Bike Weight...all that important ??

Pudseyp

Hi all, I often try in my best possible capacity on the Buying Advice section, with 20 odd years experience in all disapllines from DH to XC...the one question that often bugs me with people offering advice is weight..I often read debates (and have been aparty to afew) on new bikes weights...people have been dismissing peoples suggestions as being terrible as the one they have suggested is a whole pound lighter....

OK I can see the point for the lycra clad XC racer, but for general XC and trail use I cannot see the point (within reason)...surely it's all about traction rather than weight ? also we all talk about weight, but if I go out for the day I have everything strapped to my bike inc the kitchen sink ! so what gain do I have of owning a lightweight bike ! it's still got to carry 16 stone !!

Is it more to do with vanity ? is an XTR/XO mech really that much better than an XT/X9 ?? it may look nice clad in carbon..but the internals are near all the same !

Let the debate begin !! Cheers

Northwind

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, I don't mind my hemlock being 29lbs but if my Soul was 29lbs it'd lose a lot of its point, it's a nice light snappy XC bike.

pte1643

Not an issue for me.

You might spend twice the cash to save an extra 25grams with a certain pedal as opposed to another, but you've only got to put an extra Mars Bar (or similar) in your pack and it kinda offsets that anyway.

Like you say, for racing, then yes.

GhallTN6

I'd say a lot of people think that weight will make them quicker, when actually it's enhancing your skills and getting more experience (as I think you have), that does that, and unless you're an elite racer doing laps on a course with support, what's the point of spending 120 quid on new pedals that's pretty much identical to the old ones, but 30 grams lighter, only to fill your bladder with 3 litres of water weighing in at about 3kg's, spare tubes. pump.. jacket.. potatoes....

My new wheels have actually added some weight, but they have given me so much confidence and are more reliable than the last ones, I actually now ride faster on everything but the most severe climbs!

Soulmonkey

I think it depends what you're doing with the bike really. I've just opted for a top end scott genius, and the weight was a factor in my choice. The reason being I want a bike that take a thrashing but that I can still ride 100 mile enduros on.
Importantly, though, the wieght was only a factor not the whole thing. If it didn't feel right or ride right for me then I wouldn't have bought it. I guess it makes sense to have the lightest bike possible but to take into account a range of parameters, with fit and feel and rideability uppermost. Budget is a big thing too. There's no point spending an extra grand on saving a few hundred grams if it means you can't afford to take any mtb holidays for the next two years to really enjoy it.
What I think is hilarious is when you see seriously overwieght people in bike shops spending ages quibbling over a few grams saved here and there. I think their time would be better spent exercising to take some kilos off their bodies!!
As with most things in life, I think it's all about balance.

shieldsy94

it depends on your discipline and what exactly you will be doing with it.
i.e. jump bikes need to be a bit light so it is easier to jump, also you arent going to pack mars bars onto a saddle bag on it are you...
however if your doing all mountain and carrying food, pump etc then theres no point as the price and benfits will be washed away by a twix and a pump.

ilovedirt

As long as my bike doesn't weigh an absolute ton, i don't really care. I chose pikes (heaviest part on my bike for sure) over a lighter fork (i had some manitous on before that were a good 800g lighter) because of performance.

supersonic

As above, it does depend. More weight can bring benefits such as stiffer part, strength and stiffness.

I ride XC, am not very fit so like a light bike.

Mynameisdann

Im not to fussed im out of shape so a 5lb lighter bike is going to do fuck all for me

Thewaylander

Important thing.

You all talk as if the bike and the rider are one lump of mass in physics terms, they are not that is why it is important to put as much stuff in your pack than you.
The bike has attributes like rotating mass and all sorts that make it act almost like a seperate body in motion with you providing force.

This is why it is easier to ride with a heavy pack and maintain handling and accelleration rather than carrying it on a bike. think of that in terms of rations, i add 10 kg pack to me its 10kg on an 11 stone rider(70-80kgs) so whats that a 1/8ths difference not huge, do that to a bike having a mass of 11kg... get the picture?

I will say that hits hard to pick up on a difference of a pound when you have suspension taking power out and so on to compare two bikes but weight of a machine really does make huge differences.

I personally as a bit of a monkey don't like a super leight weight xc machine there not stiff enough relaxed enough for fun riding and are generally hard work over really rough stuff.

.blitz

I think the whole obsession with weight thing is a hangover from the days when MTBs were basically road bikes with knobbly tyres and if it worked in the roadie world then it must be OK off-road.

Good to see the shift in recent years away from the roadie legacy and the emergence of the true MTB.

Personally I simply CBA with a few grams here and there. If I was a potential world champion and it was the difference between winning a stack of cash and pottering round at the back then yes OK but I ride round Cannock Chase and work in an office.

GhallTN6

Personally I simply CBA with a few grams here and there. If I was a potential world champion and it was the difference between winning a stack of cash and pottering round at the back then yes OK but I ride round Cannock Chase and work in an office.

Why didn't i come up with that one.. brilliant!

Joe_Pineapples

If you're trying to build an XC whippet, then weight is your enemy.
If you're trying to build swiss army knife do-it-all trail bike, weight is worth keeping a wee eye on.
If you're building a doonhill weapon of mass destruction, weight doesn't matter a great deal.

My Devinci is actually heavier than it was when it popped out of its box, mostly due to the Kenda Excavator DH specific tires I've stuck on it. They're nearly 1300gms each!
The whole thing is nudging 19kilos.

What's that old saying....light, strong, cheap - you can only ever have two of the three.

biff55

Thewaylander wrote:

Important thing.

You all talk as if the bike and the rider are one lump of mass in physics terms, they are not that is why it is important to put as much stuff in your pack than you.
The bike has attributes like rotating mass and all sorts that make it act almost like a seperate body in motion with you providing force.

This is why it is easier to ride with a heavy pack and maintain handling and accelleration rather than carrying it on a bike. think of that in terms of rations, i add 10 kg pack to me its 10kg on an 11 stone rider(70-80kgs) so whats that a 1/8ths difference not huge, do that to a bike having a mass of 11kg... get the picture?

your physics suck !

rotating mass from the wheels wouldn't be affected by carrying a pump and waterbottle on the frame rather than on your person.
and the advantages of carrying gear on the bike instead of a packpack is that is keeps the centre of gravity low.
and while cycling uphill , total mass is all that matters.

chedabob

Joe_Pineapples wrote:

The whole thing is nudging 19kilos.

Crikey. That weighs more than the BSO I got rid of :P

Bar Shaker

I think it matters but there is no point worrying when the difference is tiny (such as the 200g you pointed out, elsewhere).

I bought my bike because my old bike had grown into 16kg of bullet proof bouncer and whilst it felt that it could never be broken, it also felt that it was too strong for anything other than Alpine DH. The difference in riding a 12kg bike is enormous.

The thing that is often discussed in these debates is rider weight. Whilst this is an issue, I think the riders' power to weight ratios come into play too and the bike should be looked at as a percentage of the rider's weight. The ideal will also be influenced by the style of riding. It cannot be an accident that all of the main TdF riders are tiny and the sprinters are not. The fact remains though, smaller humans have better power to weight.

Given then that all riders had the same power to weight and our rider is a typical 85kg, the bike weight may add 12%, 14%, 16% to his weight, if it were 10kg, 12kg or 14kg. We can work on a kilogramme saving costing around £400 with this increasing exponentially once you get down to 12kg.

So is it worth it?

Well yes, because there is also a mental factor. If you know that you are hauling around a kg that you shouldn't be, this will nag you. It will make the climbs feel steeper and longer and it will make you feel that you tire more quickly. Were you actually timed, the difference may be small or non existent. That said, I have smashed my PBs on my set routes with my new bike so the big weight savings do matter.

As I said elsewhere, with mtbs, most mid price frames are good enough and buyers should concentrate on getting top spec components. Good groupsets, suspension and (most importantly) wheels are far more important than saving 0.5kg on a mtb frame.

supersonic

The bike moves around a lot under you, and it's mass is further away from your muscles and fulcums, so weight lost here is usually more noticable.

50g lost may not be felt.

Lose 50g on every part and...

jayson

Im not obsessed with bike weight but i can appreciate the difference lighter parts give u. An example is the forks that came on the bike, i didnt think they were that heavy until i took them off to replace with a set of Tora's, themselves not the lightest fork but compared to the suntours that came off it was literally like night and day the difference was immediate.

The same was for the standard tires, upon takin them off i was staggered to see they weighted the best part of a kilo each, 900 and handfull of grams compared to the mountain kings that went on it was a revelation.

The wheels were another heavy part, they looked nice but werent particularly strong so i had some custom wheels built using mid range slx hubs and wider en521 rims and again the difference was immediately apparent even though it was only mid range gear.

I would rather have strong parts that last than super light but fragile although i wouldnt want to ride a 40lb bike.

Thewaylander

LOl put the weight on the bike and try throwing it around compared to your back go on

And no they don't effect rotating mass, but saying that bike weight has no effect on climbs vs total weight is really really really really really really awful physics mate.

biff55

but i bet you couldn't feel the difference half a mile in on a 1 in 5 climb. :P

Thewaylander

i can tell the weight difference on a 6k climb living in wales i've climbed on alot of bikes up alot of different hills, anyone who says weight does not effect climbing, and yes variations of even 2 pounds are easily felt over a ride.

broken weeble

Meh, im fat...Any extra weigh will help me shift this final stone quicker

P-Jay

It's not an issue to me at all.

Like most people I don't want to pedal a tank about, but when people talk about losing grams I have to stifle my laughter.

The thing I look for most in a bike or bits is reliability, I really can't get enough of it.

I like sort of X9 level stuff, not becase it's lighter then X7, but because has a nicer feel, also it's tough! I ripped an X9 shifter off my DH bike a couple of years back in Morzine, casing smashed and full of mud. Zip tied that sucker to the bars and it worked faultlessly for not only the rest of the week in Morzine, but a couple of months home later.

I like Shimano DX flats, for the same reason. I've no idea what they weigh and couldn't give a monkeys.

Pudseyp

Thanks all. the verdict to me then that within reason weight is not a big issue in a bikes performance..weight comes at a cost and are in some cases less durable, so replaceing components to shave a few gramms is somewhat pointless in the main, whereas in somecases increasing weight to have more longlasting durable parts is a good thing...unless your a 8 stone whippet who can surrvive on a thimble of juice and a cornflake !

I guess it's all personal preference...in somecases do we choose lightweight parts because they are light..or the fact they they ahem..err look good...(yes before you ask I have done this !)


Barshaker, this was not an intended dig, so apologies if you took it as one...

blister pus

my new rule of thumb is: it needs to be able to be picked up and lifted over a gate / wall comfortably with little strain when you are shagged

Pudseyp

blister pus wrote:

my new rule of thumb is: it needs to be able to be picked up and lifted over a gate / wall comfortably with little strain when you are shagged

Brilliant !! kiss the guns

Bar Shaker

Pudseyp wrote:

Barshaker, this was not an intended dig, so apologies if you took it as one...

Not at all. Its a good topic.

Anonymous

Only benefit I find with weight is on climbs. Having tried bikes many times lighter than mine I can assert they are so much easier on the climbs!

Other than that, I don't think it really matters except if you like to hike with a bike slung over your back :P.

And don't forget rider weight !

Northwind

GhallTN6 wrote:

I'd say a lot of people think that weight will make them quicker, when actually it's enhancing your skills and getting more experience (as I think you have), that does that

Why do you believe they mutually exclusive? There's lots of ways to get quicker.

Anonymous

Northwind wrote:

Why do you believe they mutually exclusive? There's lots of ways to get quicker.

Going down a steeper hill for starters

Northwind

Closing both your eyes so you can't see the scary stuff as well. Always a winner, Sam Hill swears by it.