# Does a lighter bike REALLY make climbing easier?



## jbass (Oct 29, 2014)

I'm riding a ss steel hard tail that weighs in around 29lbs. I face a lot of climbs here in SoCal. It's a workout! I'm into it and getting stronger for sure, but just curious--I've never had the opportunity to ride something really really light, like a high-end carbon bike. Does a really light bike automatically make climbing considerably easier, or is it still more about the "engine"?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Assuming equal pedaling efficiency, rolling resistance, and position on the bike, the relationship is linear. 

Meaning, if you knocked 5% of the total bike/rider/equipment weight off, and pedaled at the same wattage, you'd go 5% faster.


----------



## jbass (Oct 29, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> Assuming equal pedaling efficiency, rolling resistance, and position on the bike, the relationship is linear.
> 
> Meaning, if you knocked 5% of the total bike/rider/equipment weight off, and pedaled at the same wattage, you'd go 5% faster.


Thanks--makes sense. And "faster" would translate to "easier" I figure!


----------



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

Yep, instead of going faster you could also go the same speed as a heavier bike with less effort.


----------



## jbass (Oct 29, 2014)

Damn, I was hoping someone would have some scientific proof that it doesn't actually matter that much


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

well there is economic proof that it is cheaper to lose weight off your body..

Also if your bike is 5% lighter you wont go 5% faster because it is your weight and the bikes weight.

since you weigh like 6 times the bike, it is something like less than 1%.


----------



## jbass (Oct 29, 2014)

goodmojo said:


> well there is economic proof that it is cheaper to lose weight off your body..


I can't afford to do that---I'm 5'8" and weigh 136 with clothes. My wife will leave me if I get any scrawnier! I'm fit and pretty strong, but sometimes I feel like, for my size, I'm muscling too much bike up these mountains.


----------



## phattruth (Apr 22, 2012)

While a lighter bike overall will help, lighter wheels make a huge difference. When I bought my Ibis 741's I couldn't believe the ease with which I could accelerate and fly up hills. There is definitely an advantage for having less rolling weight.


----------



## borabora (Feb 16, 2011)

jbass said:


> Damn, I was hoping someone would have some scientific proof that it doesn't actually matter that much


Losing around 10 lbs in bike weight to get you that 5% reduction in climbing effort would cost you a bundle. But losing even 2 lbs in total weight, especially in the bike, will make things feel a bit livelier. Losing 10 lbs would make a significant difference in how the bike feels. That's not just subjective but supported by physics since the effort required to accelerate a bike to x mph grows exponentially with mass. If you lighten your wheels you get a double whammy benefit because when you accelerate a wheel you do so both linearly and rotationally.

All this may be academic for you if you just grind up long even slopes but if you want a bike that feels livelier then losing 2-5 pounds could make you happy -- and poorer.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jbass said:


> I can't afford to do that---I'm 5'8" and weigh 136 with clothes. My wife will leave me if I get any scrawnier! I'm fit and pretty strong, but sometimes I feel like, for my size, I'm muscling too much bike up these mountains.


The bike weight-to-rider-weight ratio is a big issue. For me, pedaling a 29lb bike uphill is no biggie, at 175lb. I probably have 5lb to lose. 10lb is pushing it. I don't think there's any way I could drop that much weight on my current mtb. Not without a new bike. But I don't really care so much. The weight of my bike is in very functional places that make it more fun in a lot of situations.

My wife is a full 50lb lighter than me. Plus she's a lot less strong. So bike weight makes a HUGE difference for her. Her bike is currently in the mid 20's and she's absolutely thrilled with it. Especially compared to her old bike, that she just wasn't strong enough to maneuver well.

But as folks mentioned already...once you get to a certain point, incremental weight reduction starts getting REALLY expensive and you won't get it in big chunks anymore. If you start playing that game, you'll eventually start replacing all of your hardware with Ti bits and spending hundreds on bolts.


----------



## SDMTB'er (Feb 11, 2014)

If we are talking about carbon bikes, they are not only lighter, but stiffer. Meaning your energy is not being lost by a frame that is flexing as much as aluminum.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

My daily bike/trainer is about 30 pounds, my carbon cyclocross bike is 19.5. I sometimes ride my cx bike on my mtb trails, and it really climbs a lot easier (in a similar gear), I notice it especially when I stand up, it seems to launch forward. My carbon xc race bike is about 24 pounds, the cx bike feels quicker going up, - probably because of the skinny wheels/tires. I'll go ahead and say that when climbing you'll notice lighter wheels or a 5lb lighter bike, especially if it's stiff.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Light bikes are really fun in general, not just to feel like a rocket up climbs after being used to heavier. Good to have one in your quiver, even if it's a totally stripped rigid singlespeed with 26" wheels. A light bike by itself isn't that special. You should really have the contrast of pushing a heavy main one, and switching over to the lighter one to feel the full effect.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Assuming equal pedaling efficiency, rolling resistance, and position on the bike, the relationship is linear.
> 
> Meaning, if you knocked 5% of the total bike/rider/equipment weight off, and pedaled at the same wattage, you'd go 5% faster.


that makes no sense, for a 160 pound rider and a 25 pounds bike a 5% reduction of bike weight (1.25 pounds) is just 0.67 % reduction in total weight. That would be the ballpark gain: 0.67% or whatever watts/pounds you use to propel yourself.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

The consensus remains if you shave weight off yourself, the optimized power-to-weight ratio makes you faster, even on a heavier bike.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

29lbs for a steel SS? I'm betting you could get some weight off that pretty cheaply. Probably a good place to start being the wheels and tires.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

I had a light bike once. It broke. Climbing was really slow after that.

-F


----------



## LaXCarp (Jul 19, 2008)

I dont think the question is as easily quantifiable as X% off the overall weight equals X% performance improvement.

To prove this point, lets theoretically compare two 30lb bikes....one bike has a 28lb frame/components and 2 lb wheels. The other bike has 2 lb frame/components and 28lb wheels. Using the above rationale, the two bikes should feel identical under a 150lb rider because the total package for both is 180lbs, requiring the same amount of energy expenditure to make a climb.

I guarantee you the energy required to climb said hill is different for each bike. 

Thus, I will conclude with saying "maybe"


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Every kilo (2.2lb) will save about 40s for every thousand meters climbed for the average rider.

Average rider is key. The more powerful you are the less important weight is. This means that typically weight is really important for small women and not that important for big guys.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

For someone of your size, a 29lb bike will definitely feel like a lot more to you than it would to me,but as others have said, it's total weight of bike+rider that matters for this sort fo thing. Now if you're talking being to throw the bike around and man handle it, then yes loosing weight off the bike matter a huge amount.

I'm with Cotharyus on this one. Can't even begin to imagine what bike it is you have setup SS that weighs so much. My Geared XL/22" Karate Monkey only weighs 28lbs.



Cotharyus said:


> 29lbs for a steel SS? I'm betting you could get some weight off that pretty cheaply. Probably a good place to start being the wheels and tires.


----------



## primoz (Jun 7, 2006)

jbass said:


> Damn, I was hoping someone would have some scientific proof that it doesn't actually matter that much


Well it's physics, so it would be kinda hard, unless we discover something really revolutionary  But otherwise yes, 1kg lighter bike doesn't matter all that much. That's why it just feels so funny for me to see all those "weight weenies" who are 120kg, and think they will all of a sudden fly uphill if their 10kg bike would be just 9.8kg  Maybe losing 50kg of your own fat would help much more, then 0.2kg on bike


----------



## Mountainking7 (Nov 8, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> Assuming equal pedaling efficiency, rolling resistance, and position on the bike, the relationship is linear.
> 
> Meaning, if you knocked 5% of the total bike/rider/equipment weight off, and pedaled at the same wattage, you'd go 5% faster.


Meaning if I go from a 14kg bike to a 9kg one, I would beat my PR of 54mins on a 10.5km climb avg 6.5% grade to (74/79*100)X54mins = 50.5 minutues....

Really thinking if its worth 'upgrading' my 14kg bike to a 9kg fuji roubaix 2015 costing about $1500....


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Physics aside, in accordance with my own on the trail experience, my view is that apart from rolling weight, shedding weight is highly overrated relative to the cost. This coming from a guy who threw $3k at upgrades at a brand new bike this year (and that's on the friends' and family deal at my LBS - e.g., I got my Enve wheel set for $1k CDN, and many components were upgraded for little to no cost because of my 2+ decades of loyalty, and the owner's personal interest in my little project). I got the weight down from about 31.5 pounds to 27.5 pounds, but I am not sure I would go that route again, except perhaps for the wheel set. Bling-wise, yeah, it's very cool. Performance-wise though, very very diminishing marginal rates of return on investment, from a climbing perspective or otherwise. Yeah, I would obviously take a lighter bike over a heavier one, all other things equal but apart from the wheel set, I do not sense the reduction of weight has made that much of a difference on the trail. All that said, I am not into Strava so maybe I am faster now, but it sure doesn't feel like it, nor does it seem like my rides require any less exertion. I suppose if I weighed less than my 195ish fully geared, I may have noticed more of a difference.

I just had this exact discussion with a riding buddy last night who was resisting lock-on grips, even though his ESIs had migrated inwards on his bars (exactly like mine did). He was stressing over the thought of lock-ons, because they would add 90 grams (or something) to his bike's overall weight. When you obsess over cutting grams when building a bike, all of a sudden reality and practicality become lost very quickly. It's a very slippery slope. It can become a bit of a sickness.


----------



## jbass (Oct 29, 2014)

LyNx said:


> For someone of your size, a 29lb bike will definitely feel like a lot more to you than it would to me,but as others have said, it's total weight of bike+rider that matters for this sort fo thing. Now if you're talking being to throw the bike around and man handle it, then yes loosing weight off the bike matter a huge amount.
> 
> I'm with Cotharyus on this one. Can't even begin to imagine what bike it is you have setup SS that weighs so much. My Geared XL/22" Karate Monkey only weighs 28lbs.


Still reading through all the replies, but FYI:

It's a 2014 Kona Unit, with a newly-added RockShox Recon Gold fork(w/remote lockout), 2.4 Ardent in the front (still running tubes), VP Vice Pedals, 32/20 gearing, Renthal grips. Otherwise, it is stock. The last two mods I did, the fork and the 2.4, added weight! I figure the fork added a pound or so. I think it was about 27 lbs bone stock.
I know it could be lighter. I have a past thread I inquired about ways to lose weight. Wheels are out of the budget for now, but in a few months I might be able to swing it.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

I have had at least 8 Konas over the years (I currently own two, and the 8 that I mentioned does not include the 2 Konas my daughter currently owns). Generally heavier frames than the competition (and sometimes spec'ed a little beefier) but I have yet to find a more comfortable and confidence-inspiring bike overall, geo-wise (including my current Norco Range). This is a perfect example of what I was trying to say in my earlier post - spend some $$$ on a high end wheel set and be done with it. The added weight will not be noticed on the trail - it wouldn't by me at least.

All that said, I have never in my life taken a new bike, and made a bunch of mods that _increased_ its overall stock weight (let alone 2 pounds on a hardtail). Don't think I would ever do that. Nor do I have any experience with a Unit.


----------



## jbass (Oct 29, 2014)

mtnbkrmike said:


> All that said, I have never in my life taken a new bike, and made a bunch of mods that _increased_ its overall stock weight (let alone 2 pounds on a hardtail). Don't think I would ever do that. Nor do I have any experience with a Unit.


Yeah, I know! I first added the 2.4 in the front to add a little traction and hopefully take some sting off the rigid. That added some grams. I then broke down and went with the squish in front because I was just getting too beat up around here rigid. There's lighter forks out there but that was in the budget that worked with the bike. (However, the jury is still out on the sus fork actually--I miss the feel of the rigid at times, like I'm trying to make the bike something it isn't&#8230;..)


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

jbass said:


> ...I miss the feel of the rigid at times, like I'm trying to make the bike something it isn't&#8230;..)


That was my immediate thought. Adding the fork and converting from a SS makes me wonder why you didn't look at a different model at the outset.

Anyway, the first thing I would do to your bike is get rid of those tubes. I haven't run tubes for at least 10 years. I don't know why anyone would. Apart from having to top up my tires every now and then, I see no downside to running tubeless, and a bunch of advantages. That said, I have read different things about whether it materially reduces rolling weight. Not saying to do it for that reason.


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

jbass said:


> Does a really light bike automatically make climbing considerably easier, or is it still more about the "engine"?


A light bike doesn't make it easier, it just makes you faster. Also, the engine is more important than any component when it comes to climbing.


----------



## Gallo (Nov 17, 2013)

no matter bike rider or weight faster is never easier. Conditions move your redline but does not eliminate the red line. Faster is normally pushing that line up against the wall and trying to break through it. It is not easy. 

Climbing is suffering with a purpose.


----------



## knutso (Oct 8, 2008)

You can make climbing faster and easier if you slap some gears on that thing. You could have the lightest bike in the world but singlespeed would still be a challenge on varied terrain.


----------



## jbass (Oct 29, 2014)

mtnbkrmike said:


> That was my immediate thought. Adding the fork and converting from a SS makes me wonder why you didn't look at a different model at the outset.
> 
> Anyway, the first thing I would do to your bike is get rid of those tubes. I haven't run tubes for at least 10 years. I don't know why anyone would. Apart from having to top up my tires every now and then, I see no downside to running tubeless, and a bunch of advantages. That said, I have read different things about whether it materially reduces rolling weight. Not saying to do it for that reason.


It's still SS by the way. And I do think it is kinda heavy for having no gears!

But yeah, I'm starting to think, until I can afford considerably better wheels: put the rigid fork back on, go tubeless finally (I could run lower psi, gain traction--good for rigid I'm sure). Not that this is gonna shave weight necessarily, but at least I can likely get back to the stock weight, and the bike was frankly, more fun in its rigid incarnation.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

jbass said:


> I'm riding a ss steel hard tail that weighs in around 29lbs. I face a lot of climbs here in SoCal. It's a workout! I'm into it and getting stronger for sure, but just curious--I've never had the opportunity to ride something really really light, like a high-end carbon bike. Does a really light bike automatically make climbing considerably easier, or is it still more about the "engine"?


I have exercise for you, figure out how much weight difference is with your current bike and something really light, add that weight to your backback and keep riding a week or two.

Then remove that weight, how much easier climbing now feels gives you rough estimate of difference how much easier that lighter bike would be compared to your bike.

I did once experiment, there was steep long hill that I could not manage with bike I had then, all racks, fenders etc. did weight quite a bit, so I took out weight from it, around 12 pounds of weight actually.

It did not make world of difference, but I did manage to get on top of that hill.

Then I put all the stuff back and tried again next day, not a chance to get on top of that hill.

So yes, it does make climbing easier, but I would say that anything less than 4lb might be pretty hard to feel on single climb, but maybe end of the day you can feel the difference, but that is backpack exercise for, to find out does it make difference in long run.

More difference for single hill I have got from gearing which allow me to spin faster, also for hours of hills enough gearing helps me keep going for much longer.

4lb difference is far less than 4 teeth in gearing, imo.

SS and hills, for me that would not offer much of fun, it would be 1/8th mile hill up and back, year after year, until after several years I might try that bigger next hill...


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

I've gone from a 25 lb. SS to a 19.5 lb. SS and I like the lighter bike MUCH better. Now, is it better because it's lighter? I don't know. It definitely feels more maneuverable, but it also has different geometry and better components. In my case, it's not a one for one comparison.

edit: I just remembered that I went from a 34-16 on the old bike to a 32-17 on the new SS. Climbs nice, but the gearing can account for that.


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

Seems obvious, doesn't it? But it builds character.  A little more exercise never killed anybody...except all those people doing marathons. Somehow, you never hear of a cyclist dropping dead while riding though so there's that!


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Honestly, I am a hopeless weight weenie myself. However, I am not obsessed with every single gram, like many other WWs here. I was "spoiled" riding a light bike, early in my beginner phase: an XC racer desperate for cash sold me his 19-pound race hardtail for $1500 and it felt like I was smoking crack, once again.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2015)

girlonbike said:


> Somehow, you never hear of a cyclist dropping dead while riding though so there's that!


 Great, another conspiracy I have to check into. But you're right. You read about crashes killing cyclists, but never heat stress. Maybe we balance hydration and electrolytes better than runners, or maybe the "crashes" are really part of the cover-up. You may be on to something.


----------



## dan4jeepin (Apr 9, 2007)

I have a friend that has a super cheap single speed. I knew most everything on it was heavy and junk so I told him I would loan him some wheels before a big 100miler coming up and give him some other spare parts I had. When he came over I weighed it and it was 31.5lbs front wheel/tire was 6.5lbs! Swapped on some Crest wheels, Magura brakes, and an Specialized handlebar and got it to 27lbs. 

Went riding with him the other night on my AM bike that weighs 30lbs. Was never an issue keeping up with him before on it but now he was making me work on those climbs. Now I'm jealous that he got such a weight reduction and free speed all for just coming by my house. I've spent big $$$ just to knock a quarter of a pound off a bike before. 

So in short yes it can make a big difference.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

I don't know the exact weight of my bike but after adding Weirwofls x2.4 due to our dry terrain, the bike sure is heavier when I lift it but when I'm ridding I don't notice much of a difference. I'm like the OP 5'11'' 160 (a diet means disappearing) so perhaps I'm not that much of a weight wennie after all


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

lol your Unit weighs 2lb more than my Kona Honzo with 140 Pike 2.4 front and rear, and a dropper. there is weight to cut there for sure.


----------



## jbass (Oct 29, 2014)

BushwackerinPA said:


> lol your Unit weighs 2lb more than my Kona Honzo with 140 Pike 2.4 front and rear, and a dropper. there is weight to cut there for sure.


I hear ya. And I don't even have gears!


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Here's the physics of the situation.

It takes more work to ascend with more weight. It's simply this:

mgh where mg is the weight (mass x g) and h is the height, vertically from whatever datum you chose.

This is speed independent. Doesn't matter if it takes you 5 min or 5 days, it's still the same amount of energy and change either the vert or the weight changes that linearly.

Now if you factor speed in, that's power. You can only create so much power. Power is the time rate of change of energy, or it's derivative. So to do it faster, you need more power. If you create the same amount, and the energy required is less, technically you should be able to do it faster if all other losses are constant. Or it would 'feel' easier if you kept the same time because you'd exert less energy of that time period. Either you input less power for a lighter bike and go 'slower' OR you input the most power you can, and go faster compared to a heavier bike/rider combo.

As far as wheel mass, that would affect mass moment of inertia. Rotational objects need energy to get going. Once at a steady speed, the only losses you have are friction. So wheel mass independent of bike and rider mass really only affects acceleration i.e. wheels with less mass moment of inertia need less torque to accelerate the same amount, or with the same torque, will accelerate faster. If you are trying to muscle over an obstacle, this is where you will notice that affect. If you are climbing at a steady speed up a relatively smooth grade, it's pretty negligible. You tell me which applies more to MTB and which applies more to the road...

That said, more mass in the wheels can act like a flywheel as well, storing energy and resisting stalling when you hit an obstacle. So it's a double edged effect. This is one reason some people prefer 29" and some still prefer 26" (other than bike geo related effects). If the wheels were equally weighted, the one with a larger diameter would have a greater mass moment of inertia. This means it takes more energy to get up to speed, but also resists losing it as well.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

Long story short:

Yes, a lighter bike will be easier, but for the average Joe, the difference would be small enough to not be a noticeable difference.

Just going to use dumb numbers for the sake of making a point: Say you burn 100cal to climb your 30lbs rig up a hill. Maybe with a 28lbs rig, you can keep the same speed up the hill but only burn 95cal. (or continue to burn that 100cal just increasing speed a little bit.) So was it "easier" to climb? Sure, you did it while burning less calories. However could you notice a 5calorie difference? I probably couldn't.

I think the bigger way to reduce climbing struggles is to reduce weight on your person. Whether it is just carrying less crap with you (water, tools, food, spare XYZ, etc) or reducing body weight. Hell, I could probably take a dump large enough to mitigate the difference between steel and carbon.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

Flucod said:


> You brought up a good point, has anyone weighed their dumps to see how much weight is loss?


I know sometimes I have to hold on to something after leaving the bathroom as I start to float away.

That or I suppose if you hammered some Taco Bell before a climb would get the afterburner effect and shoot fire out the back end.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Davide said:


> that makes no sense, for a 160 pound rider and a 25 pounds bike a 5% reduction of bike weight (1.25 pounds) is just 0.67 % reduction in total weight. That would be the ballpark gain: 0.67% or whatever watts/pounds you use to propel yourself.





Le Duke said:


> Assuming equal pedaling efficiency, rolling resistance, and position on the bike, the relationship is linear.
> 
> Meaning, if you knocked 5% of the total bike/rider/equipment weight off, and pedaled at the same wattage, you'd go 5% faster.


Dude. Read what I wrote. Total of the bike + rider + equipment.

This is a pretty simple concept. Total system weight.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

TSpice said:


> ...I think the bigger way to reduce climbing struggles is to reduce weight on your person. Whether it is just carrying less crap with you (water, tools, food, spare XYZ, etc) or reducing body weight. Hell, I could probably take a dump large enough to mitigate the difference between steel and carbon.


Not disagreeing but if you take a crap, the bikes won't change what they weigh - your carbon bike will still weigh the same amount less than the steel bike. So yes - by all means - we should all take the biggest pre-ride dumps we can, but in no way, shape or form will that "mitigate the difference between steel and carbon". But I get what you mean.


----------



## Geralt (Jul 11, 2012)

I'm switching the gearing on my Superfly SS from 32x18 to 32x20 today. I should be able to get a ride or two in this weekend. I think it's about 7-8 pounds lighter than my Unit which I also have set up 32x20. Might ride them both this weekend just to see what I think of the weight difference.


----------



## jbass (Oct 29, 2014)

Geralt said:


> I'm switching the gearing on my Superfly SS from 32x18 to 32x20 today. I should be able to get a ride or two in this weekend. I think it's about 7-8 pounds lighter than my Unit which I also have set up 32x20. Might ride them both this weekend just to see what I think of the weight difference.


My Unit is also 32x20. In addition to the added weight by putting on the squish, I think I lost the personality of the bike--it's not as "fun" feeling now--can't really explain it any better than that. I'm really thinking about putting the P2 back on. Go tubeless(finally), and just ride the damn thing and leave it alone. Save up for a second bike that's decidedly different (and maybe . . . lighter!


----------



## BushwackerinPA (Aug 10, 2006)

jbass said:


> I hear ya. And I don't even have gears!


neither does mine.


----------



## Reallytho (Jul 30, 2015)

jbass said:


> Damn, I was hoping someone would have some scientific proof that it doesn't actually matter that much


It doesn't. No idea how the weight hysteria started.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Reallytho said:


> It doesn't. No idea how the weight hysteria started.


People who race bikes, horses, cars, motorcycles, aircraft, sailboats, etc.

They want lighter. It goes faster. The end.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Only situation is when biker is at his limit with light bicycle, fitness is too poor to surrounding hills, then it does matter, but only if we are talking about tens of pounds, single pound or two is meaningless. 

My weight varies more than 4 pounds from morning to evening alone. 

One's bike should be such that you don't need to push everything out of you every time there is a hill, especially for beginners that need to loose weight, but bike should be such that it allows you to push everything you got for each moment, uphill or downhill, then just enjoy the pain and gain results.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Sure, but only if the change is really noticeable i.e. you go from a 29 lb bike to a 22 lb bike. If you lose a pound or so you probably won't notice.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Borrow or rent a 40 lb. downhill bike and ride that around your hills for a while.

Your Kona will then feel very light.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Curveball said:


> Borrow or rent a 40 lb. downhill bike and ride that around your hills for a while.
> 
> Your Kona will then feel very light.


Not sure what would be worse - the weight or the geo. Between the two, I'd choose weight.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

If there were no accelerations involved, bike weight wouldn't make much difference.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Jayem said:


> If there were no accelerations involved, bike weight wouldn't make much difference.


Uhhhhh....

Up a hill?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Every pedal stroke is an acceleration. Humans are not capable of outputting constant pedal stroke force.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Absolutely, a lighter bike climbs faster. It's not necessarily faster on flat land and it may even be slower going down the steep stuff due to it's light weight that creates instability. 

The thing is, your muscles will adapt over a short period of time if you go lighter. So if your body is used to riding a race light HT (20-22 pounds) and you hop aboard a 28-30 pound trail bike, you're gonna bog out unless you are in top condition like a pro athlete.


----------



## vanamees (Oct 10, 2009)

jbass said:


> I'm riding a ss steel hard tail that weighs in around 29lbs. I face a lot of climbs here in SoCal. It's a workout! I'm into it and getting stronger for sure, but just curious--I've never had the opportunity to ride something really really light, like a high-end carbon bike. Does a really light bike automatically make climbing considerably easier, or is it still more about the "engine"?


 Are sneakers really better for running than army boots?


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Zachariah said:


> The consensus remains if you shave weight off yourself, the optimized power-to-weight ratio makes you faster, even on a heavier bike.


That assumes that when you lose weight, you lose only fat.
If you haven't got much fat, you're burning off muscle instead, aren't you?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

andytiedye said:


> That assumes that when you lose weight, you lose only fat.
> If you haven't got much fat, you're burning off muscle instead, aren't you?


And the actual muscular requirements for mountain biking are incredibly low.

Most Americans are overweight, and have corresponding (too much) muscle to carry all of that fat.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> Most Americans are overweight, and have corresponding (too much) muscle to carry all of that fat.


We are NOT "most Americans" even if most of us are Americans.

I am not overweight, I assume you are not overweight, and I doubt that most who post here are overweight.

Surely the effect of losing weight will depend on what kind of weight you are losing.



Le Duke said:


> And the actual muscular requirements for mountain biking are incredibly low.


Really? How does that work?


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

I'd guess here are a lot of people who have never owned a really light bike so they don't realize what a difference it makes. After owning light race bikes like S-works epics for many years I bought a Carbon Camber thinking that since I wasn't racing seriously anymore I didn't really need a race bike. At a little under 28# it's not a heavy bike by todays "AM" (whatever that means) standards, but after riding sub 23# bikes that climb efficiently it seemed like a real pig. (I live in the rocky mtns where you spend a lot of time climbing). 

I ended up getting carbon wheels for the bike and when the dropper post failed (as they all do) I replaced it with a carbon seat post and between the two took almost two pounds off the bike and while it's still no race bike, it is noticeably faster and snappier.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Not sure what would be worse - the weight or the geo. Between the two, I'd choose weight.


According to a few posters around here, that geo would be perfect for all riding everywhere. Maybe the top tube could be a bit longer, though.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

My personal bike that I have been racing XC and endurance on is about 30 pounds (130mm suspension). I recently raced a demo carbon HT that the magazines report it 22 pounds. I don't have comparison numbers, but it didn't feel faster. It may have climbed better, but in no way did it compare to going back down the hill I just climbed.

What I can do, which isn't perfect, is compare some of the Strava segments that I repeated 2 weeks later on a Salsa Bucksaw that I weighed at 30 pounds. It took me 45 seconds longer to do the 1.8 mile, 330' climb. I was 4 seconds slower on a .4 mile flat'ish section after the climb. The 1 mile, 380' drop (fire road) was 12 seconds faster on the Salsa.

Hopefully I can repeat the course on my bike to compare. But it was essentially a 30 second gain in 3 miles of riding. Ouch. I might be revisiting the idea of a weight weenie bike in the next year or so...


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Is it really rocket science that lighter objects go up faster!? Apart from sitting on top of this object, basically you're pushing (or carrying) it up a hill. Pushing/carrying 10 kilos as opposed to 15 kilos won't make a huge difference short term, but over the long haul it will be substantial.

Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

targnik said:


> Is it really rocket science that lighter objects go up faster!? Apart from sitting on top of this object, basically you're pushing (or carrying) it up a hill. Pushing/carrying 10 kilos as opposed to 15 kilos won't make a huge difference short term, but over the long haul it will be substantial.
> 
> Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


OK mr rocket scientist, what if we are in space?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

006_007 said:


> OK mr rocket scientist, what if we are in space?


Need more info. Are you assuming some theoretical void in which there are no gravitational forces, or a real scenario?

Disclaimer: I am not a rocket scientist, nor do I play one on TV.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Circlip said:


> Need more info. Are you assuming some theoretical void in which there are no gravitational forces, or a real scenario?
> 
> Disclaimer: I am not a rocket scientist, nor do I play one on TV.


Ahhh, but if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, you still qualify.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

006_007 said:


> OK mr rocket scientist, what if we are in space?


Well, you wouldn't be able to get traction since there is no gravity, your tire pressures would need to be dropped a bar, and you would die from a lack of oxygen.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Sidewalk said:


> Well, you wouldn't be able to get traction since there is no gravity, your tire pressures would need to be dropped a bar, and you would die from a lack of oxygen.


lol...

Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

Sidewalk said:


> Well, you wouldn't be able to get traction since there is no gravity, your tire pressures would need to be dropped a bar, and you would die from a lack of oxygen.


How light would I need to make my bike to be able to climb to space?


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

006_007 said:


> How light would I need to make my bike to be able to climb to space?


3 Taco Bell burritos.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

targnik said:


> Is it really rocket science that lighter objects go up faster!? Apart from sitting on top of this object, basically you're pushing (or carrying) it up a hill. Pushing/carrying 10 kilos as opposed to 15 kilos won't make a huge difference short term, but over the long haul it will be substantial.
> 
> Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


I wonder what effect more flex would have? Probably not huge effect, but geometry itself, I believe is more than few kilograms.

12kg vs 15kg bikes heavier is faster uphill, geometry has lot to do in that.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

Sidewalk said:


> 3 Taco Bell burritos.


Good call - rocket fuel.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Sidewalk said:


> 3 Taco Bell burritos.


Get propelled into space by all the gas you mean?


----------



## bloodninja (Jul 11, 2012)

LaXCarp said:


> I dont think the question is as easily quantifiable as X% off the overall weight equals X% performance improvement.
> 
> To prove this point, lets theoretically compare two 30lb bikes....one bike has a 28lb frame/components and 2 lb wheels. The other bike has 2 lb frame/components and 28lb wheels. Using the above rationale, the two bikes should feel identical under a 150lb rider because the total package for both is 180lbs, requiring the same amount of energy expenditure to make a climb.
> 
> ...


Not really, the rotation weight only makes a difference during acceleration. If your speed is relatively constant, the energy required would be about the same in both cases.


----------



## LaXCarp (Jul 19, 2008)

bloodninja said:


> Not really, the rotation weight only makes a difference during acceleration. If your speed is relatively constant, the energy required would be about the same in both cases.


Yes really. We dont live in a frictionless world, we are mountain biking. You decelerate constantly, thus you have to "accelerate" constantly just maintain a consistent speed.

If you actually executed that scenario, I do not think your response would be what it is.


----------



## pop_martian (Mar 20, 2007)

A lighter bike won't make the climb easier (you're still going work just as hard regardless of the bike's weight), you'll just get to the top of the climb faster. It really is that simple.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

In last 17 days I have shaved off roughly 13 pounds from myself, I don't see huge difference in climbing yet, but for sure that weight off from bike, I'm quite sure I could somewhat feel.


----------



## smilinsteve (Jul 21, 2009)

bloodninja said:


> Not really, the rotation weight only makes a difference during acceleration. If your speed is relatively constant, the energy required would be about the same in both cases.


Theoretically all weight only matters during acceleration, not just rotating weight. 
If you approximate a wheel as thin hoop, then it takes twice as much energy to accelerate as it would if it were not rotating (part of the frame or your belly fat).

Acceleration happens all the time in mountain biking, and also must take into account gravitational acceleration while climbing (change in potential energy =mgh), so really, weight matters. Even though wheel weight counts about double, it is still a small percentage of the total energy requirement to move your @$$ plus bike.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

grumpy old biker said:


> In last 17 days I have shaved off roughly 13 pounds from myself, I don't see huge difference in climbing yet, but for sure that weight off from bike, I'm quite sure I could somewhat feel.


If I lost 15lbs, at 145lbs, that would be more than 10% of my total weight. If my power output remained the same, that would be an increase in w/kg of more than 10%.

That is most certainly noticeable. A simple stop watch would show you as much.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> If I lost 15lbs, at 145lbs, that would be more than 10% of my total weight. If my power output remained the same, that would be an increase in w/kg of more than 10%.
> 
> That is most certainly noticeable. A simple stop watch would show you as much.


You could do simulation, by adding 100 pounds to your backpack, do few rides, then take 13 pounds off and try to tell the difference 

Let's see if I can spot difference in few months, there is lot more weight to be lost, I should in theory be something like 18% lighter at end of this project compared to start, so maybe that will have some effect.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> If I lost 15lbs, at 145lbs, that would be more than 10% of my total weight. If my power output remained the same, that would be an increase in w/kg of more than 10%....


Power output would not remain the same unless you managed to burn off only fat (and you don't have any of that I'm sure) and not muscle.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

andytiedye said:


> Power output would not remain the same unless you managed to burn off only fat (any you don't have any of that I'm sure) and not muscle.


It's not that simple. Power for anything longer than very short durations is more a function of O2 delivery than muscle mass. Enhance your O2 systems, and you have more power for the majority of efforts. Those little stick-men in the Tour de France or world cup XC circuit are putting out more power in watts across anything but very short durations than most of us will ever see, regardless of our size or muscle mass.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

andytiedye said:


> Power output would not remain the same unless you managed to burn off only fat (and you don't have any of that I'm sure) and not muscle.


As Circlip alluded to, muscle mass has very little to do with sustainable power output. I may only weigh 145lbs, but I'm putting out more long term power than 95% of the Clydes here, guaranteed.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> As Circlip alluded to, muscle mass has very little to do with sustainable power output. I may only weigh 145lbs, but I'm putting out more long term power than 95% of the Clydes here, guaranteed.


Also when lighter, you need less muscle mass to sprint/climb fast as you get more speed for less work.

Deadlift however is something you might struggle against many Clydes here.

My lean body mass far exceeds 145, so there is not even a hope for me to be as fast as smaller guys on bike, moving heavy stuff is which I mainly try to focus on, also on hitting power as at my size those are much more of areas where I have chance to be successful.

With bike, 360 Watts for 10 minutes, it is pretty much nothing, then again with fat percentage at 30% I don't know how many can do more or how many do less.


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

grumpy old biker said:


> Also when lighter, you need less muscle mass to sprint/climb fast as you get more speed for less work.
> 
> Deadlift however is something you might struggle against many Clydes here.
> 
> ...


Just look at the American Ninja Warrior competitors. There is a reason when the big jacked up muscle balls show up they muscle their way past the first few features, and then kerplop. All of the winners are the lighter weight lean muscle massed people. Power to weight ratio is huge.

Raw bulk has very little purpose. Looks good at the gym and maybe in a swim suit, but functionally borderline useless.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

TSpice said:


> Just look at the American Ninja Warrior competitors. There is a reason when the big jacked up muscle balls show up they muscle their way past the first few features, and then kerplop. All of the winners are the lighter weight lean muscle massed people. Power to weight ratio is huge.
> 
> Raw bulk has very little purpose. Looks good at the gym and maybe in a swim suit, but functionally borderline useless.


Useful when clearing stones from the field, you just pick stone and throw to trailer, repeat, logging is another thing where muscle mass is useful, throwing logs to trailer requires short burst of power.

Biking, is not one of those things that generally require lot of strength.

Don't know about American Ninjas, but speed and agility might be more important to them than strength, I doubt they would finish even a single event in strongest man competition:
Events Archive - World's Strongest Man

For me it is far more important to be able to lift and carry heavy things than to be very fast with bicycle. For example I don't buy gravel for my yard, I make it with sledgehammer from stones I remove from field, it is much more fun that way.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

grumpy old biker said:


> I don't buy gravel for my yard, I make it with sledgehammer from stones I remove from field, it is much more fun that way.


Ha, awesome. You win!


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Circlip said:


> Ha, awesome. You win!


You win some, you loose some, with bike I'm doomed to be slow, but at least I can do my little farming/constructing tasks 

For common guy, living in city, I think that TSpice's point of view is more correct, on such life muscle mass is good only for getting attention from girls.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

29er wheels for the win. All I know is that my enduro with 6" of travel allows me to go faster downhill. That's what matters. Maybe a 1x drivetrain for the OP?


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

grumpy old biker said:


> In last 17 days I have shaved off roughly 13 pounds from myself, I don't see huge difference in climbing yet, but for sure that weight off from bike, I'm quite sure I could somewhat feel.


Put on a 13 pound backpack and see how it feels.

I dropped about 50, I can't feel the difference. But I certainly know it's there.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

Sidewalk said:


> Put on a 13 pound backpack and see how it feels.
> 
> I dropped about 50, I can't feel the difference. But I certainly know it's there.


That is the problem, full backpack of groceries and few steep climbs, there is some difference, but I don't think it shows in speed too much, at least I climb at same speed, that is with 20lbs added.

What I think is that as percentage of weight change is still such small and there is enough power to overcome additional load, there is not so much difference to be felt.

With bike it feels lot more, but does it show in clock or speedo? I doubt that it makes much difference.

But I do believe than fit small guys do get lot more effect with light bike, it does not only feel faster, but for them it actually might be faster.

Of course how ride feels has lot to do as most do ride for enjoyment as much as anything else, so I think lighter bike is nicer, as is lighter body, I doubt that I will ever be below 200 pounds though, no matter how low fat percentage I get.

After I have lost 40, maybe I can find the difference, it might lie in out of saddle climbing becoming easier, or such.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2015)

Sidewalk said:


> Put on a 13 pound backpack and see how it feels.
> 
> I dropped about 50, I can't feel the difference. But I certainly know it's there.


 I rode a late August century last year on a Fargo with road tires and 14 extra pounds, the last loop (of three) was pretty flat. I rode the same century last weekend (except the last loop was changed and hillier than last year's course) 13 pounds lighter on a lighter bike with lighter tires (so harder course, lighter everything else). I'm in worse overall shape than last year (fewer miles due to a shoulder injury) but still finished the course with a 3 mph average better pace (11.9 mph last year, 15.2 mph this year).


----------



## TSpice (May 15, 2015)

Well also a person rarely ever "feels" their own weight loss. 

It is like when you are losing weight, your spouse may or may not even notice it unless there are pictures of your "pre-loss" weight. See some family or friends who haven't seen you in a couple of months? They might ask you right off the bat, "wow, lookin good!" 

On a bike however, you can go from "pre-loss" to "lost" instantly. You climb with a heavier bike, and tomorrow you climb with a lighter bike? You could easily notice it.

I bet if you took a bike that weighs 29lbs (stock full suspension rig average). Now, shave 0.1lbs off it and go ride. You won't notice. Now, ride every day for 10 weeks. Every Sunday, take 0.1lbs off the bike. Now your rig weighs 28lbs. I would almost put money down that you would not notice the bike getting any lighter.

Take a difference person and give them a 29lbs rig, have them go ride, and the next day give them a 28lbs rig. That person will notice immediately.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Forster said:


> I rode a late August century last year on a Fargo with road tires and 14 extra pounds, the last loop (of three) was pretty flat. I rode the same century last weekend (except the last loop was changed and hillier than last year's course) 13 pounds lighter on a lighter bike with lighter tires (so harder course, lighter everything else). I'm in worse overall shape than last year (fewer miles due to a shoulder injury) but still finished the course with a 3 mph average better pace (11.9 mph last year, 15.2 mph this year).


tail wind?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
'GET OFF MY LAWN!! YA DIRTY HIPPIE!!'


----------



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

targnik said:


> tail wind?


A loop would usually include a headwind, though I have lucked out now and then when an unstable weather system changed directions. Also have gotten unlucky in the same respect.

Heavy bikes are faster, the savvy racers are in on that game.


----------



## armourbl (May 5, 2012)

Relevant video on the top with some science applied.






ben


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Heavy bikes are faster, the savvy racers are in on that game.


Heavier = greater inertia. Seems like a no brainer.

Also, I have been adding lead tape to my bike in small increments for the past couple of years now. It currently weighs 87lbs and I am getting faster with every new notch I hit on the scale. My descending speeds are approaching cannonball status.


----------



## grumpy old biker (Jul 29, 2014)

TSpice said:


> Well also a person rarely ever "feels" their own weight loss.
> 
> It is like when you are losing weight, your spouse may or may not even notice it unless there are pictures of your "pre-loss" weight. See some family or friends who haven't seen you in a couple of months? They might ask you right off the bat, "wow, lookin good!"
> 
> ...


That is true, humans tend to adapt.

Also weight loss tend to cause temporary set back on performance too, which may mask part of the benefit of being lighter.

I think that getting out of saddle and climbing hill is where biggest benefit might lie and that might be something I could start to feel at some point.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Admittedly, I like reading circlip argue with JB Weld, seems fitting...

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier I'm the thread I did the same climb in a race a couple of weeks apart. While you can't direct compare due to fatigue, I'll argue that I pace well. One race was a stage event where I was racing the light bike all day, the other race a two lap XC on a fatbike. Strava shows that I did the climb something like 45 seconds faster on the light bike.

Considering that my two laps on the fatbike (about 40 minutes each) were only a minute apaet, 40 seconds in one climb is substantial. 

But I couldn't feel it. I didn't think there was a difference until I got home and looked it up.

I'm hoping to repeat that climb again here in a couple of weeks on my bike, which is middle group (also comfortable for me). Weights are 22 (FSi), 28 (Jamis 650b Pro), 34 (Salsa Bucksaw).


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I must add to some of my earlier comments:

While weight is of great importance, so is bike setup. There are climbs where my HT is faster, and climbs where I know that an FS (hence my recent Yeti ASRc purchase) will be faster.

Simply put, I'm willing to sacrifice ~2lbs for not necessarily increased traction, but the fact that instead of bouncing up and over roots and rocks, I'll be putting more energy into forward motion while the rear suspension handles keeping me planted. I'm not necessarily spinning out; that actually very rarely happens. I believe that by minimizing the tiny "micro climbs", I'll get up and over faster.

In my area, there are two climbs where this is readily apparent. While I don't claim to be the Rain Man of climbing, I'm pretty fast. And, I know that on one of them, my HT is a good option for getting up and down reasonably quickly, less so on the other.

Climb 1 is steeper and longer, and has a lot of roots and exposed rock slabs, many of which lay diagonal to the direction of travel. Still, not a lot to bounce you off your line, just a matter of picking the right line and putting the power down. If you have a good w/kg ratio and take a proper line, you'll get up quite quickly.

https://www.strava.com/segments/3004293

Climb 2 is less steep, has less roots but more exposed rock, most of which is square edged and at odd angles to the trail. Some of them are loose. Even if you pick a great line, you still have to back off on a HT or you'll find yourself getting bounced quite a bit. I've been running pressure low enough to occasionally get rim strikes WHILE CLIMBING, if that tells you anything, and I still get thrown off line.

https://www.strava.com/segments/1459605


----------



## Kelpie47 (Sep 17, 2014)

why run, when you can ride a bike...


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Well that's an odd resurrection...


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

I'm waiting for further enlightenment.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Russian bot.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

mtnbkrmike said:


> Physics aside, in accordance with my own on the trail experience, my view is that apart from rolling weight, shedding weight is highly overrated relative to the cost. This coming from a guy who threw $3k at upgrades at a brand new bike this year (and that's on the friends' and family deal at my LBS - e.g., I got my Enve wheel set for $1k CDN, and many components were upgraded for little to no cost because of my 2+ decades of loyalty, and the owner's personal interest in my little project). I got the weight down from about 31.5 pounds to 27.5 pounds, but I am not sure I would go that route again, except perhaps for the wheel set. Bling-wise, yeah, it's very cool. Performance-wise though, very very diminishing marginal rates of return on investment, from a climbing perspective or otherwise. Yeah, I would obviously take a lighter bike over a heavier one, all other things equal but apart from the wheel set, I do not sense the reduction of weight has made that much of a difference on the trail. All that said, I am not into Strava so maybe I am faster now, but it sure doesn't feel like it, nor does it seem like my rides require any less exertion. I suppose if I weighed less than my 195ish fully geared, I may have noticed more of a difference.
> 
> I just had this exact discussion with a riding buddy last night who was resisting lock-on grips, even though his ESIs had migrated inwards on his bars (exactly like mine did). He was stressing over the thought of lock-ons, because they would add 90 grams (or something) to his bike's overall weight. When you obsess over cutting grams when building a bike, all of a sudden reality and practicality become lost very quickly. It's a very slippery slope. It can become a bit of a sickness.


So are you saying to someone with a 3x or 2x drivetrain that 1x may not be worth the 1-2 lb reduction in bike weight?

Also, there are some Chinese mountain bikes out there sub-$1200 that weigh around 26-27 lbs total with wheels, pedals, etc., would you ever take a chance on those instead of spending 3K upgrading an American bike?


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

grumpy old biker said:


> I have exercise for you, figure out how much weight difference is with your current bike and something really light, add that weight to your backback and keep riding a week or two.
> 
> Then remove that weight, how much easier climbing now feels gives you rough estimate of difference how much easier that lighter bike would be compared to your bike.
> 
> ...


I 'accidentally' did something like this last year. I went from a backpack to a rear rack on a hardtail and basically put everything from the backpack to the rear of the bike in a duffel bag. I didn't even realize I had 12 lbs in the backpack. It was not a big deal on my back but it sure was on the rear rack. I could not steer properly downhill with an extra 12 lbs on the rear of the bike. It was shocking. I eventually reduced the weight down to about 5 lbs plus the 2.5 lb rack. Eventually I just took the rack off and I'm currently using a small 5 lb pack with a sling on my back instead of something heavier. MUCH NICER!!! You don't realize it until you lose the weight. Bike is still 33 lbs but that's no big deal, I'm only 145 lbs and have 22/40 gearing so hills are easy now 

As far as singlespeeds, I just don't get it. I admire the principle of it, the simplicity, the going back to your teenage years and all that, but for mountain biking, no way. I need all the gearing I can get. There is one steep incline near my home I spent months on trying to get right, changing rear tires, standing up in 2nd gear, 3rd, gear, etc. Now that I have a 40t granny gear, I simply lean forward and pedal slowly, make it up the incline no problem right on the seat. It's so easy now. The bike can now make it up almost ANY incline as long as it doesn't have too many loose rocks or too much loose dirt. The rear tire will slip long before the gearing fails. Gearing is (almost) everything for climbing.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Yup!

And having a 3rd lung o_0

'Born to ride!'


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

jcd46 said:


> I don't know the exact weight of my bike but after adding Weirwofls x2.4 due to our dry terrain, the bike sure is heavier when I lift it but when I'm ridding I don't notice much of a difference. I'm like the OP 5'11'' 160 (a diet means disappearing) so perhaps I'm not that much of a weight wennie after all


Most of my tire weight differences are 0.5 lbs (as in 0.5 lbs difference light high-roller vs. Maxxis DHF, etc). Someone on here said that for every 1 lb difference on the wheel (the wheel itself, the tube if any, or the tire) there is the equivalent of 3 lbs of 'felt' difference. So 0.5 lbs more feels like 1.5 lbs more if it's on the wheel.

So...that's weird that the bike feels heavier but rides the same. JCD where did you buy the Weirwolfs? I've never heard of them, they are not found on Google.


----------



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

richj8990 said:


> As far as singlespeeds, I just don't get it. I admire the principle of it, the simplicity, the going back to your teenage years and all that, but for mountain biking, no way. I need all the gearing I can get.


Most single speeders are really good climbers, it may not be easy but they sure get up hills quick.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

richj8990 said:


> Most of my tire weight differences are 0.5 lbs (as in 0.5 lbs difference light high-roller vs. Maxxis DHF, etc). Someone on here said that for every 1 lb difference on the wheel (the wheel itself, the tube if any, or the tire) there is the equivalent of 3 lbs of 'felt' difference. So 0.5 lbs more feels like 1.5 lbs more if it's on the wheel.
> 
> So...that's weird that the bike feels heavier but rides the same. JCD where did you buy the Weirwolfs? I've never heard of them, they are not found on Google.


Oh man that was in 2015 for my Cdale Trail SL3..my first real bike!

I may have bought them at PricePoint before their death.

That reminds me it was recommended by a former member that passed.

Anyways...I'm all about Maxxis now, but that tire held its ground in SoCal.

Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

I recently swapped a frame out that was over 3 lbs lighter than the previous. I used all the same comps.

First ride I felt it immediately. I was actually very surprised because I didn't think, in this case, a 10% reduction in weight would be that significant. I found it to be so. Especially on our steep, punchy climbs where you can really push yourself into your red zone quickly. I can go a little faster and harder on those without fatiguing as quickly.

On a long, gradual climb, I'm sure it would be an advantage as well, but I might not notice as much as you pace yourself more for that stuff.

I also theorize that there's a weight where your body begins to really struggle. It's like lifting weights. It's never linear. You can't just double the weight and expect to be able to do half the reps and get the same results. You may not even get one rep at some point. I kind of feel like that with bikes. Up around 30 lbs it just feels like a lot of extra weight to be pushing around for me. I feel a lot "stronger" if that's around 27 lbs as it works out to my inherent strength better.


----------



## Len Baird (Aug 1, 2017)

Back in the old days we'd get a steel hardtail down to 25 pounds without going too crazy. If you get crazy and it isn't a super burly frame you can probably do 23 pounds.
But a set of light wheels is where I would start as has already been mentioned. 
BUT since your body is already super light, your overall weight is very light even with a heavyish bike so if you are struggling on climbs maybe you need more fitness. A lighter bike will help but it isn't going to suddenly make you fly up the climbs.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

richj8990 said:


> MUCH NICER!!! You don't realize it until you lose the weight. Bike is still 33 lbs but that's no big deal, I'm only 145 lbs and have 22/40 gearing so hills are easy now


I weigh the same as you, and my bike is almost that heavy.
1 think I need gearing like yours. My lowest is 24×36 (on a 26er) and it's not low enough. I'm stalling out on the steep stuff now.



richj8990 said:


> As far as singlespeeds, I just don't get it.... I need all the gearing I can get.


This!


richj8990 said:


> ...Now that I have a 40t granny gear, I simply lean forward and pedal slowly, make it up the incline no problem right on the seat. It's so easy now. The bike can now make it up almost ANY incline as long as it doesn't have too many loose rocks or too much loose dirt. The rear tire will slip long before the gearing fails. Gearing is (almost) everything for climbing.


It sure helps, especially those of us with dodgy knees.
On the loose stuff we're still hosed though.


J.B. Weld said:


> Most single speeders are really good climbers, it may not be easy but they sure get up hills quick.


Selection bias. Singlespeeders (unless they live in Florida) are really, really strong and were born with knees made of titanium (or will have them retrofitted later).

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



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

andytiedye said:


> I
> 
> Selection bias. Singlespeeders (unless they live in Florida) are really, really strong and were born with knees made of titanium (or will have them retrofitted later).


or did single-speeding make them strong? Either way the end result is the same, crazy thing is that they'll smoke you on the downhills too!


----------



## RustyIron (Apr 14, 2008)

jbass said:


> Thanks--makes sense. And "faster" would translate to "easier" I figure!


Totally wrong, bro. Anything that makes the bike "easier" to ride just means that you're gonna ride harder and faster. No matter your strength, fitness, bike, or terrain, you're still going to push yourself to the same limits. Easy is for sissies. Unless, of course, the rider is one of those slacker posers. But we all know that none of those types are on MTBR.

But to answer your question, a lighter bike makes a big difference. Shedding a few pounds can make you feel like you're on a rocket ship. With that said, not everyone WANTS a rocket ship. My bike is not svelte by any stretch of the imagination. In my mind, I'm not so much a rocket ship as I am a bulldozer... a very fast jet powered bulldozer. That's what puts a smile on MY face. You gotta figure out what's best for you.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

richj8990 said:


> So are you saying to someone with a 3x or 2x drivetrain that 1x may not be worth the 1-2 lb reduction in bike weight?
> 
> Also, there are some Chinese mountain bikes out there sub-$1200 that weigh around 26-27 lbs total with wheels, pedals, etc., would you ever take a chance on those instead of spending 3K upgrading an American bike?


I haven't ridden anything but a 1x for well over 5 years. But not primarily because of weight.

I would never buy a Chinese bike. Or even a Chinese wheelset. Pretty much Chinese anything...nope.

To me, spinning/rolling weight matters much more than hung weight (at the risk of stating the obvious). I am more willing to pump money into my wheelset.

I think extra weight anywhere on a bike makes climbing harder but I also think that the return on the money invested to cut the weight is much higher on spinning/rolling components, than on hung weight.

That said, I would never have anything heavy on my bike. I am talking about upgrading from XO to XX1 for example. Or an S-Works saddle over a Pro or Expert. Very questionable return on the $, from a pure performance perspective. IMHO at least.

All obvious stuff but something I had to learn first hand.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

For the record, riding a Singlespeed does not tear up your knees. Climbing on an SS demands that you stand. Standing makes all the difference for your knees.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Some of you flunked physics. The title itself screams physics challenged.


----------



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

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Some of you flunked physics. The title itself screams physics challenged.


I don't see it as a physics question, more like does a lighter bike make climbing easier or will it be the same effort and you'll just go slightly faster.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't see it as a physics question, more like does a lighter bike make climbing easier or will it be the same effort and you'll just go slightly faster.


That is how I interpreted it as well.

Within reason, I don't care how long it takes me to climb (so long as I am able to climb everything 100%). What's more important is having lots of gas left at the summit so I can toss my bike around and manhandle the f out of it on the downs. When I am gassed, it's a planted descent. When I am not, it's 1000x more fun. That's my goal.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

It never gets easier, you just go faster.

Unless your cadence is so low it's killing your legs. Wattage output is force on the pedals combined with cadence. If you're pedaling slow it takes more force to produce the same power.


----------



## spunkmtb (Jun 22, 2009)

Ok, full disclosure I didn't read every post and opinion. I am a big guy. 6'2 weight varies between 215-240lbs. Just getting off a bad injury and I am up around 235 right now. But having had to ride XL frames and not being able to run the lightest parts bike weight is a huge issue. But the one thing I always tell people is to never skimp money on the wheelset. You can be riding around on a 35lb bike but if you have a high quality light weight wheelset it will make the bike feel lighter. Rotational weight is the worst. My Enduro wheelset weighs in at 1580 grams which is road bike light. They are LB 38mm rims, sapim cx-ray spokes, dt swiss SP28 hole hubs, and alloy nips (Although I am moving away from alloy nipples. After 4 years on this wheel set the nipples are beginning to fail. The small weight savings is not worth the hassle of having to remove the tubeless tape every time a nipple fails)


----------



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

Fajita Dave said:


> It never gets easier, you just go faster.


I disagree, IME you go faster and it also gets easier. Experience teaches you how to recognize your limits, how to pace climbs and how to learn to live with and even sometimes enjoy the "pain" Knowing a climb well definitely helps, familiarity makes it easier to pace it for maximum speed without blowing up.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

spunkmtb said:


> SP28 hole hubs


While I don't disagree with what you are saying about light wheels...I can't do that the way I ride. I learned on the first couple of weeks riding my Enduro that 28 hole wheels aren't going to cut it. I built a rear wheel with 32, heavy spokes laced to a Flow hoop. And I am only 140 pounds! At least this wheel is holding up so far, my next wheelset will be DH carbon though on this bike.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> I disagree, IME you go faster and it also gets easier. Experience teaches you how to recognize your limits, how to pace climbs and how to learn to live with and even sometimes enjoy the "pain" Knowing a climb well definitely helps, familiarity makes it easier to pace it for maximum speed without blowing up.


If it's feeling easier you could be going faster. Which is what that quote by Greg LeMond is getting at.

A few lbs isn't much relative to the bike+rider. I think more performance can be gained by a better fit on the bike, certainly a better diet and most of all just riding more.

Lighter is great of course but I think people worry about it a bit to much and it doesn't effect climbing as much as we think.


----------



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

Fajita Dave said:


> If it's feeling easier you could be going faster. Which is what that quote by Greg LeMond is getting at.


Again I disagree, just my personal experience but I've been crushing climbing pr's lately and feeling better while doing it. It still hurts but I'm more comfortable with it and am better able to pace myself for maximum results. One thing I've learned is that it's possible to go harder on a climb and yet end up with a slower time.

Anyway, for sure it's gotten easier for me, even when I'm pushing myself to the max.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

jcd46 said:


> Oh man that was in 2015 for my Cdale Trail SL3..my first real bike!
> 
> I may have bought them at PricePoint before their death.
> 
> ...


Yeah Maxxis is awesome, but since I corner like a sissy, I'm wanting to try a more high roller version that's lighter instead of the DHF's. I'm telling you though try a 2.8 if it can fit up front. Just try it.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

andytiedye said:


> I weigh the same as you, and my bike is almost that heavy.
> 1 think I need gearing like yours. My lowest is 24×36 (on a 26er) and it's not low enough. I'm stalling out on the steep stuff now.
> 
> Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


If you have a 36t granny gear I assume you have a 9-speed? Try the Sunrace 11-40t cassette (you may need an extender or a long cage derailleur). Or maybe not, I have noticed that you can go roughly 4 teeth more than recommended on the same derailleur. Because mine was only up to 34t, I bought the SGS max 36t derailleur for around $40 (granny works fine, even better than the 2nd 34t gear), cassette is around $30, totally worth it if you like climbing.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

mountainbiker24 said:


> According to a few posters around here, that geo would be perfect for all riding everywhere. Maybe the top tube could be a bit longer, though.


The more I ride both types of geometry, the more I hate the older version, and that includes climbing.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

RustyIron said:


> Totally wrong, bro. Anything that makes the bike "easier" to ride just means that you're gonna ride harder and faster. No matter your strength, fitness, bike, or terrain, you're still going to push yourself to the same limits. Easy is for sissies. Unless, of course, the rider is one of those slacker posers. But we all know that none of those types are on MTBR.
> 
> But to answer your question, a lighter bike makes a big difference. Shedding a few pounds can make you feel like you're on a rocket ship. With that said, not everyone WANTS a rocket ship. My bike is not svelte by any stretch of the imagination. In my mind, I'm not so much a rocket ship as I am a bulldozer... a very fast jet powered bulldozer. That's what puts a smile on MY face. You gotta figure out what's best for you.


If you are climbing with, for example, 24/32 gearing, it's not easy and you have to work for getting up the hill.

If you are climbing with something like 22/36 or 22/40, it's much easier, but that doesn't mean that you can ride harder and faster up the hill when you are only going like 3-4 mph to begin with. You could spin the pedals as fast as possible and only go like 5 mph up the hill with that ratio. So I think for relatively level or downhill stuff, easier may translate to harder and faster, but not for uphill if your gear ratio is almost two pedal rotations for every wheel rotation. That ratio forces you to stay soft and steady, or you will end up spinning out of control or have trouble keeping the handlebars straight.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

richj8990 said:


> If you are climbing with, for example, 24/32 gearing, it's not easy and you have to work for getting up the hill.
> 
> If you are climbing with something like 22/36 or 22/40, it's much easier


Takes the exact same amount of energy.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

andytiedye said:


> I weigh the same as you, and my bike is almost that heavy.
> 1 think I need gearing like yours. My lowest is 24×36 (on a 26er) and it's not low enough. I'm stalling out on the steep stuff now....
> 
> Selection bias. Singlespeeders (unless they live in Florida) are really, really strong and were born with knees made of titanium (or will have them retrofitted later).





chuckha62 said:


> For the record, riding a Singlespeed does not tear up your knees. Climbing on an SS demands that you stand. Standing makes all the difference for your knees.


Standing on the pedals only helps in the middle of the stroke. When I get to the bottom, I'm in a much worse position than seated. Very hard on the knees to deliver power like that, and it takes a ton of power to keep it moving at such low cadence.



Fajita Dave said:


> It never gets easier, you just go faster.
> 
> Unless your cadence is so low it's killing your legs. Wattage output is force on the pedals combined with cadence. If you're pedaling slow it takes more force to produce the same power.


There is an optimal power band for most of us (singlespeeders excepted), outside of which we deliver power less efficiently.



richj8990 said:


> If you have a 36t granny gear I assume you have a 9-speed? Try the Sunrace 11-40t cassette (you may need an extender or a long cage derailleur). Or maybe not, I have noticed that you can go roughly 4 teeth more than recommended on the same derailleur. Because mine was only up to 34t, I bought the SGS max 36t derailleur for around $40 (granny works fine, even better than the 2nd 34t gear), cassette is around $30, totally worth it if you like climbing.


It's a 3×10 Shimano XT actually. Considering changing out the 24t granny for a 20 if I can find one. Think the derailleur would handle that?

Lighter wheels would probably help, but what options do I have in 26"?

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Jayem said:


> Takes the exact same amount of energy.


You are correct, but we (humans) often respond to power requirement in the immediate. Over longer intervals, energy does become important as well.

Previous poster (quote of this quote) should also note power is the time rate of change of energy.

Example - cycling a 25 lb bike up 100' of vert takes the same energy no matter what gear the rider is in.

Cycling at 6 mph ave speed requires more power than cycling 4 mph up that same 100' of vert assuming the path is the same.

So even though the energy and distance was the same, the time was different for those two, and that's the difference. Doing work faster requires more power - ALWAYS.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

andytiedye said:


> Standing on the pedals only helps in the middle of the stroke. When I get to the bottom, I'm in a much worse position than seated. Very hard on the knees to deliver power like that, and it takes a ton of power to keep it moving at such low cadence.
> 
> There is an optimal power band for most of us (singlespeeders excepted), outside of which we deliver power less efficiently.
> 
> ...


Since I have not ever done a drivetrain conversion yet so I am the wrong person to ask. However, since I cannot help myself...

I don't think there is a mountain bike version of a 20t front chainring out there, smallest I've seen is 22t. I think I saw a BMX chainring like that, can't remember.

You mean the rear derailleur. If it's 3x10 and the granny was 24 I think so, usually it's the max teeth in the back they have trouble dealing with, not the front.

But if you have 3x10 you are in 100x better position to do a 1x10 conversion than with 8 or 9-speeds. Or even do a 2x10. I was thinking of 1x10 with 26t front and 11-46t back but it's just not worth it for the entry-level bike I have; I'll probably do 2x9 instead. If you wanted to do 2x10 you can get something like 22, 36 up front and have plenty of range. You can easily buy an 11-42t 10-speed cassette or even 11-46t, you just have to either put an extender on the rear derailleur or have a long-cage one, either way. Others on here can fill you in with the details more.

As far as lighter wheels, I accidentally got a free 26" DT Swiss wheelset mailed to me, and that was great and all, but the internal rim width is only 18mm. It's 1 lb total lighter than my other wheelsets but the skinny rims cannot handle beefy modern tires well. Take it from someone who is very liberal with tire to rim ratio: 18mm sucks. Even I will say it sucks, and I go up to 3x tire to rim a lot. I'm afraid to put on anything wider than a 2.1 up front, maybe 2.25 at most. So if you are doing casual 'fun' XC stuff on relatively flat hardpacked stuff, a lighter 26" wheelset may be fine, but I'd try to get something like the WTB 25mm internal 26" front wheel to handle a wider tire; it's only $95 on Amazon. Other wider front wheels or wheelsets are waaaaay more expensive and may have modern 15-20mm axles that won't fit your bike. If you want to keep it simple you have to stick with 9x100mm up front, and rims over 25mm for that axle type are rare/expensive.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

richj8990 said:


> I don't think there is a mountain bike version of a 20t front chainring out there, smallest I've seen is 22t. I think I saw a BMX chainring like that, can't remember.


20T seems to still be available online, though stock is low.



richj8990 said:


> if you have 3x10 you are in 100x better position to do a 1x10 conversion than with 8 or 9-speeds.


Of course, but why would I want to? I need MORE range, not less.



richj8990 said:


> Or even do a 2x10. I was thinking of 1x10 with 26t front and 11-46t back but it's just not worth it for the entry-level bike I have; I'll probably do 2x9 instead. If you wanted to do 2x10 you can get something like 22, 36 up front and have plenty of range. You can easily buy an 11-42t 10-speed cassette or even 11-46t, you just have to either put an extender on the rear derailleur or have a long-cage one, either way.


Do I have to give up the big ring to get one of those cassettes to work?



richj8990 said:


> Other wider front wheels or wheelsets are waaaaay more expensive and may have modern 15-20mm axles that won't fit your bike. If you want to keep it simple you have to stick with 9x100mm up front, and rims over 25mm for that axle type are rare/expensive.


Actually my bike is one of those rare 26ers that has through axles.

Probably NEED a new rear wheel, it's been popping spokes regularly.

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------

