Scott scale 40, 20lb on the scales

ellsbells1973

My new scott scale 40 custom build weighs in at 20.2lb
specs

Scott Scale 40 2010 frame
2002 Rock shoc sid xc hydra air
Mavic crossmax sl ust wheels
Ritchey wcs carbon bars and grips
Kore stem
Carbon seatpost
Selle italia slr 135g saddle
FSA mega ceramic bottom bracket
Shimano deore cranks with middleburn duo rings
shimano xtr v brakes
shimano slx shifters
shimano 105 rear mech
shimano xt front mech
shimano dura ace ti cassette
maxxis larsen tt tyres
wellgo mg1 pedals
i am a bit unsure of the road cassette with a double front ring as climbing isnt my specialist subject, but i think it willl build some serious leg muscles, aiming now to get it below the 20lb mark

weescott

Put some Eggbeaters/SPDs on and it could be sub 20lbs and help with those leg muscles. Are you running tubeless? If not get some sealant and loose even more weight. 8)

ellsbells1973

weescott wrote:

Put some Eggbeaters/SPDs on and it could be sub 20lbs and help with those leg muscles. Are you running tubeless? If not get some sealant and loose even more weight. 8)

not running tubeless tyres yet, they are just standard tube tyres, not sure which tubeless tyres are best really

toasty

Half a pound wasted in the Deore chainset over XT or similar. I'm sure it's light but you seem to have made a lot of sacrifices, like the 8 year old dodgy 28mm stanchion forks. Is the seatpost actually that light? I know it's carbon but the clamp still looks pretty hefty.

ellsbells1973

Toasty wrote:

Half a pound wasted in the Deore chainset over XT or similar. I'm sure it's light but you seem to have made a lot of sacrifices, like the 8 year old dodgy 28mm stanchion forks. Is the seatpost actually that light? I know it's carbon but the clamp still looks pretty hefty.

yeh sacrifices have been made but further upgrades are on the way, deore crank arms will be going, as will the fork but its hard work trying to get a sub 3lb fork with v bosses also the rear mech when i can afford it and possibly the pedals

nickfrog

I was in a similar boat but decided to stop worrying about weight and go for discs+reba. This may well be "costing" me 2 lbs in weight but god does it make the bike better to ride overall!!

I had the same forks as yours and the same V-brakes BTW and I found them superb...in isolation. After about 3 minutes on my current bike, I realised what I was missing...

ellsbells1973

i know what you saying about forks and v brakes but i wont be caning it around trail centres anymore, i sold my scott genius for this as i was gonnna die keep riding it how i did and i dont bounce as well as i did when i was in my early 20's, so going for more sedate natural trails instead now and needed something that could get me to the top without blowing out of my backside

nickfrog

Fair enough.I am pretty sure I would be dead if I tried to go downhill as fast with my old SIDs as I do now with the Rebas even in non-extreme XC rides, and I feel totally safe with the Rebas. Same for discs really.

As for climbing, I am not too sure 2 lbs make a quantifiable difference? If anything, the inherent stability of the Rebas may make more of a difference in technical climbs over roots etc...

FYI, I sold my 99 SID SLs for £125 on retrobike.co.uk and bought second hand REBAs for less than that...

SDK2007

Nice build.
I have a few similar parts on my XC fs race bike.

I upgraded from a Deore Crankset to SLX which was a decent weight saving for little cash.

reevie25

Is that a Road Cassette? if so, why :?:

toasty

Weight, good 50-100g over XTR depending on specific model.

ellsbells1973

Reevie25 wrote:

Is that a Road Cassette? if so, why :?:

The dura ace cassette is a good 80gms lighter than xtr and it also stops you being lazy on the climbs, gonna be putting some xt crank arms on and a dura ace road mech on as well when I have some more pennies then finally some egg beater ti pedals

njee20

ellsbells1973 wrote:

needed something that could get me to the top without blowing out of my backside

So you've gone for a 32/25 (it doesn't look like a 12-27 cassette?) bottom gear... Good luck!

Looks very Euro, you'll fit right in on Weight Weenies!

toasty

ellsbells1973 wrote:

stops you being lazy on the climbs

I dunno, I'd suggest using very tight gearing on a mountain bike, to make hills 80g easier is pretty lazy :P They don't have wide gearing to make hills easier, they have wide gearing because the terrain changes so fast, you often need to jump through a gear range a lot faster. You'll be chugging through 5 gears to do what other mountain bikers do in 2 clicks.

It sounds a bit counter productive to me.

yoohoo999

why not just buy a road bike and stick a set of racing ralphs on it? :?

I've never got the whole "my bike is lighter than a midget pixie" thing.

Surely there is a balance to be struck between durability/off road performance and weight?

Any benefits you gain from having a couple of less pounds to carry around on a 5 hour ride will surely be outweighted by the inferior ride quality overall (i.e. if you actually ride it in the wet, over rocks and roots, etc).

I'm not slating your bike, in fact I think it looks pretty damn sweet, but I just think you hit a point where you limit yourself to a certain grade of riding just to save a few pounds.

In saying that, my girlfiriend weighs about 8 stone and I definitely enjoy riding girls in the 8-9st bracket than say 12-13st .

njee20

Any benefits you gain from having a couple of less pounds to carry around on a 5 hour ride will surely be outweighted by the inferior ride quality overall (i.e. if you actually ride it in the wet, over rocks and roots, etc).

Horses for courses I guess. I like light kit although admittedly these days I wouldn't ride old SIDs, or v-brakes, or a road cassette! But I'd far sooner ride my 21lb FS bike on a 5 hour ride than something 'burlier', I'm just not that tough on kit and you can't beat how nicely a light bike climbs, if you've got the gears/legs to match anyway! I'd have thought most people would struggle to ride many reasonable climbs on that gearing, but each to their own.

ellsbells1973

if you've got the gears/legs to match anyway! I'd have thought most people would struggle to ride many reasonable climbs on that gearing, but each to their own.

i'll be honest honest climbing is hard work on your thighs (its like being in your middle chainring and on the 3rd or 4th sprocket on your cassette) and as long as it isnt to technical you can do it, (gives you a couple of minutes breather whilst your mates catch you up anyway[/quote]

ellsbells1973

yoohoo999 wrote:

In saying that, my girlfiriend weighs about 8 stone and I definitely enjoy riding girls in the 8-9st bracket than say 12-13st .

granted its not designed to keep up on a downhill section with a zesty, and you do tend to tip toe around a lot but this is just a singletrack blaster, i have gone off the idea of keep crashing all the time thats why i sold my scott genius a couple of weeks ago, burly bikes just make you think you can ride better than you actually can

ellsbells1973

njee20 wrote:

ellsbells1973 wrote:

needed something that could get me to the top without blowing out of my backside

So you've gone for a 32/25 (it doesn't look like a 12-27 cassette?) bottom gear... Good luck!

Looks very Euro, you'll fit right in on Weight Weenies!

its an 11-23 cassette, you have do stand up a lot with not having a granny ring on the chainset as well, but i will have legs like a race horse at the back end of summer

ellsbells1973

Toasty wrote:

ellsbells1973 wrote:

stops you being lazy on the climbs

I dunno, I'd suggest using very tight gearing on a mountain bike, to make hills 80g easier is pretty lazy :P They don't have wide gearing to make hills easier, they have wide gearing because the terrain changes so fast, you often need to jump through a gear range a lot faster. You'll be chugging through 5 gears to do what other mountain bikers do in 2 clicks.

It sounds a bit counter productive to me.

i know what your saying about the gearing but i cope alright as long as its not to technical, i have got use to standing up and using power instead of sitting back and spinning

SDK2007

I use an 11-28 Cassette on my XC bike and it's perfect. I also never use the granny ring so am thinking about removing that as well.

Basically when you get fitter there is no use for such low gearing so why carry it around as extra weight on the bike

Toasty wrote:

They don't have wide gearing to make hills easier, they have wide gearing because the terrain changes so fast, you often need to jump through a gear range a lot faster. You'll be chugging through 5 gears to do what other mountain bikers do in 2 clicks.

If that was the case then why are SRAM and Shimano moving to 10 speed (closer ratios)

ellsbells1973

SDK2007 wrote:

I use an 11-28 Cassette on my XC bike and it's perfect. I also never use the granny ring so am thinking about removing that as well.

Basically when you get fitter there is no use for such low gearing so why carry it around as extra weight on the bike

Toasty wrote:

They don't have wide gearing to make hills easier, they have wide gearing because the terrain changes so fast, you often need to jump through a gear range a lot faster. You'll be chugging through 5 gears to do what other mountain bikers do in 2 clicks.

If that was the case then why are SRAM and Shimano moving to 10 speed (closer ratios)

glad someone understands the concept of a road cassette and no granny ring chainset, this is a pure short course xc racer, no time for sitting back in the granny ring, just get to the top asap

njee20

Good luck to you, I certainly couldn't race with those ratios, and I do a reasonable amount of racing!

If nothing else, I found when I used a road cassette that I was constantly shifting on the front, with a wider cassette and a double you're not wasting time shifting on the front mech, and thus going faster.

Some courses it would work, but I reckon you'd find yourself rather over geared on most courses!

beanfield

dont think i have ever seen a alu hard tail with deore and slx that light! as someone said old forks, v brakes, surly performance is more important? i have a scott scale 30 at about 22 - 23lbs with better spec!! rather than road parts you could have gone 1x9 still been good at climbing save more weight losing shifter, 2 chainrings,front mech. and cables etc, i would love to get my scott scale down to 20 lbs but not at the expense of performance

njee20

i know what your saying about the gearing but i cope alright as long as its not to technical

So what do you do if it is technical? Get off and walk? Are you sticking to races that only have fireroad climbing?! Seems a bit daft to me. I agree on the 1x9 (or 1x10), you'd have a more usable range of gears and save more weight.

Have we done the pedals too? That really needs some SPDs!

If that was the case then why are SRAM and Shimano moving to 10 speed (closer ratios)

They're pushing the 11-36 cassettes more heavily, so wider ratios, which facilitates the use of a double chainset without losing too many gears.

El Capitano

yoohoo999 wrote:

I've never got the whole "my bike is lighter than a midget pixie" thing.

Surely there is a balance to be struck between durability/off road performance and weight?

Been there, done that...Got my NRS under 20lbs and everything started to break during enduro races. Now at 23lbs, it seems okay (and robust).

I've had a pair of those SID's on my NRS and now have 2010 Rebas. Yes, there is a massive difference. Still got them SIDs on the XTC and they're 'okay' for what I do on it, but they do flex an awful lot compared to the Rebas.

If you're unsure about Tubeless, just go for the Continental ultralightweight inner tubes - about 90g each.

Oh and that's a very nice bike BTW.

njee20

If you're unsure about Tubeless, just go for the Continental ultralightweight inner tubes - about 90g each.

Why? So you puncture constantly and realise how much better tubeless is!? I'd avoid those like the plague personally.

I had my Pedal Force sub 20lbs with proper components, it was nice, but I still prefer my Top Fuel, it's quicker in virtually all circumstances I reckon.

El Capitano

njee20 wrote:

If you're unsure about Tubeless, just go for the Continental ultralightweight inner tubes - about 90g each.

Why? So you puncture constantly and realise how much better tubeless is!? I'd avoid those like the plague personally.

Only had 1 puncture in the last 18 months.

Andy

I use Conti Supersonic tubes on my bikes not running Stans tubeless and I love them. No real difference between either set up.

njee20

Fair enough! I found them too thin to be of any real use! Not too bad on the road, but I wouldn't consider them off road, guess I just run my tyres too soft, if you don't want to run low pressures then I can see more merit. But tubeless vs tubes is an altogether different discussion!

The more important one here is whether 32/23 is a sensible bottom gear for a race bike, particularly one with flat pedals :-)

Avanti Roman

beanfield wrote:

dont think i have ever seen a alu hard tail with deore and slx that light! as someone said old forks, v brakes, surly performance is more important? i have a scott scale 30 at about 22 - 23lbs with better spec!! rather than road parts you could have gone 1x9 still been good at climbing save more weight losing shifter, 2 chainrings,front mech. and cables etc, i would love to get my scott scale down to 20 lbs but not at the expense of performance

+ 1 re. the 1x9 suggestion

You could get a very similar gear range with a single 36 or 38 on the front and an 11-34 cassette on the rear. Built a few bikes like this with £30 cyclocross chainsets converted to single chainring.

Also the seatpost looks v.similar to those used by Ribble on their special edition bikes, f it is they are heavy and you could lose 100g there for not too much £.

Very nice though, really like it.