# Why do new bikes weigh so much??



## Colo Springs E (Dec 20, 2009)

Geez, this is a $2200 hardtail bike from Santa Cruz:









Santa Cruz Bicycles Chameleon 27.5+ D Mountain Bike - Bikes


Buy the Santa Cruz Bicycles Chameleon 27.5+ D Mountain Bike online or shop all Bikes from Competitivecyclist.com.




www.competitivecyclist.com





32 pounds, without pedals.

WTF? Aren't Santa Cruz's pretty well thought of?

My 9 year old Niner EMD is just under 25#. That's 29" wheels vs 27.5. I think it was an $1800 or so bike when new.

I really don't consider myself a weight wienee, but good god, 32 pounds?? That's what a frikking Huffy should weigh, not a Santa Cruz.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Generalizing here — Newer bikes are
more capable than your nine year old bike. Weight is no longer the measure of a bike. 

32# is nothing. Mine’s 36# and I’d grab it any day before my older 25# bike.


----------



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

I think a lot of people's scales are broken. 2015 EMD was listed @ 29 pounds and had 100mm travel and skinny 2.0 (useless) tires. The Santa Cruz has 130mm travel, dropper and capable 2.8" tires.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

The Chameleon is a more rough and tumble type of bike while the EMD is pretty much a pure XC bike. They are designed for different things.

And as people said, you will be surprised how much faster your are on XC courses with a newer more capable bike, even with the increased weight.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

27.5+ means wider, heavier rims and tires. And the RS Recon has always been on the heavy side with a steel steer tube (guessing they still are). This 29er lizard is listed at 28.2.









Santa Cruz Bicycles Chameleon 29 R Mountain Bike - 2022 - Bikes


Buy the Santa Cruz Bicycles Chameleon 29 R Mountain Bike - 2022 online or shop all Bikes from Competitivecyclist.com.




www.competitivecyclist.com





EDIT: Oops, should have said steel stanchions


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Price is a factor that'll scare you. You can be 25 lbs. for $8K and it'll be a good value.


----------



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

Vespasianus said:


> The Chameleon is a more rough and tumble type of bike while the EMD is pretty much a pure XC bike. They are designed for different things.


Also the EMD was not a particularly light bike.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

My current bikes are all heavier than my weight weenie bikes were in the late 80s and early 90s, but my current bikes are a lot more durable, too.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

I was pretty surprised to feel the weight of my aluminum Chameleon, 27.5+ compared to carbon Stumpjumper, 29er.
I can't really feel the difference in weight but I haven't weighed either of them.
Yep, surprised the aluminum is as heavy as it is, also surprised the carbon SJ is heavy too.

I don't race so I really don't care. The few fun races I've entered, the bike isn't what is going to make or break me. I did get 2 podium positions (AG) though, both on the SJ.

I have a year 2000 stumpjumper hard tail, 26" wheels and rim brakes. The bike is crazy light.
I prefer riding either of the other 2 much more.
I could do the old bike on just a cruise, just haven't in a few years. Rode it with the ex a bunch of times just because I wasn't going to be riding hard.


----------



## Squirrel in the Spokes (Apr 9, 2021)

If your bike weighs more then you get stronger faster.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Current pro Enduro rigs are in the +35lb realm...

Sent from my Asus Rog 3


----------



## Squirrel in the Spokes (Apr 9, 2021)

It’s a conspiracy to make eBikes look like they weigh less


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Kind of missed the whole + part.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Colo Springs E said:


> Geez, this is a $2200 hardtail bike from Santa Cruz:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since your 9 year old bike:

Boost/SuperBoost/SuperDuperBoost + dropper + long and slack + 12 speed cassette = heavier/more capable bikes = more robust frame and beefier casing-ed tires required. Or something like that...

Okay, maybe not a dropper, but the other things almost for sure.

My 2015 160/160 Norco Range weighed 27.5 pounds with pedals and Minions. It's long gone. Don't miss it for a second.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Unless you are elite expert or pro racer, there's a pretty wide range of weights your bike can weigh and it won't make an iota of difference on your ride. At those highest levels of competition, a few seconds and even fractions thereof matter and mean the difference between podium spots, but the further removed you are from that, the less it matters. You can go extreme in the other direction, like steel rims and 1200g wirebead tires with a department store frame, but in between, it doesn't matter much.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

In addition to everything else that’s been said.

New bikes have longer reach and wheelbases. This means that the frame itself is longer. And longer frames mean more metal and more weight.

Additionally, dropper posts add about 1lb (totally worth it IMO). And this bike is a plus tired bike (27.5x 2.8in tires). Those tires weigh quite a bit, as do the wider rims (usually 35-45mm internal width AL rims).

And finally, lower end builds of bikes always weigh more. There is a pretty large difference in the weight and price of some components. The difference between a deore 12 speed cassette and an XTR 12 speed cassette alone is over 300g (~2/3lb).

So low weight XC style bikes still do exist in the 22-25lb range. But you pay for that pleasure.


----------



## OneTrustMan (Nov 11, 2017)

Nat said:


> Generalizing here - Newer bikes are
> more capable than your nine year old bike. Weight is no longer the measure of a bike.
> 
> 32# is nothing. Mine's 36# and I'd grab it any day before my older 25# bike.


Weird how people always say those new heavy bikes are more capable, but at the same time complaining about how short those cheap heavy components last, or how shitty they feel.

I know that there are high end heavy components, but lets be real here.
Most of the bikes up to 5K these days come with the cheaper stuff.
That's why they are so heavy, so maketing must be made to sell it as a advantage.

A good example is my Fox 36 Rhytym "Emtb" fork.
That thing is like a freaking noodle compared to higher end Fox forks.
The lowers flex more than the old Fox 34 Elite I had.
Or some of the super heavy cassettes that wear out quicker than the higher end cassettes.

I only have one light bike, the rest of my bikes are also more on the heavy side.
14Kg Hardtail, 16Kg Enduro bike.
But I made sure to upgrade them with the "better heavy" components since those are really good.


----------



## Colo Springs E (Dec 20, 2009)

Thanks for all the replies... briefly owned a newer Giant Talon 2 that I thought was an anchor at 31 pounds. Just surprised that with its low end components--and surely, a heavier a frame?--that it weighed less or about what this Chameleon clocks in at.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

OneTrustMan said:


> Weird how people always say those new heavy bikes are more capable, but at the same time complaining about how short those cheap heavy components last, or how shitty they feel.


When have I ever done that?


----------



## flyninjasquirrel (Apr 27, 2018)

It's generally well accepted these days that geometry, suspension, and setup are more important for efficient climbing than weight. For the downhills who cares.


----------



## Mike Aswell (Sep 1, 2009)

I think in the last new-bike-weight thread (or maybe it was the one before that) we eventually figured out that it's a conspiracy born of the evil bike industry to reduce warranty claims. At that time, it was the only way they could increase profits. But since then, they figured out they can start charging a whole lot more too. Evil sons of $%@&%$.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

OneTrustMan said:


> Weird how people always say those new heavy bikes are more capable, but at the same time complaining about how short those cheap heavy components last, or how shitty they feel.


It's Mountain Bike Review Forum, not Mountain Bike Don't Say Anything Bad About Bikes Forum


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Smashpot, Cush Core Pro, dropper post. There's 3 or 4 pounds right there that are totally worth their weight. Add Double Down (or equivalent) casings on top of that.


----------



## Darth Lefty (Sep 29, 2014)

So listen OP, here are some specific things about the bike you posted.

D+ build is 2 lb heavier than D 29er build and that's nearly all tires (and maybe tubes)
Recon RL fork has steel stanchions, probably weighs about five lb... a SID weighs three
Crank arms are about the heaviest you can get, and it has a steel chain ring. At least you avoid the solid spindle Powerspline - you hope
"stack of cogs" cassette - these were north of a pound at 11 speed, now they are approaching 1.5 lb at 12 speed. The expensive cassettes are like half a pound lighter
And, it's got a dropper, as others have pointed out.

The price is high, but that Santa Cruz sticker is really expensive to manufacture


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I haven't owned a bike that weighed less than 30lbs for a VERY long time. Durability is absolutely a characteristic I shop on. I pick light stuff where it makes sense, but I also pick heavier parts where that makes sense. Been shopping this way for 20yrs now. It saves a LOT of downtime for repairs and service on a bike I just want to ride.

I wouldn't push the weight weenie thing unless I was trying to be competitive when racing. But there are still limits because I wouldn't want to DNF due to some failure or another.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Colo Springs E said:


> Geez, this is a $2200 hardtail bike from Santa Cruz:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a plus bike where just the tires and wheels are going to be noticeable amounts of weight a modern 29r with 29r 2.6 tires won't have. IMO, the wide inner width 29rs are where it's at over plus bikes. I have hard tail (Honzo steel) and trail bike that will do plus tires and find they're mostly weight you don't need to push, spin or carry.

The bike you posted has a dropper and that's weight well worth hauling with you.

It seems to me like you have to go above the $1400 - $2200 range to lose a lot of weight, and I can attest to your getting diminishing returns when you do that. I know all this painfully well reducing our family fleet by 5 bikes and having steel hard tail, plastic trail bike and titanium all road bike.

You might think a bike like our steel Honzo is heavy compared to your older Niner, but everyone who rides it smiles. Try lots of stuff but if you have an older 29r hard tail, consider one with modern geometry and wider rims.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

My GF is a pretty new rider, started last year. Peak pandemic, she started on a 2009 Pivot. Pretty nice spec too, nice 26" Mavic wheels, Thomson parts, good 3x9 drivetrain.

It doesn't weigh much less than the 170mm aluminum 27.5 Transition she just picked up. New bike is so much more capable that it is unreal. Watching her go from a 2009 bike to a 2020 bike is hilarious. At 115 pounds she also did 3000' of single track climbing with not a single complaint.


----------



## bjcccat (Jul 28, 2009)

Modern MTB weight drivers:

1. Functional efficient suspension, prioritises its function over weight
2. Tires, thicker sidewall, wider… A single 2.4 Maxxis DHF is 2lbs
3. 1x12… Those 11-52 cassettes are boat anchors :-(
4. Dropper Posts… Like a seatpost inside a seatpost… weight x2
5. The carbon myth… it is not always lighter when it comes to components


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

OneTrustMan said:


> Weird how people always say those new heavy bikes are more capable, but at the same time complaining about how short those cheap heavy components last, or how shitty they feel.


Actually, I am the opposite. I am shocked by the fact that these "heavy" bikes feel so much better on the trail than the old "light bikes". Even rotating weight. I used to always go to light tires and rims and often paid the price. But now I find that a heavier 29er with big fat tires that are over 1 kg each are much faster overall. Kind of crazy if you ask me and a game changer. You can have a bike that is stronger, more durable, more reliable and faster. And yes, heavier.


----------



## Ironchefjon (Mar 23, 2007)

as a 250 lb dude, i welcome any and all advances in ruggedness at the expense of weight. I've broken less parts in the last 5 years than ever. Snapped chainstays on my bikes used to be almost a yearly ordeal.


----------



## dir-T (Jan 20, 2004)

I wouldn't base the "new bikes are heavier" observation solely on Santa Cruz's offerings. My wife bought a size small Juliana Furtado (women's SC 5150) and that thing was noticeably heavier than my large Pivot Mach 4 - by at least a couple pounds. I was really surprised how heavy a bike designed for a 5'2" woman could be but my wife is faster on that bike than she ever was on her older lighter Trek. 

She was able to shave a bunch of weight over time by upgrading to carbon wheels and some other parts but the frame still stands out as being fairly heavy. 

I'm guessing SC is prioritizes longevity over light weight.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Vespasianus said:


> Actually, I am the opposite. I am shocked by the fact that these "heavy" bikes feel so much better on the trail than the old "light bikes". Even rotating weight. I used to always go to light tires and rims and often paid the price. But now I find that a heavier 29er with big fat tires that are over 1 kg each are much faster overall. Kind of crazy if you ask me and a game changer. You can have a bike that is stronger, more durable, more reliable and faster. And yes, heavier.


It's not always even about going faster. If you put the stopwatch away a modern bike can still make a better riding experience with increased control, safety, strength, and can open up terrain that you might have avoided before. Heavier tires and inserts can make you less likely to have a flat. You can stash your tools on the bike so they're not on your back.

Edit: If by "faster" you meant that you can go a higher top speed then yeah, that's been true for me for sure. Instead of carefully picking my way through a rocky or rooty section I can blast through stuff without dying.


----------



## rcracer2 (Nov 12, 2014)

Because Santa Cruz offers a lifetime warranty on an Aluminum frame.


----------



## wayold (Nov 25, 2017)

Everybody always talks glowingly about new bikes being more "capable" and "durable". What's unsaid is that the sport of mountain bike has changed over the last 20 years into something much more enduro and bike park oriented than its largely XC past. If that's what you like to ride then have at it, but I ride a lot of climbing trails and definitely enjoy my current 25 lb bike a lot more than the arguably "more capable" 36 lb tank that preceded it. But then I'm an old guy who likes XC and couldn't give two shits about DH.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

wayold said:


> Everybody always talks glowingly about new bikes being more "capable" and "durable". What's unsaid is that the sport of mountain bike has changed over the last 20 years into something much more enduro and bike park oriented than its largely XC past. If that's what you like to ride then have at it, but I ride a lot of climbing trails and definitely enjoy my current 25 lb bike a lot more than the arguably "more capable" 36 lb tank that preceded it. But then I'm an old guy who likes XC and couldn't give two shits about DH.


You're not wrong. Just look at what the races back 20 years ago looked like. The XC races were much closer to what we'd call a gravel race now.

The nice part though, is that you can still find those sub 25lb bikes if you want to. And even though most of those are labeled "cross country" these days, the actual measurements/specs compare to "trail" bikes of just 5 years ago. I think the lowest weight I can recall for a full suspension cross country race bike recently was in the ~22-24lb range. And for those you will spend a fair bit. But even the cheaper models would be in the 25-27lb range. So while they are expensive, its not "that" much more than everything else.

As a side note, I find it moderately amusing how gravel bikes are slowly becoming mountain bikes from 1995. I mean, "flat bar" gravel bikes are now a genre that people recognize, and I even see some suspension forks being developed specifically for gravel. They also fit tires up to like 2.1 - 2.3in. At what point do people realize that they just "re-invented" a the rigid mountain bike?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

ocnLogan said:


> "flat bar" gravel bikes are now a genre that people recognize, and I even see some suspension forks being developed specifically for gravel. They also fit tires up to like 2.1 - 2.3in. At what point do people realize that they just "re-invented" a the rigid mountain bike?


Is that for real? Ooof, face palm. 20 years from now will there be mulleted endurogravel bikes?


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Nat said:


> Is that for real? Ooof, face palm. 20 years from now will there be mulleted endurogravel bikes?


Yeah, it absolutely is a thing.

Fox is working on one right now. And what is funnier, its actually an update of a model they started in 2017. The Fox 32 AX. 32mm stanchions, and 40mm of travel, but never really sold well. It looks like they're revamping it again.









Geoff Kabush previews new Fox 32 AX gravel suspension fork - CyclingTips


New fork features a dedicated lightweight chassis and hopefully much better performance than the original.




cyclingtips.com





The bike its being tested on is a drop bar gravel bike... but flat bar gravel bikes are definitely a thing.

I'm not saying they're the same thing as early mountain bikes... But, they're honestly not far off.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

ocnLogan said:


> Yeah, it absolutely is a thing.
> 
> Fox is working on one right now. And what is funnier, its actually an update of a model they started in 2017. The Fox 32 AX. 32mm stanchions, and 40mm of travel, but never really sold well. It looks like they're revamping it again.
> 
> ...


Joke on us (or at least on gravel grinders).


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Next up -- aerodynamic, tight-fitting lycra clothing?


----------



## uzurpator (Dec 8, 2005)

Nat said:


> Is that for real? Ooof, face palm. 20 years from now will there be mulleted endurogravel bikes?


Full suspension mullet gravel bike, thank you. Currently building it.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

uzurpator said:


> Full suspension mullet gravel bike, thank you. Currently building it.
> 
> View attachment 1937933


Triple suspension!


----------



## uzurpator (Dec 8, 2005)

Nat said:


> Triple suspension!


Misses a dropper though


----------



## Colo Springs E (Dec 20, 2009)

Ironchefjon said:


> as a 250 lb dude, i welcome any and all advances in ruggedness at the expense of weight. I've broken less parts in the last 5 years than ever. Snapped chainstays on my bikes used to be almost a yearly ordeal.


Fair. Im 5'6" and weigh a buck-fiddy, so our frame of reference is much different. At one point in my life 20-25 years ago, I was a pretty hardcore mtn biker, and the only thing I ever broke was a rear derailleur when I didnt clear a narrow crevice. So the older lighter bikes held up plenty well for me. I dont see myself ever buying a 32# bike, I dont care how good (or tough) it is.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Colo Springs E said:


> Fair. Im 5'6" and weigh a buck-fiddy, so our frame of reference is much different. At one point in my life 20-25 years ago, I was a pretty hardcore mtn biker, and the only thing I ever broke was a rear derailleur when I didnt clear a narrow crevice. So the older lighter bikes held up plenty well for me. I dont see myself ever buying a 32# bike, I dont care how good (or tough) it is.


If you have an older Niner you might be near where gravel bikes are going or at.

Stronger and more capable bikes, wider rims, droppers and heavier tires just make them weigh more. Not many years ago few people would really send their bikes. Now NICA teams and lesson programs for kids are packed with lots of kids sending their bikes.

It's also fine to stay with gear you have and like but I do suggest trying new stuff. A whole lot of fun and capability can be had with it. You're in a state with bike tourism so you can get a taste with a rental.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Mountain biking was different 20-25 years ago. It kind of evolved with the hardware.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Do you need a full suspension bike?

If not, there is a plethora of XC style hardtails that you can even build up sub 20lb if you decide to get spendy. And with the "advancement" of recent cross country bikes, I'd suspect that many of them have similar angles (or even more "trail bike" angles) to what you already have. Some of the below are even ~23lbs in their "cheap" build. So if you're weight conscious,and don't care about downhill performance/capability, then this is where I'd start personally.

The Mondraker Podium, Specialized Epic/Chisel, Specialized Procaliber, Scott Scale, Ibis DB9, etc.

And, for kicks I went ahead and compared the low end models weights against some of the spendy ones. The difference in weights was ~3-6lbs. So, the same frame, but a cheaper build kit can make a huge difference in weight.


----------



## Colo Springs E (Dec 20, 2009)

I honestly don't consider myself that weight conscious... but 32 pounds is (to me) pretty weighty for a hardtail bike. I have rented some nice high end bikes in the last year. For one thing, I wanted to try a dropper which people on this site insist is as important as wheels and tires. Well... not to me apparently. It was ok, there was a convenience factor... and that's about it. I have no desire to put a dropper post on my bike. I also don't want a full squish bike. Owned one years ago, tried two again recently (Mondraker, Pivot) and they were fun and all, but I simply prefer hardtails, they are what I grew up with. 

Disclaimer, I don't do anything real crazy anymore, I'm more about flowy trails with some decent ups and downs here and there, and occasional technical stuff. Other than that, alley exploration and tooling around town-- something I don't need a full suspension bike or dropper post for. Different strokes and all that. I do hope to find a Surly in the near future (Low Side hopefully), and I do recognize that will be a good bit heavier than my current ride, but I believe still sub-30 if I'm not mistaken. (granted, no gears or susp fork if Low Side) Thanks for replies all, educational for me!


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Yeah, for a town bike you wouldn’t really appreciate the benefits of good suspension, droppers, etc. It would be akin to having a supercar grocery getter.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Colo Springs E said:


> I honestly don't consider myself that weight conscious... but 32 pounds is (to me) pretty weighty for a hardtail bike. I have rented some nice high end bikes in the last year. For one thing, I wanted to try a dropper which people on this site insist is as important as wheels and tires. Well... not to me apparently. It was ok, there was a convenience factor... and that's about it. I have no desire to put a dropper post on my bike. I also don't want a full squish bike. Owned one years ago, tried two again recently (Mondraker, Pivot) and they were fun and all, but I simply prefer hardtails, they are what I grew up with.
> 
> Disclaimer, I don't do anything real crazy anymore, I'm more about flowy trails with some decent ups and downs here and there, and occasional technical stuff. Other than that, alley exploration and tooling around town-- something I don't need a full suspension bike or dropper post for. Different strokes and all that. I do hope to find a Surly in the near future (Low Side hopefully), and I do recognize that will be a good bit heavier than my current ride, but I believe still sub-30 if I'm not mistaken. (granted, no gears or susp fork if Low Side) Thanks for replies all, educational for me!


Surly's haven't ever been lightweights and some of their competition went to thicker wall tubing whether that was for strength for athletic people or the obesity epidemic. I have heavy friends who stopped getting cracked frames with newer bikes.

Ride a steel Honzo or other beloved model and I think you'll not care about the weight.


----------



## Tjomball (Jul 6, 2021)

Let's see.
Stronger bikes and components weigh more. Tires have become more reliable (read heavier), Dropper posts, Disc brakes.
We've come a long way since I began riding. But I'll still hang on to my old Bonty. Because no matter how much I love my Rallon, My Bonty's quite the whip.


----------



## foggnm (Aug 17, 2015)

The thing you will likely feel the most is the wheels and tires and travel if full suspension. Instead of shooting for a certain weight, consider getting a light (yet durable) wheelset and running a 2.4 tire with a normal casing. That is usually the best thing to make things feel "faster" on any bike.


----------



## foggnm (Aug 17, 2015)

One other thing...most cyclist will tell you losing 5 pounds off your body is worth a lot more than a lighter bike. People get caught up on a 33 vs 29lb bike. But if you have any extra lbs hanging on you....a lot cheaper to lose than spending thousands of dollars on bike parts.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

foggnm said:


> One other thing...most cyclist will tell you losing 5 pounds off your body is worth a lot more than a lighter bike. People get caught up on a 33 vs 29lb bike. But if you have any extra lbs hanging on you....a lot cheaper to lose than spending thousands of dollars on bike parts.


And, you'll make your bike look better.


----------



## TooTallUK (Jul 5, 2005)

I was late to droppers but I put the effort in to try and ride differently and actually use the dropper.
I'd now lose every other tech apart from disc brakes before I gave up the dropper from my bike. It really is that good once you get the differences sorted. If you're a hardcore seatpost guy then you're limiting yourself by what you 'grew up with'. That's OK and I hope you enjoy what you do. It doesn't negate where technology has gone just because it weighs a pound more.


----------



## Colo Springs E (Dec 20, 2009)

TooTallUK said:


> I was late to droppers but I put the effort in to try and ride differently and actually use the dropper.
> I'd now lose every other tech apart from disc brakes before I gave up the dropper from my bike. It really is that good once you get the differences sorted. If you're a hardcore seatpost guy then you're limiting yourself by what you 'grew up with'. That's OK and I hope you enjoy what you do. It doesn't negate where technology has gone just because it weighs a pound more.


I think it's more my type of riding that negates the need or desire for a dropper. I'm not racing. If I come to a spot I need to raise or lower my seat post, I'll just stop and do it. I can use the break anyway


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Relatively flat there?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Racing has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Squirrel in the Spokes (Apr 9, 2021)

If I stopped to raise and lower my post for every time I used my dropper I’d probably take an extra hour of riding I use it that often. Also not a racer except in my mind.


----------



## Colo Springs E (Dec 20, 2009)

I'm glad so many cyclists like their droppers. I demo'd a bike with one. It holds no appeal for me. If it has changed your life as a cyclist, that's great.


----------



## Squirrel in the Spokes (Apr 9, 2021)

Are you the one of the guys who popped up in front of me who were riding downhill sitting the whole way?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Colo Springs E said:


> I'm glad so many cyclists like their droppers. I demo'd a bike with one. It holds no appeal for me. If it has changed your life as a cyclist, that's great.


That's cool, but it does take more than one ride to learn to use one.

I was a bit of a hold out on droppers. I'd hear:
"I use my dropped more than I shift my gears" - yeah, sure you do.
"I'd give up my suspension before I'd give up my dropper" - yeah, sure you would. Crazy talk!

Now I ride my rigid SS about half the time - and it has a dropper. I do also have a rigid 11 speed with no dropper but I don't ride it as much. And a full suspension with a dropper. A lot of the trails I ride I rode for years with no dropper but it gives me more confidence to have the dropper, less fear of crashing, and there have been times on newer trails where I was really glad I had it.

Not trying to talk you into getting one, but, don't write them off just yet.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Colo Springs E said:


> I'm glad so many cyclists like their droppers. I demo'd a bike with one. It holds no appeal for me. If it has changed your life as a cyclist, that's great.


Flat-landers!?

Sent from my Asus Rog 3


----------



## ilmfat (Mar 10, 2007)

I put Gravel Kings on Arches to compare against 29x2.6 Ikons. Prolly a pound or two difference in rotational weight. Very little difference in feel.

The Hench Ladies care more about draggy tires than weight.


----------



## BujiBiker (Jun 7, 2019)

My size medium Gary fisher tassajara hardtail weighs 29 lbs. 2002 model with 100 mm elastomer fork. 2009 fsr xc comp, 120 mm full suspension weighed 33 1/4 lbs. both were 26” bikes. My Abajo peak 29 er with 130-140 mm travel weighs 34 lbs. All of these were lower end, but fully functional mountain bikes. Better capability, better strength, better durability. All of them could be made lighter, with lighter parts specs. I’m not complaining about the weight at all.


----------



## Taroroot (Nov 6, 2013)

Show me a 6" travel bike from back in the day that weighs less than my current 29 lb bike. If you were to compare similarly capable bikes, current bikes aren't really heavier. It's just that the trends of majority of bikes have shifted to toward "trail". You can still get more XC oriented bikes that are lighter. So really what you're seeing is the market and marketing shift, so I guess you could say that the average of bikes sold are heavier now.
As mentioned, droppers add weight, but you could always not run one. Discs are marginally heavier, but I will not go back to cantis or V's. Fatter tires are heavier, but youre free to go thinner.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

chazpat said:


> That's cool, but it does take more than one ride to learn to use one.
> 
> I was a bit of a hold out on droppers. I'd hear:
> "I use my dropped more than I shift my gears" - yeah, sure you do.
> ...


If you had 3rd person video of anyone who tried a dropper didnt like it, I am guessing you would see rider who does not use the range of motion afford by the dropper and use the seat to brace in turn.

I am **** rider skill wise, and I have never once been beat down a hill by some with a full pedaling position post.


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

Taroroot said:


> Show me a 6" travel bike from back in the day that weighs less than my current 29 lb bike. If you were to compare similarly capable bikes, current bikes aren't really heavier. It's just that the trends of majority of bikes have shifted to toward "trail". You can still get more XC oriented bikes that are lighter. So really what you're seeing is the market and marketing shift, so I guess you could say that the average of bikes sold are heavier now.
> As mentioned, droppers add weight, but you could always not run one. Discs are marginally heavier, but I will not go back to cantis or V's. Fatter tires are heavier, but youre free to go thinner.


Honestly my size L 2014 Trance SX Al frame weighs less than 28lb with proper tires on it. With that said my new Transition Sentinel size M weighs more(jsut under 31lb) but is better at basically everything. I only keep the Trance as back up bike and loaner.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

My GF had an EMD 9 back in 2013. Ordered the frame and built it up. I think it was just under 28lbs. It had a full XT 2x10, Fox 32, Niner carbon bar and post. Loaded Components wheels with Spesh Ground Control/Fast Trak 2.3/2.1 tires.

The Santa Cruz frame isn't all that heavy. The low end components are. The SX cassette is over 500 grams. The build group is a bunch of house brand parts. Then add the big tires.

I had a Specialized Carve Pro back in 2013. The MSRP was $2000. It was around 26lbs with no pedals and it had no dropper. If I had top pick between the EMD, Carve, and the Chameleon...today...I'd take the Chameleon...even with the crappy SX drivetrain and Recon fork. I'd get rid of the fork ASAP.

If you're not hung up on the Santa Cruz name...you can probably find a similarly spec'd bike with similar geo for a few hundred less.


----------



## TOGALOCK (8 mo ago)

My Canyon Stive is carbon everything, Eagle XX1 AXS, Reverb AXS dropper, XX1 cranks, XX1 chain, XG cassette, Zipp 3Zero Moto carbon rims, all the light stuff, and it still weighed 32 lbs on the scales.


----------



## john.ecc (8 mo ago)

TOGALOCK said:


> My Canyon Stive is carbon everything, Eagle XX1 AXS, Reverb AXS dropper, XX1 cranks, XX1 chain, XG cassette, Zipp 3Zero Moto carbon rims, all the light stuff, and it still weighed 32 lbs on the scales.


Your dropper post weighs 650g, one of the heaviest on the market, along with an almost 2KG wheelset, you've got room to play with when it comes to saving weight.


----------

