy wasted on bumps/rocks/roots. You would feel the medicine ball weight more between 2 different old 26'ers, than you would feel between an old 26'er and a modern 29'er after an hour of bumpy trail riding.

The handling or pop weight comes down to leverage and distance from your center of gravity, and your leverage to move that weight. Dropper post weight is close to your center of gravity, so it has less impact than weight furthest from your center of gravity, like your front wheel. Loss of maneuverability/pop to weight is real. But it is countered by being able to move your weight around on the bike with the seat dropped. And higher front wheel weight does have an impact on pop, but wider bars and shorter stems give you leverage back. Better modern suspension gives you more ability to use that leverage while not bouncing you around (which reduces control).

To wrap up all that Grand Unified Theory --- gaining bike weight between 2 old school 26'ers would suck arse. But the same weight gain between an old 26'er and a modern 29'er is countered by so many other benefits that compensate for the weight difference.

Now that I've gotten that all written out, I'm going to go do some bong hits and contemplate the mysteries of life, the universe, and the mysterious source of that smell coming from my bike gear bag...


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I'm at a touch over 29lbs on a aluminum GG Smash with coil front and rear. But I have light weight wheels and every bolt is Ti. Those M8 and M6 bolts add up to a pound of weight savings.


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

Well, they invented the 29" wheels and everyone bought that they were faster. That means more rubber and bigger rims so: more weight.

Then they discovered that 29" bikes were flexy as hell, so they invented boost spacing and forks with bigger stanchions: more weight.

Then they "invented" 1x, which meant you removed a 22 and a 44T chainring, added a 39 a 45 and a 51 sprockets at the back, made it cheaper for the manufacturer, and at the same time allowed them to sell it to you at a more expensive price. Guess what? more wheight.

Then, they decided traditional handlebars were to small to drive a truck big bike, so they gave them proper truck handlebars, as wide as the Atlantic ocean. More weight.

Meanwhile, they also discovered that if they sold bicycles with low end components like Sram SX transmissions and Shimano low-end brakes for $3000, people still bought them. But you know: low end components mean... more weight.

After this you only need to add a dropper (which is really the only good thing that came out of this), and there you have it.

DISCLAIMER: yes, modern bikes climb and descend better than old ones. But my old bike cost 800€ and weighted 11.5kg, while my new bike cost 1500€ and weights 14kg. And I'm talking hardtails here. 1x is still crap though.

The only thing that's lighter now are our wallets.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Amt0571 said:


> Well, they invented the 29" wheels and everyone bought that they were faster. That means more rubber and bigger rims so: more weight.
> 
> Then they discovered that 29" bikes were flexy as hell, so they invented boost spacing and forks with bigger stanchions: more weight.
> 
> ...


1X isn't new. I started using it in 1989. 1X7 with a 38T tandem timing ring. One thing I don't like about current frames is I'm limited to a tiny 34T ring. Once singlspeed rings came out, I'd always use a 36T on my full suss bikes.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Amt0571 said:


> Well, they invented the 29" wheels and everyone bought that they were faster. That means more rubber and bigger rims so: more weight.
> 
> Then they discovered that 29" bikes were flexy as hell, so they invented boost spacing and forks with bigger stanchions: more weight.
> 
> ...



Honestly, I tried 29ers some years back, liked them instantly, and never looked back. Same with 1x drivetrains. I converted my full suspension bike to a 1x10 with one of those add-on big cogs from Oneup (?) back in 2015, also liked it instantly, and jumped on SRAM 1x11 when I could and think SRAM Eagle is up there with sliced bread and hot chicks. Did my first Tour Divide attempt with a 2x10. Didn't hate it but 1x12 has removed any residual need for an extra front chainring. 

Not all progress in cycling is bad. There are some dead ends such as the Hammerschmidt and possibly 650B but some stuff like DUB and Boost actually make sense.


----------



## Crockpot2001 (Nov 2, 2004)

Fine by me. My 53 y/o ass is changing less flats, hucking bigger than 30years ago, and riding 20-30 mile rides multiple times per week. My old Kleins and Bontragers would have left me for dead if I did that now. Now get off my lawn!


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

My 24 pound 120/115 endurance xc/trail bike is plenty light, especially for this almost 50 year old. 

The only bikes that I’ve owned that were lighter, were rigid singlespeeds.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

ocnLogan said:


> This is a complicated question for me. Mostly because the bike is my first full suspension bike.
> 
> But here is my take.
> 
> While the difference between a 30lb bike, and a 37lb bike is huge in terms of percentage of just the bike. But when you consider the system weight (bike + rider + gear), 7lbs isn’t that much in the g


I went to bed last night with the intention of writing this out in a long explanation on why the weight doesn't matter this morning cause it was too late to get into it last night but I wake up to find my thunder stolen and you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Cycling isn't a contest of deadlifting your bicycle over your head. If you look at cycling quantitatively with physics both the cyclist and the bicycle are part of the same machine and the total weight of bike and human must be taken into account in any equations used to described the bicycle in motion. I'm 160lbs and if I hop on a 35lbs bike the total weight is 195lbs. Hop on a 29lbs bike and now the total weight is 189lbs. A difference if around 3%. Physics says if you put the same amount of power into each bike you will be 3% slower on the heavier bike uphill. Or to climb the same hill at the same speed you need to put in 3% more power. For identical power output that means 2 seconds difference on a 60 second climb for the rider. For the average biker just out having fun 2 seconds faster up a hill means nothing. For a racer? 2 seconds can be the difference between winning and losing.

Modern bikes are just plain bigger. But those bigger tires and newer geometry and extra weight in the dropper and modern suspension design makes them more capable than ever pointed downhill. If you look at your overall time on a given loop you will more than make up for any lost time climbing by being able to ride much faster much more comfortably and safely on the downhills. But chances are you won't lose any time in the uphills either because advanced in understanding of suspension dynamics and bicycle geometry means you will probably be more efficient pedaling uphill on the newer bike.

Looked through my photos to see if I had a picture of my bike next to my son's bike to get a feel for the size difference between the two. It's taken with a wide angle so it's a little distorted from the fish eye effect. Here is a modern 2021 130/120 27.5 "downcountry" bike v. a 120/120 26" trail bike from 2008. Both are size mediums so they are apples to apples comparison in bicycle sizing for their respective eras, though the D7 is small compared to more aggressively designed modern bikes.. Stumpjumper was a solid mid travel trail bike for the day with some very progressive geometry for the time. The old 26" bike fits reach wise like a modern small or XS bike, and if it wasn't for the long seat tube could be mistaken for a modern short travel S or XS bike. Throwing a short stem and wide bars on and it fits my 4'11" son perfectly. Modernized with, a dropper, 1x drivetrain and new heavier casing tires it's around 28lbs. My D7 as it sits today weighs in a 32lbs Of that 4lbs difference the fork (Fox 36 v 32) makes up over 1lbs of it. Cassette 0.5lbs. Tires 1lbs. So we're looking at and additional 1.5lbs of weight difference through the rest of the bike. I'm sure the wheels are a good chunk of that 1.5lbs (30mm ID rims v. 19mm ID rims).


----------



## 63expert (Jun 4, 2020)

RETROROCKS said:


> Thanks for a well thought out explanation.


Relationally, things have not changed.

A. Cheap
B. Light
C. Capable/durable.

Chose any two above.

Your main complaint was about weight. Sure, bikes have gotten heavier, but the benefits that came with that weight are immense. LLS means more safety/speed on descents. Big tires/wheels can plow through rock gardens.

You can have the light bike you want, you’ll just have to pay current price for it.
Inflation and improvement cost are real things.
I promise I’m not trying to be an ass, but my wheels and front fork cost as much as that T8. Diminishing returns are an SOB. 

To get a new bike this year I had to end up spending more than double my original budget. It sucked. But in the end I decided YOLO and I wanted a bike more than I wanted money.

Good luck!!


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Long story short, bike prices have exploded in the last 20 years. 2k is a low end full suspension bike now, which has much heavier parts than an S Works. I don't blame you for not wanting a heavy bike, but you gotta pay to play in this sport or look at the used market.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

I don’t get why there’s so much vitriol and butt-hurt-itude in this thread. I like fast bikes and had a similar reaction when I demoed a few 6-8k floor models, just no, too heavy. Even carbon the frames are heavy, forks, etc. A bunch of small gains add up. My current 29er ss is 21-5 with dropper, 140 fork and 2.35 dhf in front. I descend 20% slower than a 140 fs bike and forces me to be really active on the trail. I love riding it but I also don’t ride double black and won’t wear armor or full face.

I was fortunate to try some competitors fs bikes at local endurance races and mind was blown. They stick to 140/120 travel and make up for it with skill,their size large bikes are still <25lbs. I had thought I’d lost my marbles thinking all these new bikes sucked then tried these race bikes and wow, they are terrific to my legs.

There are nice light capable fs bikes out there but you won’t find them as stock floor models, folks in bike shops have no clue and as far as I can tell the prices to put together something nice are >8k.


----------



## kevine1785 (Mar 29, 2021)

I think the problem here is that you are equating weight with progress. While weigh is certainly a factor, these are faster bikes pound for pound than their older counterparts. Larger tires, better geometry, better suspension allow for better pedaling dynamics and efficiency which speeds up the bikes while going uphill, and gain more efficiencies vs just lighter components. Strength of components for intended use is also a factor. Given many of these "trail bikes" can clear 10-30ft jump gaps at bike parks repeatedly without failure is worth the extra weight. Improved braking, handling etc... are all also rationale for greater weight.
And this isnt unique. The current 2021 Corvette weighs more than its 17 year older counterpart, but is better in every way from a performance perspective. As are fighter jets, dirt bikes, and many more performance oriented vehicles designed to go fast. Of course this isnt universally true, and things like XC bikes, road bikes etc... are certainly lighter than they were. Overall weight isnt the sole indicator of performance. 

I would recommend taking some new bikes for a test ride and seeing if the weight is actually a factor. If it is, look into an xc bike. My Scalpel is sub 26lbs, but only has 100mm travel.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

DeoreDX said:


> If you look at cycling quantitatively with physics both the cyclist and the bicycle are part of the same machine and the total weight of bike and human must be taken into account in any equations used to described the bicycle in motion.


Not exactly. The system must be taken into account to describe the system in motion. However, riding a bicycle is not like riding inside a car (at least not for decent riders). There are many instances where the bike's center of mass and rider COM are not moving together. This happens anytime you pump, lean the bike, hop, jump, hit bumps while standing, manual, etc. This is why BMX riders care about things like tire weight. It makes a significant difference when you're trying to get the bike to rotate.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I think my lightest bike back in 2004 for my Yeti ASR-SL at 25ish. Since then though, I have never had a mountain bike that weighted under 28 lbs, nor one that weighed over 31 lbs. I think 32 lbs is my limit for a long travel trail bike, so it woudl have to be carbon with a XT or X01 build. My Ripley has a Fox 36 and is around 29lbs. I don't do alloy anymore, of course. That would add another lb or two and sometimes with a heavier build they come with, maybe 3-4 lbs more in total. Since we do a lot of sustained climbing here, I care about weight, though I also prefer decent wheels, tires, and Fox 36s. So maybe the forks are generally getting longer and beefier, while frames may also have added some weight to make them stiffer.


----------



## mpress (Jan 30, 2012)

I weigh 230lbs and my bike weighs 32.5lbs. I can say without a doubt that the bike weight isn't the limiting factor when hitting the trails. Dropping 30lbs of body weight would have more benefit than dropping two pounds of bike weight.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

About 10 years ago, I was down to about 152 pounds. Over the course of a couple of years, I migrated up to about 162 pounds and my climb times consistently improved. In the intervening time, I've set numerous climb time PR's on the new bike, but I did drop it's weight to around 27.5 pounds. Gear (my bike weight didn't change during this time) and overall fitness and nutrition are important within limits. Certainly, as mpress points out, a 2 pound difference in bike weight won't be more of a factor than a 30 pound difference in body weight.
A couple of years ago, I was on a 25-ish pound 27.5 and demo'd a 32 pound 29er and my climb times were at the upper limit of what I was accomplishing on the bike that was almost 5 pounds lighter.
So it depends on a number of factors.

My obsession with climb times is as a way to pick the fastest gear for the conditions. I'm 69 and just got back from Moab with my 30 year old son. So far, though there's no way I can keep up, he hasn't gotten bored, and that's all I'm looking to accomplish.


----------



## TippyD (Dec 6, 2017)

It's always a balancing act to have the functionality you need for your terrain and abilities isn't it. 
Durable tires, suspension components, longer travel more durable frame, etc. all add weight over an XC hardtail for sure. Given where I live, the trails I ride and my skills, I am able to get away with a sub 29lb hardtail. 

If I were somewhere out west or bike parking it on a regular basis, then I would have to accept the fact that I will be riding a heavier bike.

I don't ride full suss, so forgive me for asking this; does one really need these really long-travel, bikes to have enough fun and make it through the terrain?


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Seems the weight has increased? I'm still of the mindset that lighter is better for the most part, at least in terms of traditional xc riding/racing.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

TippyD said:


> I don't ride full suss, so forgive me for asking this; does one really need these really long-travel, bikes to have enough fun and make it through the terrain?


I've seen some amazing guys on unicycles. Does one really need two wheels? 
Yes, of course, one wheel is ridiculous! Anyway, variations in gear such as full suspension (or even just front suspension) can make some experiences more fun, just as hardtails can be more rewarding in certain circumstances.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

TippyD said:


> I don't ride full suss, so forgive me for asking this; does one really need these really long-travel, bikes to have enough fun and make it through the terrain?


Yes


----------



## xcandrew (Dec 30, 2007)

Crankout said:


> Seems the weight has increased? I'm still of the mindset that lighter is better for the most part, at least in terms of traditional xc riding/racing.


Though "trail" bikes seem to be more popular these days, you can still buy a lightweight cross country hardtail at a reasonable price. Specialized has two hardtails that illustrate the choice. The Chisel Comp ($1900) is a cross country hardtail that is supposedly 24lbs stock when set up tubeless (not sure if that includes pedals). The Fuse Expert ($2150) is a "trail" hardtail that is much heavier at 30lbs with pedals.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

RETROROCKS said:


> Yeah it does im comparing a 17 year old bike with old descent parts.
> Im not sure why your throwing a 2010 enduro frame in the mix thats a whole diff bike.
> I realize you can buy lighter bikes.. but your now in the 3 to 4k range!!
> So is it worth that price tag to get that level of a bike versus keeping the old ride.


Inflation.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Crankout said:


> Seems the weight has increased? I'm still of the mindset that lighter is better for the most part, at least in terms of traditional xc riding/racing.


Agreed, but at the weights talked about.. it's pretty clear we're talking more of a trail/enduro bike. Although, he's for sure not talking about the N9, that thing is 18,1kg.. in a medium, with 27,5 tires.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

I think the best thing I read about weight is that it is easier and cheaper to lose 2lbs off your body than to lose it off your bike but if you have the pocket book it is faster to lose if off your bike. I think most of us probably have a few pounds to lose.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

RS VR6 said:


> I will take that 36lb Siskiu over a 17 year old Specialized...even if its heavier. Friend of mine bought a 2007 Spesh Enduro last year as a toss around bike...as a bike he would ride into his pool. It has that odd double crown fork Spesh had at the time. Compared to bikes now...it has a super short wheelbase...its awkwardly tall which puts the rider high on the bike. It also has a steep front end. He let his brother ride it when we were at the bike park. Good thing I let his brother borrow my pads. I rode that Enduro and compared to my bike...I kept feeling like I was going to be pitched forward and off the bike.
> 
> Modern bikes are longer and lower which puts the riders center of gravity lower in the bike.
> 
> ...


My cousin just bought a T8 and loves it so far. It’s heavier than his old Superlight, but climbs much better and is light years more awesome on the descents.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

At 6'1', 180, I can lose a few pounds easily. However, I've always felt (qualitatively) that a little weight off the bike was better than from me. Too bad it's impossible to quantify.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

RETROROCKS said:


> just looked at a polygon t8 thats about 33 lbs with an slx group. And fox 34 for $2500 that one looks like a legit option!!
> Its interesting how even when asking for advice.. people just see what they want.
> Its not arguing its debating pros and cons... Peace!!


My cousin bought one and it’s pretty amazing.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

TippyD said:


> It's always a balancing act to have the functionality you need for your terrain and abilities isn't it.
> Durable tires, suspension components, longer travel more durable frame, etc. all add weight over an XC hardtail for sure. Given where I live, the trails I ride and my skills, I am able to get away with a sub 29lb hardtail.
> 
> If I were somewhere out west or bike parking it on a regular basis, then I would have to accept the fact that I will be riding a heavier bike.
> ...


Funny you mention that, I found a foes fxc with 3"s of travel in back and put a 6" travel fox on the front.. Its about 26lb and still climbs like a goat.
Imagine the response if I posted that one lol!!
But I have to agree same trails and now twice the travel. seems like overkill.
Im kicking around the idea but its a big leap for me when I have capable bikes already.
Guess I need to ride one toknow for sure.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

RETROROCKS said:


> Funny you mention that, I found a foes fxc with 3"s of travel in back and put a 6" travel fox on the front.. Its about 26lb and still climbs like a goat.


Yeah. Everything climbs like a goat. 'Till you find a younger goat!
The Dynamic VR17 skis were awesome.....in 1972, the last time I skied them. I wouldn't go back.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

The other thing, is that if you want a sub 30lb bike, you can still get them.

They're just full suspension XC bikes/Downcountry bikes. And you can get those in the 23-28lb range. And whats even better, XC bikes are much more capable than they were in the past. With the exception of the amount of travel they have, they are likely longer, lower, and slacker (and probably more capable again) than even most old "all mountain" bikes.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

ocnLogan said:


> The other thing, is that if you want a sub 30lb bike, you can still get them.
> 
> They're just full suspension XC bikes/Downcountry bikes. And you can get those in the 23-28lb range. And whats even better, XC bikes are much more capable than they were in the past. With the exception of the amount of travel they have, they are likely longer, lower, and slacker (and probably more capable again) than even most old "all mountain" bikes.


Its not that I want a 30lb bike my old sworks is actually lighter than I thought it would be. Im just looking at how despite more weight that these bikes are better.
Geometry seems to be the main reason!
Which makes sense


----------



## La Nada (Mar 1, 2017)

I have a 115mm trek Top fuel and a 140mm orbea occam. Top Fuel is about 3 pounds lighter. The occam has a much steeper seat tube angle though. My trails are full of steep climbs and I find very little difference in climbing performance between the two. So in my case the modern seat tube angle has somewhat negated the extra weight.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

RETROROCKS said:


> Its not that I want a 30lb bike my old sworks is actually lighter than I thought it would be. Im just looking at how despite more weight that these bikes are better.
> Geometry seems to be the main reason!
> Which makes sense


Geometry is maybe a little reason but the main reasons are tires, wheels, giant cassette, and the dropper post. Those old 9 speed cassettes were less than 300 grams. My 12 speed cassette easily doubles that. Dropper adds at least 300 grams. Now we are up to 600. I remember a time I wouldn't consider a tire unless it was sub 500g. Now most of my tires are over 800g each. so add another 600g and we're up to 1200g or ~ 2.5lbs. I grew up riding in the 90's when weight was EVERYTHING. I remember when replacing all your bolts with Ti bolts was popular to save 40g of weight. You ride enough bikes and you will realize that weight is very low on the totem pole on how to judge a bike. All else being equal do I want the lightest bike possible? Heck yes. You try to judge how to best balance weight, durability, and budget to build a bike you love riding. There is no one size fits all answer for everyone. The most important part is to have a bike you love. For some people they love light bikes. Some people love big suspension travel. Some people like single speeds. As long as you love it ang it gets you out riding it gets a big thumbs up from me no matter what it is.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Much of it should be dependent on what you ride. Which is why the only correct answer is multiple bikes.


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

Ailuropoda said:


> Not all progress in cycling is bad. There are some dead ends such as the Hammerschmidt and possibly 650B but some stuff like DUB and Boost actually make sense.


DUB makes sense? Yeah. I had never seen a worn axle that until DUB was "invented".

Whoever had the great idea of running a soft aluminium axle inside hard steel bearings had a great idea.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Well my Slayer is just under 31lb, descends better than my 2000's down hill bikes, pedals better than my 2012 blur. I am riding track now that either scared the **** out of me or I thought impossible on a 2000 dh bike. Because of the pedalability I can access tracks that I would never got the dh rig too and ride that track that would I not attempt on a pedal bike....

My dh bikes of yore where 40lb. Now i have something thats 31lb. I've dropped 9lb. 

But yes a trail bike in the 2000's compared to now is 3-4 lb lighter. 

But the bike now is more capable, more fun and actually pedals better even though its heavier. I suggest you scam a ride on one or two bikes to get a feel for them. 

I also agree with others. A $2k suspension bike is **** house. Spend double that at least. 

Also a good light weight wide 32mm wide rim cheap chinese wheel set works wonders for loosing rotating weight and making a dull heavy wheel set specced bike playfull and fun.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I will warn you, if you do get a cheaper modern bike, then it will be harder to toss onto the back of a truck. 

That might be the biggest disadvantage.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

RETROROCKS said:


> I was looking at the polygon sisku line.. Seems like descent bikes that rate well and are just under 2k.
> But I noticed the weight on their own site 36.5 pounds!!
> 
> and these bikes dont get weighed with pedals or a dropper post!!


Where are you seeing 36.5lbs? I just looked on Polygon's site and a Siskiu T7 ($2049) in 29" size M is 15.6kg = 34.3lbs with dropper, w/o pedals.

Given they put really heavy wheels and tires on you those builds you could probably take it down by 2lbs+ just by switching to a lighter tire, and take another 2lbs+ off with a new wheelset, getting you right around 31lbs with pedals.

I have a size medium 29" T8 on order for my wife and I plan to do exactly that, move the RaceFace AR30 and 2.35" Forekasters from my Oiz TR to the Siskiu, and put a pair of Hunt Trail Wides with hopefully the new Vittoria Syerras on my bike...


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

FJSnoozer said:


> This bike is better than yours in every way and has more travel and rollover.
> 
> It’s 30 pounds
> 
> ...


Have you weighed a Trance 29 3? I just weighed my Oiz H10 TR, tubeless, bottle cage, pedals and Wolftooth B-Rad base plate installed it's 31.5lbs. My pedals are 1lbs (Stamp 2 large) so take off other bits and it's right around 30lbs and it should be a lighter bike than the Trance... My friend has one so I'll weigh it next time I see him.


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

chiefsilverback said:


> Have you weighed a Trance 29 3? I just weighed my Oiz H10 TR, tubeless, bottle cage, pedals and Wolftooth B-Rad base plate installed it's 31.5lbs. My pedals are 1lbs (Stamp 2 large) so take off other bits and it's right around 30lbs and it should be a lighter bike than the Trance... My friend has one so I'll weigh it next time I see him.


I found multiple sources of weight on that model at sub 31 pounds on real life weights. 


The more important question is, why is your bike so heavy?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

FJSnoozer said:


> I found multiple sources of weight on that model at sub 31 pounds on real life weights.
> 
> 
> The more important question is, why is your bike so heavy?
> ...


I just weighed it with a new, albeit cheap scale and I was slightly surprised at that weight, so I'm going to check the accuracy of the scale...


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

chiefsilverback said:


> I just weighed it with a new, albeit cheap scale and I was slightly surprised at that weight, so I'm going to check the accuracy of the scale...


I just did the old weight myself and then weigh myself holding something trick and it's definitely clocking in at over 31lbs!


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Yeah the Trance 29 3 has some heavy parts on it (SX). My buddy has one (medium) and I thought I remember weighing it around 32 lbs.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

jeremy3220 said:


> Yeah the Trance 29 3 has some heavy parts on it (SX). My buddy has one (medium) and I thought I remember weighing it around 32 lbs.


The latest version runs Deore 12 speed, but compared to my Oiz the Bomber Z2 and DHF/Aggressor tire combo on the Trance weigh in 2lbs more than the Forekasters and 34SC on the Orbea, and I'd hope the RaceFace AR30 wheels weigh less than the Giant AM29, so if my bike is coming in at over 30lbs the Trance frame would have to be crazy light to get the built bike under 31lbs!


----------



## blammo585 (Apr 24, 2012)

I am a hypocrite when it comes to weight and mountain bikes vs BMX. I don't care as much about weight on mountain bikes. When I rode BMX I always tried to get my bike as light as I could, which in the 90s "light" was not really a thing. With constantly pulling up to bunny hop stuff, or jump on ledges, or jump off ledges, or jump ramps and dirt jumps, and spin and such I wanted my bike to be as light as I could get it but still hold up. It weighed 35 lbs.

I don't care much about weight on my mountain bike. Sure if I have the choice I'd rather it be light but I keep my mountain bike wheels on the ground. I don't pick it up or pull up constantly like I did the BMX. And I feel the gears compensate for any additional weight. When I trail ride, my butt stays on the seat except for descents. I don't really "feel" the weight. If the bike feels hard to pedal I just drop the gear. If it's still too hard when I'm in the lowest gear then that probably just means I'm on a really steep hill that even 2 or 3 lbs lighter is still going to feel just as hard.

I'm sure it depends what you do on it too. If you're racing then yeah, weight matters. But just trail riding, it doesn't matter much to me.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ive never been much of a weight weenie, but Ive noticed some pretty hefty weights on some new bikes.
> I was looking at the polygon sisku line.. Seems like descent bikes that rate well and are just under 2k.
> But I noticed the weight on their own site 36.5 pounds!!
> Does that number not ring bells for people?
> ...


What does that have 4-5" of travel? You can easily find a comparable bike which weighs under 32 pounds. Here's one right here:









951 Series Trail Mountain Bike | INTENSE Cycles


Shop all Carbon, 29" Wheelset, 951 Series Trail Mountain Bike. The Best valued mountain bike on the market. If you have any questions give us a call at (951) 307-9211 or chat with us online.



intense951.com





That bike will ride better in almost every way than the old Enduro. If you want to compare it to a modern enduro bike then you are getting a lot more travel and a larger overall bike. 

You need to compare like to like.


----------



## yakswak (Apr 17, 2004)

I think the weight gain for the cost is actually recent, just the last 2 years or so. I have a 2018 SC Hightower, mid-level build (their XE or something like that). While I upgraded wheels to chinese Carbon 30mm id (cost $700, but sold wheels it came with for $400), it's not anything crazy and I didn't pay an arm and a leg for the bike. I think I'm in about $4200 for the whole thing. Anyway, it weighs 28.5lbs. Again, not a super expensive build but it's 11spd non-eagle drive train (which works fine for me), and normal tires (Schwaylbe 2.3's or Maxxis 2.4's). 

I think to get the current Hightower builds to this weight would require significantly more $$$'s. I noticed this on other builds from 3-4yrs ago to now also. Current Geo, pandemic fueled pricing, lack of discounts and "sales" on bikes, as led us to where we are on the weight vs price front. You can still build uber-light bikes like you could 10yrs ago, it just costs more. Heck, I used to have a 2010 SC Blur XC Carbon that I overforked and over-tired at 24lbs w/pedals and only cost me $2500 or so to build. Not gonna happen anymore.


----------



## highlander69 (Nov 22, 2017)

APples and oranges. But, we pay more for lighter bikes, that's not a revelation. Cheaper bike = low end, heavy components. The frame weight of their medium is 7lbs, so the large is likely close to 8 with seems about right for an ALU FS frame. I'd also be that a comparable bike in 2004 liekly weight close to or over 40lbs.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

chiefsilverback said:


> I just weighed it with a new, albeit cheap scale and I was slightly surprised at that weight, so I'm going to check the accuracy of the scale...


The cheap scale appears to be pretty accurate.


----------



## Acme54321 (Oct 8, 2003)

I think half of it is people watching too much YouTube then going out and buying an entry level version of the monster truck 29er some "influencer" was riding in a video. Most people are way overbiked. Especially in the wheels/tire department. I run across so many kooks that try to convince everyone that they are going to die without tire inserts and Assegais on local XC trails. Then they wonder why their bike is heavy as hell.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

I guess for riders over 200 pounds this is no big deal.
At 135 pounds i just love my 21 pounds carbon HT, 120mm, 29.
Since 2016 nothing improved in my opinion.
They are offering **** with some nice sticker 12 speeds and idiots buy stickers.
If light prices are just crazy.
,


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Acme54321 said:


> I run across so many kooks that try to convince everyone that they are going to die without tire inserts and Assegais on local XC trails. Then they wonder why their bike is heavy as hell.


A guy I ride with on our local New England ‘primitive’ single track is on an SB150 with an Assegi on the front an a DHR outback. He’s as fit as a butcher’s dog because he’s fast uphill on that, even with that much weight/rolling resistance.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

DeoreDX said:


> Geometry is maybe a little reason but the main reasons are tires, wheels, giant cassette, and the dropper post. Those old 9 speed cassettes were less than 300 grams. My 12 speed cassette easily doubles that. Dropper adds at least 300 grams. Now we are up to 600. I remember a time I wouldn't consider a tire unless it was sub 500g. Now most of my tires are over 800g each. so add another 600g and we're up to 1200g or ~ 2.5lbs. I grew up riding in the 90's when weight was EVERYTHING. I remember when replacing all your bolts with Ti bolts was popular to save 40g of weight. You ride enough bikes and you will realize that weight is very low on the totem pole on how to judge a bike. All else being equal do I want the lightest bike possible? Heck yes. You try to judge how to best balance weight, durability, and budget to build a bike you love riding. There is no one size fits all answer for everyone. The most important part is to have a bike you love. For some people they love light bikes. Some people love big suspension travel. Some people like single speeds. As long as you love it ang it gets you out riding it gets a big thumbs up from me no matter what it is.


The magazine ads in the 90's for components and bikes always had the weights listed. I remember a steel KHS listed as 19lbs and change with a rigid fork. 

The 34 Ti bolts on my newest bike saved way more than 40g. Just the savings on the four large M8 bolts was huge. I'm a Ti whore though. Everything with a thread that isn't aluminum is Ti, except the spokes. But the spokes on my single speed are Ti.





  








Anyone Use Ti Bolts On Suspension Pivots?




__
milehi


__
Jan 21, 2008




this photo is from the thread &quot;Anyone Use Ti Bolts On Suspension Pivots?&quot; in the...






I've been known to go overboard but when you have the bolts and a tiodizer...


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

chiefsilverback said:


> A guy I ride with on our local New England ‘primitive’ single track is on an SB150 with an Assegi on the front an a DHR outback. He’s as fit as a butcher’s dog because he’s fast uphill on that, even with that much weight/rolling resistance.


I miss riding back east!! wet roots and leaves keep you on your toes!


----------



## leart78 (Jun 11, 2017)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ive never been much of a weight weenie, but Ive noticed some pretty hefty weights on some new bikes.
> I was looking at the polygon sisku line.. Seems like descent bikes that rate well and are just under 2k.
> But I noticed the weight on their own site 36.5 pounds!!
> Does that number not ring bells for people?
> ...





RETROROCKS said:


> Ive never been much of a weight weenie, but Ive noticed some pretty hefty weights on some new bikes.
> I was looking at the polygon sisku line.. Seems like descent bikes that rate well and are just under 2k.
> But I noticed the weight on their own site 36.5 pounds!!
> Does that number not ring bells for people?
> ...


my specialized epic pro from 2004 was more light than 2020 s-works enduro 😂
my specialized weighted like 11.25-11.28kg.
tested with park tools digital scale


----------



## Travis1911 (Jan 30, 2021)

Is no one going to touch on how he weighed his bike? I was under the impression that weighing something light like a bike on a scale meant for two footed heavy humans was inaccurate.


----------



## Tinshield (Aug 1, 2007)

The bikes I had in the 90’s were light but nowhere near the durability and stiffness we have today. Frames are longer, suspension has more travel and we’ve added dropper posts and wider rims. I definitely don’t want to go back to the old bikes. My 2021 S-Works Stumpy is under 27lbs sans pedals. It’s not far off as far as weight to the old bikes and so much more capable.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

I'm good with 30 lbs. But if you are doing serious riding then you'll have 5 lbs in just tires and inserts.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 19, 2003)

Catmandoo said:


> I had a ProFlex back in the day, weighed 26.5 lbs and was all I needed.


I would not call a ProFlex Dual Suspension (Dual Flex, yes! 🤣) 
My '99 Aeon Isis had 4" of Dual Suspension w/full control of compression & rebound, front & back. 
ProFlex was a pogo stick with wheels, but it did pave the way.
I bought a 2021 Giant Stance 27.5" with 150mm/145mm of travel. 
It's not a feather, but it is measurably faster than my 2011 Giant Reign with 26" wheels.
Now I need to measure the differences, I'm curious about the differences in length/weight.
I love the dropper post, but I'm not wild about the 1X12 shifty bits. 
I was maxed out climbing in Seattle WA. I kept trying hit granny gear & she wasn't ever there.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

I don’t care if my old XC bikes weighed 22 pounds— I would never go back to that horrendous geometry. Seeing that 6” long stem a few posts back triggered memories of doing involuntary handstands down steep tech…no thanks.


----------



## canuckjgc (Jun 22, 2007)

Mountain biking has gravitated downhill, techy, jumpy and flighty. The bikes follow suit. I don't know what my full sus weighs and nobody I ride with mentions weight as a factor. The gears are so small it doesn't really matter so long as you can winch yourself to the top for another run.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

To the OP; I began mountain biking around 1986 or so and have been through all these generations of bikes. I remember when full suspension was a novelty. I was definitely on the lighter is better train and built up a Titus Switchblade in 2004 with some of the lightest parts I could find. That was a very light boutique bike and I loved it. I rode it all over western US and Canada.

Eventually though I realized that bikes were really changing a lot and my beloved Switchblade might not be the best thing on dirt anymore. The new geometry, dropper posts, more travel, etc. were really coming into play in a big way. I was more than a bit skeptical about the weight of all these innovations.

Finally, I accepted the reality that my bike was very outdated (and a bit worn out after 11 years) and bought a new enduro bike. I'll just say that it weighs a substantial chunk more than my trusty old Switchblade. But it's also crazy fun. I don't much notice the weight on climbs since it's so efficient. I can easily ride steep and nasty terrain that would have terrified me on the old bike. It's amazingly smooth and controlled at speed.

The advances in bike technology from the early 2000's is very worthwhile and just makes all rides better in so many ways that I never would have guessed without taking the leap.

For the money, the Polygon T8 is unbeatable. A bike like that will have you laughing down the trail like a maniac as you fly over the chunk.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Hollis said:


> I was maxed out climbing in Seattle WA. I kept trying hit granny gear & she wasn't ever there.


LOL! I live in the Seattle area and have a 28T front ring to make it up some of the steeper trails around here.


----------



## bikesdirect (Nov 7, 2006)

Light bikes can still be built easily; however customers are not that interested in low weights as they were years ago. So the market has responded.

When I bring SL bikes these days; the demand is not really there. Seems customers prefer mostly that the money go into other features. Too bad, as I love building super light bikes.

decades ago I built a moto Fly 9357
sold for $999 and weighed 9357 grams 
Was very popular back then; today I do not think customers would care about the weight as much as getting many features that add weight.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

I'm a Clyde. Back in the 90's when I started riding I was a barely-200-pound gym rat that felt like the bikes underneath me were made of tinfoil. Flexy when I put the hammer down, ping-ponging off of all the big rocks, and constantly breaking. And by breaking, I mean taco-ing rims, cracking stays, ripping the rear axle completely off the hub shell, breaking cranks at the pedal inserts, snapping chains every few rides, etcetera. I still loved riding, but I thought that's how it had to be.

Now that I'm significantly older (and, oops, fatter), the bikes today are rock-solid and confidence-inspiring. With less suspension travel, I charge over stuff that I used to avoid for fear of pinch-flats, going OTB, or making a front wheel taco. I only replace parts when they're worn, for the most part.

I'm fine with the weight. Making a car analogy, the bikes back then felt like typical passenger cars on flimsy after-market lift kits. The bikes today feel like proper, purpose-desiged off-road vehicles.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

I'll take the $10,000 S-Works Epic Hardtail.


----------



## RETROROCKS (Sep 25, 2004)

dysfunction said:


> It's obvious that you're going to automatically ignore anything anyone says so.. Keep your bike, you're clearly happy with that. Nothings wrong with it.
> 
> I guess you just want to argue.


Thought you might get a kick out of this.
My new.. to me bike








2015 i believe cannondale trigger 29er!! And ya weights no issue whatever it weighs lol


----------



## office (Aug 8, 2007)

If you wanted today's trail/enduro bike descending capability back in the day you needed to buy a full on downhill bike. They were 42+ lbs and we spent all day pushing them up trails.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

My 120 pound GF rides a 35 pound bike and doesn't whine at all. Harden up, grow some tits, and ride like a real woman.


----------



## andy f (Jan 13, 2004)

Travis1911 said:


> Is no one going to touch on how he weighed his bike? I was under the impression that weighing something light like a bike on a scale meant for two footed heavy humans was inaccurate.


Bathroom scales aren't very accurate and even worse at lower weights but they can give a pretty accurate weight differential. Weigh yourself, repeat holding your bike in the air, and subtract. The result will usually be within 0.25 lb. of reality.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

Anyone ever had to explain how even modern carbon bikes weigh more than older aluminum bikes?

One riding buddy picked up my new carbon YT Izzo and asked "wait I thought carbon is suppose to be lighter" We were all riding aluminum Giant Trances that were in the 29-30 lbs range. My Izzo is closer to 31. So I had to explain bikes are built burlier now and how geometry and suspension design can make bike pedal faster.


----------



## Calsun (May 12, 2021)

I found it interesting and a bit frustrating to even find the weights of various bikes. Giant tells people to go to a bike shop and weigh the bike there. It is like dealers not wanting to talk about miles per gallon for their cars. 

What is overlooked with mountain bikes is relative efficiency for the rider based on the frame geometry. Most of the focus seems to be on downhill performance with climbing performance ignored. Carbon fiber frames make it easy to cut bike weight by 2-3 lbs and the best part is that customers pay thousands more and so the manufacturer and dealer make more on each one sold.

Not much effort is being put into making mountain bikes lighter as this could compromise strength and result in more broken frames and parts. I remember when people would drill holes into bike frames and chainrings and crank arms to make their bikes lighter.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

But part of the weight gain isn't just the frame. Tires are meatier, wider wheels are heavier, and everyone wants a bigger fork and a shock with reservoir.


----------



## DeeCount (Oct 3, 2020)

Bikeventures said:


> But part of the weight gain isn't just the frame. Tires are meatier, wider wheels are heavier, and everyone wants a bigger fork and a shock with reservoir.


Weight is all relative. I still remember when a burly 26" tire was a 1.85 (and in reality much smaller) and weighed 500g. Now my DHR II EXO 26x2.4 weights 886g and I don't even notice the weight, I do notice the amazing traction though. 👍


----------



## neeko b (May 12, 2016)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ive never been much of a weight weenie, but Ive noticed some pretty hefty weights on some new bikes.
> I was looking at the polygon sisku line.. Seems like descent bikes that rate well and are just under 2k.
> But I noticed the weight on their own site 36.5 pounds!!


Honestly I think that is an error. We got a small size Polygon Sisku D7 over here, purchased last year, and it only weighs about 32 pounds max. Sick bike for the cost. Not sure what an XL would weigh, though.


----------



## Amt0571 (May 22, 2014)

I went from a 26 11.5kg 100mm hardtail to a 29 14kg 120mm hardtail.

The new bike is more capable and more fun. It has a lot of traction compared to the old one, both when ascending and when descending, and I don't notice it all that much during most of my riding. It also lets me ride where I previously walked (a lot of that is because of the dropper though).

However, the weight is noticeable when climbing on places where traction is not a problem, and while going fast on flats. In those circumstances, the old bike was definitely faster. 1X with its crappy gear spacing doesn't help, as there's too much jump between the 10t and 12t when going fast on flats.

EDIT: I forgot to say that the new bike cost 2x what the old bike cost with similar quality components. My salary didn't double up in that time.


----------



## OldMike (Apr 30, 2020)

Amt0571 said:


> I went from a 26 11.5kg 100mm hardtail to a 29 14kg 120mm hardtail.
> 
> The new bike is more capable and more fun. It has a lot of traction compared to the old one, both when ascending and when descending, and I don't notice it all that much during most of my riding. It also lets me ride where I previously walked (a lot of that is because of the dropper though).
> 
> ...


I upgraded this yr and found the same thing (weight/price/capability.
But in the end I have no regrets. The newer bike is far more fun to ride


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

OldMike said:


> I upgraded this yr and found the same thing (weight/price/capability.
> But in the end I have no regrets. The newer bike is far more fun to ride


You sure?


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Bikeventures said:


> But part of the weight gain isn't just the frame. Tires are meatier, wider wheels are heavier, and everyone wants a bigger fork and a shock with reservoir.


To hells wit dat...I want light!!!


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

It has always been a 3 way ratio balance of money/capability/weight. If you want to drive one of these 3 areas up or down the other 2 must change. In todays market, capability increases have been driven by the consumer so much so that weight and money has had to adjust and clearly us mortals want to keep the money variable as low as possible, thus weight must go up. You can still have a "capable" (I kind of hate that description), really light bike, even today, but the dollars go to the moon. But, for say 3K today the balance of all three you have at your disposal is the best the world has ever seen, so enjoy it, and just pedal harder on the climbs


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

I had an epiphany a couple of rides ago. Seems to be for long, steep, grinding, fireroad climbs, weight is sort of irrelevant. It is going to suck no matter what bike you are on.

But for those climbs on singletracks/doubletracks, that are more dynamic, a lot of changes in pitches, switchbacks, acceleration and momentum play a big part of how pleasant the climb will be. And weight plays a factor in acceleration and momentum.


----------



## rain164845 (Jul 6, 2008)

office said:


> If you wanted today's trail/enduro bike descending capability back in the day you needed to buy a full on downhill bike. They were 42+ lbs and we spent all day pushing them up trails.


My modem Enduro bike is 39.5 lbs... 

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Smiles for miles (Feb 26, 2021)

Mountain bikes are getting heavier because they're turning into motocross bikes that are easier to ride on black diamonds. Current E bikes are already on the motocross spectrum, but the e bike marketing people will never admit it.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

Smiles for miles said:


> Mountain bikes are getting heavier because they're turning into motocross bikes that are easier to ride on black diamonds. Current E bikes are already on the motocross spectrum, but the e bike marketing people will never admit it.


Cost more than a decent moto for sure...


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

rain164845 said:


> My modem Enduro bike is 39.5 lbs...
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


My E-bike weighs 39.8 lbs....with pedals ; however, my Stumpy weighs 27.5 lbs.... also with pedals.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

PhillipJ said:


> Yeah so in 17 years the S-Works Enduro is physically bigger (for any given size), has bigger wheels, more travel, better tyres, suspension and brakes, pedals better, descends better and is only about half a kg heavier. Sounds like a win to me.


Late reply but I had a 2011 Enduro, the first X-wing version. It was a nice bike, 26 inch tires, Rockshox Lyric if I recall. My 2022 Enduro is heavier but a much, much nicer bike. Physically a lot bigger, too. I'm a much better rider now, too.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

neeko b said:


> Honestly I think that is an error. We got a small size Polygon Sisku D7 over here, purchased last year, and it only weighs about 32 pounds max. Sick bike for the cost. Not sure what an XL would weigh, though.


My wife's box fresh T8 size medium 29er weighs in at 35.3lbs with the supplied pedals and her ridiculous Lazyboyesque Ergon SC Core Prime comfort saddle installed.

The pedals weigh about 1lbs and I think her saddle is about .5lbs heavier than the stock item, so take 1.5 away from 35.3 and you get 33.8lbs. Polygon list the weight as 15.2kg = 33.5lbs, whilst BikesOnline have it at 32.85 which seems a little optimistic, although they might weigh it before one of their techs gets a bit happy during assembly and applies about 5lbs of grease! 

The front wheel/tire/tube/rotor combo on the T8 (Hans Dampf 2.6 on i35 rim) weighs 5.8lbs which is 1.3lbs heavier than the tubeless i30 Forekaster 2.35" setup on my Oiz. I've got new wheels ordered for my Oiz and so I'll move my current wheel set to the Siskiu, swap the Tektro Orion 4 pots for the Deore 2 pots on her current bike, a pair of OneUp composite pedals and it should bring that weight down by over 3lbs.


----------



## Calsun (May 12, 2021)

It is not so much weight as how much of the bicyclists power gets to the rear wheel to rotate it without slipping on the ground or flexing of the frame or compression of a shock. It is why hardtails are favored overall for climbing.

A lot of the engineering on new bikes is to tune the suspension to minimize power loss from the front forks and rear shock and bike manufacturers use different approaches. With the latest top of the line Scott the rear shock was moved inside the downtube to imrove performance and with the Specialized Stumpjumper bikes the Horst link was eliminated on the top models.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Calsun said:


> It is not so much weight as how much of the bicyclists power gets to the rear wheel to rotate it without slipping on the ground or flexing of the frame or compression of a shock.* It is why hardtails are favored overall for climbing.*


Is that 100% true? On a very technical climb doesn't the rear suspension help to keep the tire in contact with the ground over a hardtail?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Calsun said:


> It is not so much weight as how much of the bicyclists power gets to the rear wheel to rotate it without slipping on the ground or flexing of the frame or compression of a shock.* It is why hardtails are favored overall for climbing.*


Is that 100% true? On a very technical climb doesn't the rear suspension help to keep the tire in contact with the ground over a hardtail?


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

Calsun said:


> with the Specialized Stumpjumper bikes the Horst link was eliminated on the top models.


No, the Horst link was eliminated on the shorter-travel-models. All longer-travel-models (including very expensive ones) retain the Horst link.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

DtEW said:


> No, the Horst link was eliminated on the shorter-travel-models. All longer-travel-models (including very expensive ones) retain the Horst link.


Adding on/slightly clarifying.

The carbon fiber "normal/vanilla/regular" Stumpjumper uses a flex stay design (not horst link, notice no pivots on the chainstay of the current carbon models).

All other variants of the current Stumpjumper use Horst link (All Stumpjumper Evo models, and the Alloy "normal/vanilla/regular" Stumpjumper).


----------



## Stewiewin (Dec 17, 2020)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ive never been much of a weight weenie, but Ive noticed some pretty hefty weights on some new bikes.
> I was looking at the polygon sisku line.. Seems like descent bikes that rate well and are just under 2k.
> But I noticed the weight on their own site 36.5 pounds!!
> Does that number not ring bells for people?
> ...


dual sus is heavy


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

Flex stay rear triangle is not possible with alloy? I cant think of a brand that has a flex stay rear and allow alloy frame.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Bikeventures said:


> Flex stay rear triangle is not possible with alloy? I cant think of a brand that has a flex stay rear and allow alloy frame.


I thought the Giant Stance was an alloy flex stay?


----------



## OldMike (Apr 30, 2020)

jeremy3220 said:


> I thought the Giant Stance was an alloy flex stay?


Apparently the Giant FlexPoint movement is ever so slight (compared to the Spec FlexStay)
See here 1:17

Looks similar to me


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

> Scott has been using flex-stays for a number of years now on its 120mm travel Spark, both in alloy and carbon variants, and of course Giant has already used the design since 2015 on the 27.5in Stance


I stand corrected.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Bikeventures said:


> Flex stay rear triangle is not possible with alloy? I cant think of a brand that has a flex stay rear and allow alloy frame.


I think the old Kona Heihei used flex stays on an alloy frame.


----------



## TylerVernon (Nov 10, 2019)

Also many older Cannondale's use al flex stay. I was marveling at one the other day as it was being serviced in the lbs. The thing had obviously been frisbee'd into a rock garden and had deep gouges right in the part of the stay that flexed. Yet it still hadn't cracked.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

Bikeventures said:


> I stand corrected.


Correct! my 2020 spark had them.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

Curveball said:


> I think the old Kona Heihei used flex stays on an alloy frame.


I think the new carbon one does too...though perhaps not the reason for this.


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

I do not really notice the weight of heavier bikes up into mid 30 lb range. I always rent bikes when I travel and some of them have definitely been on the heavier side with chunky/lifeforce-sucking tires, mid to low level components, etc.

I generally aim for a target weight on my own 29er builds of: ~27-28 lbs for (150mm) FS, ~24 lbs or less for hard tail and lighter than that for SS's. Some of my older wheel sets add 2-3 lbs. I swap them in on occasion when doing maintenance and do not notice that added "rotational" weight either.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

I didn't see anyone mention that's not how you weigh a bike.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

edubfromktown said:


> I generally aim for a target weight on my own 29er builds of: ~27-28 lbs for (150mm) FS, ~24 lbs or less for hard tail and lighter than that for SS's.


I must be doing it wrong my SS is 31lbs (with pedals)


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

DeoreDX said:


> I must be doing it wrong my SS is 31lbs (with pedals)
> 
> View attachment 1970367


Not wrong, just different. Got my Large Steel 29er down to 27 with pedals. Still doesn't feel light


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

OldMike said:


> The new size tires (29") add weight as does the longer Frame needed to house them.
> But IME the new Geo more than compensates the difference.
> I had my old 2003 Jamis Dakar out today and I was struggling with climbs I normally easily clean
> on my 2021 SJ Comp Carbon.
> ...


Yes but no lying to physics. You will be schlepping that weight up every grade until it dies. Geo or not.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

Pedalon2018 said:


> Yes but no lying to physics. You will be schlepping that weight up every grade until it dies. Geo or not.


This is true. However, movement of the weight can be done more efficiently with modern geo. Steeper seat tube angle for example have placed riders in more efficient pedals positions as of late.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Weight not matter... ha.

Last weekend I rode a new trail, just completed, through a new piece of state land. All big cedars and their roots. 3.5 miles of trail in a tiny area, pretty much hit every root in the place, every steep hill was rounded 3 times with kinks upon kinks. Wonderfully exhausing because you couldn't sit, tons of body english to float on those roots. Was terrific course like was normal in the before times where you moved the bike around your center of mass.

Realized driving home that it was state land and ebikes were allowed there. Ha. I'd like to see that. Not the place for a piggy bike.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ive never been much of a weight weenie, but Ive noticed some pretty hefty weights on some new bikes.
> I was looking at the polygon sisku line.. Seems like descent bikes that rate well and are just under 2k.
> But I noticed the weight on their own site 36.5 pounds!!
> Does that number not ring bells for people?
> So is 2k for a descent bike at 36 pounds normal?


This is actually funny. You know what Polygon did? The one mistake they made? They told the truth about how much their bikes weigh. Hardly anyone else does that. Most of the bikes I've looked at are off about 5-10% on the weight, as in they said it was 2-3 lbs lighter than it actually is. Which means their competitors for basicially the same weight of frame and components are saying their own bike weighs 33-35 lbs, when in reality it's probably 36-37 lbs. Let's do some quick and dirty math:

Frame 6 lbs
Drivetrain including crankset 5 lbs
Fork 4.5 lbs
Shock 2 lbs
Brakes and rotors 2 lbs
Handlebars, grips & stem 1.5 lbs maybe?
Dropper, housing, lever 2 lbs on the high side
Wheelset with tires, tubeless 10 lbs
Subtotal: 33 lbs; extra misc. stuff 3.5 lbs, seems like a lot of extra stuff so maybe some of the components above weigh a bit more

$2500 is not a bad price at all for a full-suspension bike (with decent suspension, not that I know a single thing about shocks). But it's also why I generally spend between $2800 and $3100 for 24-27 lb hardtails, because I know the real weight and yes it does drop 10-12 lbs off the bike. And you will really feel a difference for anything more than 2-3 lbs. They are pretty light and super fun, and I have no need for a huge heavy bike with rear suspension. Others that shuttle up and bomb down do, I get it. Those guys if they have to pedal up really complain a lot. I've seen them push their bike up the last 300 feet. I just climb by and console them that they are almost to the top. That's why some of them are e-biking it now and I for one am not going to blame them.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> This is actually funny. You know what Polygon did? The one mistake they made? They told the truth about how much their bikes weigh. Hardly anyone else does that. Most of the bikes I've looked at are off about 5-10% on the weight, as in they said it was 2-3 lbs lighter than it actually is. Which means their competitors for basicially the same weight of frame and components are saying their own bike weighs 33-35 lbs, when in reality it's probably 36-37 lbs. Let's do some quick and dirty math:
> 
> Frame 6 lbs
> Drivetrain including crankset 5 lbs
> ...


Off by 5-10 percent? Can’t say I have seen the same. While I don’t buy many pre configured bikes, the few I have bought have been spot on. Most recently the we are one arrival came in under quoted weight. No 30 lb bikes I have seen have ever come in at 33 (10 percent over).


----------



## fokof (Apr 24, 2006)

You all know why bikes weight more now ?

They are indestructible and all their components lasts forever.
( Insert sarcasm icon here )


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

fokof said:


> You all know why bikes weight more now ?
> 
> They are indestructible and all their components lasts forever.
> ( Insert sarcasm icon here )


They're a shitload better than they used to be.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

fokof said:
You all know why bikes weight more now ?

They are indestructible and all their components lasts forever.
( Insert sarcasm icon here )




dysfunction said:


> They're a shitload better than they used to be.



Meh. Yes...but that doesn't mean that a 22 lb modern XC bike is horrible either. Better components don't always weigh more than they used to. In fact, I'm really shocked at how much some of the full-suspension bikes weigh. I talked with this one older dude today and he said he has a great bike...and it's 38 lbs. To me that's nothing to brag about...38 lbs? That weight is closing in on cheap steel $200 Walmart bikes. I mean can't they build a decent 30 lb full-suspension bike for under $10 grand? Oh yeah, they do, 27 lbs, $5-6K:









19 Reasons to/NOT to Buy Intense Sniper (Jan 2023) | BikeRide


Intense Sniper is the world’s #6 best mountain bike (1 rating + 2 experts). See today’s top deals from multiple retailers. Ultimate Buyer’s Guide.




www.bikeride.com





So then above that is Enduro/DH but does it have to be 10 lbs above a 27 lb short-travel bike? No wonder those guys complain about climbing. I wonder if anyone did a real analysis of weight, suspension travel, and climbing vs. downhill times...and if they did, would they find something 10 lbs heavier may descend 5-10% faster but climb 15-30% slower. That doesn't seem like a great tradeoff unless they are planning on doing shuttles a lot.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

richj8990 said:


> So then above that is Enduro/DH but does it have to be 10 lbs above a 27 lb short-travel bike? No wonder those guys complain about climbing. I wonder if anyone did a real analysis of weight, suspension travel, and climbing vs. downhill times...and if they did, would they find something 10 lbs heavier may descend 5-10% faster but climb 15-30% slower. That doesn't seem like a great tradeoff unless they are planning on doing shuttles a lot.


https://www.mtbr.com/goto/post?id=15552567

Now take one more step and think about how an enduro race is timed.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> fokof said:
> You all know why bikes weight more now ?
> 
> They are indestructible and all their components lasts forever.
> ...


29" wheels, all things equal weight more than 26"
30mm internal rims, all things equal weigh more than 23mm internal rims.
38mm wide forks with 180mm's travel weigh more than 30mm ones with 100mm travel.
Discs weigh more than rim brakes.
2.6" 29er tires weight more than 1.9" 26" ones.

And the list goes on and on.

22 is plenty light for a hardtail with high end moderns parts IMO.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

richj8990 said:


> I wonder if anyone did a real analysis of weight, suspension travel, and climbing vs. downhill times...and if they did, would they find something 10 lbs heavier may descend 5-10% faster but climb 15-30% slower. That doesn't seem like a great tradeoff unless they are planning on doing shuttles a lot.


It isn't 15-30. Thats silly. Its a matter of work to lift extra bike weight.

If I leave out aero because mtb go slow, and leave out extra ground friction because of the extra weight it is pretty much:

RiderWeight: W lbs
Light Bike: (L) 25 lbs
Heavy Bike: (H) 35 lbs

(W+L) / (W+H)

% speed improvement is 3.5% up to 6.5% for a 120lb rider:









I still hate riding heavy bikes, they feel terrible to ride, but thats just my happiness not my speed.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

eri said:


> It isn't 15-30. Thats silly. Its a matter of work to lift extra bike weight.
> 
> If I leave out aero because mtb go slow, and leave out extra ground friction because of the extra weight it is pretty much:
> 
> ...



Well if you have ever climbed a 9% trail that's popular, you'll know it isn't silly for someone to be several minutes behind at the top. Maybe that's just the rider being lazy but the end justifies the means: if they have a much heavier bike, it becomes psychological and they grow to hate climbing. To the point that on those DH trails I feel weird passing so many people, like it's not proper to do that (and others pass me, I'm somewhere in the middle for getting up the hill on time). Some are slogging it up slow as hell in the granny gear, grimacing like they are giving birth or something, others simply walk up long stretches. So yes if it's the same rider and all other things being equal, maybe it is 3.5-6.5% slower for 10 lbs heavier. But *the weight of the bike itself for sure has more to do with how the bike performs climbing, turning and braking than the total bike + rider + gear weight.* Otherwise all the winning racers would be 4 foot 9 one hundred lb horse jockeys. They aren't.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

richj8990 said:


> Well if you have ever climbed a 9% trail that's popular, you'll know it isn't silly for someone to be several minutes behind at the top. Maybe that's just the rider being lazy but the end justifies the means: if they have a much heavier bike, it becomes psychological and they grow to hate climbing. To the point that on those DH trails I feel weird passing so many people, like it's not proper to do that (and others pass me, I'm somewhere in the middle for getting up the hill on time). Some are slogging it up slow as hell in the granny gear, grimacing like they are giving birth or something, others simply walk up long stretches. So yes if it's the same rider and all other things being equal, maybe it is 3.5-6.5% slower for 10 lbs heavier. But *the weight of the bike itself for sure has more to do with how the bike performs climbing, turning and braking than the total bike + rider + gear weight.* Otherwise all the winning racers would be 4 foot 9 one hundred lb horse jockeys. They aren't.


So… you’re saying that it’s the ten pounds that does it. It’s such a catastrophically epic mass that all hope is surrendered, the riders buckle and walk. Whereas a pack of gum would be ignored? There’s a cliff in climbing speed somewhere between 0 and 10 pounds? Where exactly would the cliff start?

The reality is bike weight matters as much as any other weight. If a rider is 20-30 lbs overweight it might as well be extra weight on their bike And the 35lb bike is now 45-55. Fast riders aren’t all 4’10 but they have no extra weight. Look like birds.

Minutes behind for a popular climb? I see it all the time and I’m the guy 20 minutes behind the race leader after a 1 hour 20 climb. There’s many times more difference in individual fitness than reasonable bike weight can account for.

im not saying bike weight isn’t important, just the degree of difference isn’t so huge.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

eri said:


> So… you’re saying that it’s the ten pounds that does it. It’s such a catastrophically epic mass that all hope is surrendered, the riders buckle and walk. Whereas a pack of gum would be ignored? There’s a cliff in climbing speed somewhere between 0 and 10 pounds? Where exactly would the cliff start?
> 
> The reality is bike weight matters as much as any other weight. If a rider is 20-30 lbs overweight it might as well be extra weight on their bike And the 35lb bike is now 45-55. Fast riders aren’t all 4’10 but they have no extra weight. Look like birds.
> 
> ...


Nailed it. w/kg = speed. Need more roadies on here to talk sense into people.


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

Cary said:


> Nothing. You should keep riding what you have, as it is clear you either 1) just want to argue, or 2) want to rationalize why your old bike is superior to a new, far less expensive bike.


Lighter anything in the biking world cost more, potentially lots more. With inflation and higher demand for bikes, heavier bikes cost a ton with lightweight stuff unobtainable for many. My mtb comes in just under 22 lbs. but it came at a pretty high cost. The bike may be marginally better than bikes at half the cost, maybe. I rode the heaviest bikes Shwinn made as I delivered 120 papers every day for eight years. So I know heavy and ever since those days, I came to appreciate lite bikes and have been buying them for 50 years. You can flick them around, accelerate faster, stop sooner, climb faster and so on. But if you desire liter bikes, it starts with every component. Down side is cost and a ton of it. But most last a very long time. One set of my pedals retail for almost 500 dollars but weigh 179 grams. Still using them 14 years later, rebuilt of course. I bought a Sram 1190 Red cassette that is super lite and still in good condition 7,000 miles later. If biking is a high priority, it is easier to spend more.


----------



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

numbnuts said:


> Nailed it. w/kg = speed. Need more roadies on here to talk sense into people.



For xc and hilly road races that's mostly true but the flatter it gets the more it becomes just about watts.


----------



## numbnuts (Apr 20, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> For xc and hilly road races that's mostly true but the flatter it gets the more it becomes just about watts.


Oh I know, but context was climbing  There's a buddy here locally who, on a TT bike I can barely beat (both are about 6 foot 1, but I am 160, he is 210). But last 40 mile MTB race I think I beat him by 20 minutes.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

richj8990 said:


> Well if you have ever climbed a 9% trail that's popular, you'll know it isn't silly for someone to be several minutes behind at the top.


I ride an Oiz H10TR, my friend rides a Trance 29. Bike weights are similar but I'm probably 10lbs heavier than him and I can beat him up any climb.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I am still sitting here entertained by all this as my 120 pound girlfriend complains less about riding a 35 pound bike than a bunch of bros.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Sidewalk said:


> I am still sitting here entertained by all this as my 120 pound girlfriend complains less about riding a 35 pound bike than a bunch of bros.


I’m laughing too. Hyperbole on both sides. And so many fitness levels and trail types.

I don’t know what to say if you don’t enjoy the feeling of a 21lb singlespeed. light bikes aren’t necessary but they’re pretty great, as they say it feels like you’re riding ‘nothing at all’.

I’ve seen happiness when a light rider gets sat for the first time on a lighter bike. “I can’t believe bikes like this were out there this entire time!” - followed by a snake-strikes to the nards - so you watch yourself.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

🍿


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

My YT Izzo Launch Edition size large came in at 28lb 1oz. That's for 130mm suspension front an back, all for $6k. The bike is solid but I was still bummed at the weight. I was expecting closer to 26-27lb as the size small was advertised as 25.7 lbs.

So my biggest beef is with manufacturer's advertised weights. Really, they should know what their bikes weigh so why don't they advertise true weights. Sure there may be some manufacturing variability but not 2lbs.

I think the issue these days is that the style of riding has changed a lot. Peeps want "enduro" style bikes even if they are only running down a green/blue single track. I think there was an over push in the 2010s towards burlier bikes and many got over-biked as a result. I think that trend is reversing and people are not looking at these "down country" shorter travel bikes that are faster on the ups and flats but almost as capable on the downs due to the enduro style geo with the lighter chassis.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

eri said:


> I don’t know what to say if you don’t enjoy the feeling of a 21lb singlespeed. light bikes aren’t necessary but they’re pretty great, as they say it feels like you’re riding ‘nothing at all’.


My XC bike is 23 pounds, full suspension, with dropper. I almost never ride it outside of racing. Doesn't matter how light and fast it is uphill if I have to hold back my descending. 

I want to get my GF on a demo XC bike because I think she will like XC racing. But watching her descending style, I don't think she will like the XC bike for fun riding.


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

r-rocket said:


> Here is my Grand Unified Theory of Bike Weight:
> 
> Bike weight has two major areas of impact. First the total weight impacts your momentum. That's like trying to throw a basket ball vs. throwing a medicine ball. Second, there is the impact of weight on moving the bike around underneath you to steer and put english on the bike (sometimes called "pop").
> 
> ...


After the University, I did a stint as a railroad freight Engineer. I would always tell the dispatcher when I did not have enough power to get over the largest grade, and they usually listened. But when they didn’t, you cannot lie to the engine…..and stalls happen. So weight is weight and whatever you ride, you will be hauling that weight up every grade til it dies, every grade…..and maybe a few times you don’t mak the top, not enough watts to overcome all that freaking weight….



RETROROCKS said:


> Thanks for a well thought out explanation.


----------



## yakswak (Apr 17, 2004)

eri said:


> So… you’re saying that it’s the ten pounds that does it. It’s such a catastrophically epic mass that all hope is surrendered, the riders buckle and walk. Whereas a pack of gum would be ignored? There’s a cliff in climbing speed somewhere between 0 and 10 pounds? Where exactly would the cliff start?
> 
> The reality is bike weight matters as much as any other weight. If a rider is 20-30 lbs overweight it might as well be extra weight on their bike And the 35lb bike is now 45-55. Fast riders aren’t all 4’10 but they have no extra weight. Look like birds.
> 
> ...


I agree with this…I have two bikes that weigh about 4-5lbs difference and my best times up a local hill is around 21min for either one. Going up it at tempo pace I get up in around 26-27min. For many people it takes them 45min or more to get to the top. It’s the difference in fitness and tolerance for pain more than anything else.

Of course if you are talking minutes or seconds on a climb then shaving pounds here and there will definitely help!


----------



## Pedalon2018 (Apr 24, 2018)

dysfunction said:


> 🍿


Did you listen?


----------



## Frankie2blue (8 mo ago)

It’s funny but it seemed for a long time to me that bike companies were not even advertising the weight of any of the bikes and you had to dig deep to find it and or weigh it yourself.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Frankie2blue said:


> It’s funny but it seemed for a long time to me that bike companies were not even advertising the weight of any of the bikes and you had to dig deep to find it and or weigh it yourself.


You see weight mentioned occasionally, Orbea are proud of the weight of the top spec carbon framed Alma and Oiz XC bikes, same with the Rise eMTB.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Put away the stop watch and ride what is the most fun. And these days for most people, that is going to be a bit heavier than it used to be.

The best thing that ever happened to MTB design was in the early 2000s when people weaned themselve off the miopic focus on racing and instead focused on what was fun to ride. That is when AM bikes (which were ill-suited to win any racing format at the time) took off.

Yea, eventually Enduro took off in an attempt to capture how many riders actually ride: Climbing serves to give you excersise and get you to the top. Decending is the fun payoff of the whole thing. Oh, and hanging out at the top as everyone regroups… something else that the stopwatch does not like.

Unless you are currently in the middle of an xc race (or pretending you are in one), total ride time (climbing + decending) time is meaningless.

I don’t mean this as a dig against XC racing. I’ve done some in the past and may do so again. In racing nothing matters other than how fast you get from start to finish. But in every other scenaerio, there are many far more important things.

Some people get this, some don’t.


----------



## 938509 (9 mo ago)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ive never been much of a weight weenie, but Ive noticed some pretty hefty weights on some new bikes.
> I was looking at the polygon sisku line.. Seems like descent bikes that rate well and are just under 2k.
> But I noticed the weight on their own site 36.5 pounds!!
> Does that number not ring bells for people?
> ...


It's a long travel enduro bike so that weight is pretty normal. If you're going to use that bike for it's designed purpose you'll appreciate the weight on the downs and embrace the suck on the climbs.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Lighter is better.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Crankout said:


> Lighter is better.


Some folks like a heavier wallet.


----------



## wayold (Nov 25, 2017)

I don't race (or even ride that fast), but it's a helluva lot more fun to climb in my current 25 lb bike than my previous 36 pounder.


----------



## Impetus (Aug 10, 2014)

wayold said:


> I don't race (or even ride that fast), but it's a helluva lot more fun to climb in my current 25 lb bike than my previous 36 pounder.


sure. my #24 singlespeed is an absolute rocket up the climbs, but is pretty much only "masochistic fun" on the downs, unless its one of the 3 flow trails in all of Arizona.
By contrast, my 35 lb 170/165 dw-link FS bike pedals surprisingly well and isn't a dreaded chore to climb, but is a RIPPER on everything downhill; it leaves a huge smile on my face every ride.

Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

I weighed a couple of my bikes the other day. My BMX is my lightest bike at 27lbs. My gravel bike is 30lbs (with front rack and Weld 137 basket and 700x47c Durable casing Teravail Cannonball tires) and my townie is 34 lbs (an old Schwinn MTB with a Carver front fork, front rack and basket, big rear fender, etc). I don't even want to know what my mtb weights with its steel frame, 150mm travel fork, steel riser bars with a big old bmx stem.


----------



## Space Robot (Sep 13, 2008)

My Salsa Fargo weighs 33lbs. My wheels and tires (plus rotors and cassette) weigh 10lbs with a dynamo hub, i29 rims and 2.35 tires.

I was going to have a new, lighter front wheel built to swap in because I don’t use the dynamo much except for rare early morning rides.

But I decided I didn’t want to spend $250+ just to save a pound.


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

I mostly just notice the _price_ of new bikes these days.


----------



## Hrodulf (12 mo ago)

Weight ?

My current 29er HT is heavier than my former 26" HT, but the 29er is wayyyy faster and stable due to the new geo and larger wheel diameter. So I don't care too much about weight.

Same as with the bigger tires. My current 29x2.20 Maxxis Ikon tires are almost 1.7x heavier than the 26x1.95 I have used to run. Rotational weight my *ss, the additional grip and volume/comfort of the 29" tires compensate also 1.7x compared with 26" and translate that in a higher avg speed.

Even for road racing bicycles weight does not care too much anymore. It is being aero and stiff that counts.

Weight weenies is for dinosaures man...


----------



## OldSchoolMBer (May 25, 2013)

Hrodulf said:


> Even for road racing bicycles weight does not care too much anymore. It is being aero and stiff that counts.
> 
> Weight weenies is for dinosaures man...


In the pro peleton the bikes are all hovering around the minimum weight limit so there isn't much headroom on that front. Amongst the climbers especially they focus a lot on rider weight, they're bean poles these days.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

OldSchoolMBer said:


> In the pro peleton the bikes are all hovering around the minimum weight limit so there isn't much headroom on that front. Amongst the climbers especially they focus a lot on rider weight, they're bean poles these days.


Yes. Lighter is better all day long.


----------



## 938509 (9 mo ago)

A lot of you are comparing apples to oranges, the bike he's looking at is a long travel enduro bike not a sub 30 XC or trail bike. Even the current brand new Norco Range is somewhere around 39 lbs depending on build which is a downhill enduro monster. With that said if he's not planning on using the bike for it's intended purpose he would probably have way more fun on a lighter weight trail bike.


----------



## NC_Foothills_Rider (11 mo ago)

RETROROCKS said:


> Ya i agree back in the day sure.
> Im talkin lets say 35lbs do you now not feel the weight??
> Is the new geo making weight a non issue??
> Ok how??
> Im really looking for info!! not debates and arguing thanks


I just made the move from old-school 26ers to a modern geo Aluminum Tallboy size XL.

Oldbike 1= alu hardtail, 80mm fork, 26lbs (back when it was new/hot it was under 24 but resto-mods/upgrades made it a little heavier)
oldbike 2 - alu f/s, 120/100, 29.5 lbs
newbike1 = alu f/s, 140/120, 35.5 lbs

When I first got the new Tallboy home, I threw it on the stand for a once over and then on the scale. I about **** a brick at first at the scale readout. 
$3500 for 36lbs!

The truth is that I really only notice the weight when I lift it up onto my rack. I will say that putting a lighter rear tire really made a difference in feel on the TB. I would imagine a lighter cassette not made of cast iron and lighter wheels will really wake it up. I see a 33 lb Tallboy in my future LOL.

At any rate, I'm setting PRs on climbs now that I never did on either oldbike. Obviously the new bike is also much more sure footed and confident going downhill so I've set some PRs on DH segments too.

Like you I was shocked with the weight at first, but after about 100 miles now, I'm really settling in on the new bike. Improved rear suspension design, 1x drivetrain, and new geometry really negate the weight disadvantage for the most part. The 'weight weenie' mindset I dragged kicking and screaming from the 1990s

Granted, if I was rich and/or single, I'd have the CC Tallboy with XTR or X01 coming in at 29 lbs. I'd probably be a little faster on climbs. But that's $7k in my bank account that didn't spend, but still get most of the benefits.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Sometimes it could just be new bike syndrome. When I'm riding a new bike...I always feel like I'm riding harder than I usually do. I remember letting my friend borrow my road bike...which is a Cervelo S2. He has a Cannondale Super Six. He told me the next day he set a bunch of PR's.


----------

