Does weight really matter?

LAUNCH69

Hi there,
I am talking about one bike to do-it-all or 'trail' bikes, Hopefully not venturing into downhill vs XC.

I have been looking at buying a new bike and have (almost) settled on:
New Cotic BFe medium
SLX groupset
Fox 36 RC2 150mm
Hope pro2 evo with flow rims

Cotic said that I may want a lighter/shorter fork if I wanted to enjoy the climbs.
This bike would never be raced XC style but would do most things with a bias towards descending Lakes natural terrain.

My current bike is:

http://www.specialized.com/gb/gb/bikes/ ... pper#specs

with the following changed:
Hope mono mini brakes
Haven alu bar and 40mm stem
Hope/flow wheels

For commuting i add:
Bar mitts when cold
Headtorch front light
Cateye rear light
Bontrager Armoured slicks.

Anyay Cotics email inspired me and I weighed my bike on the gym scales at work yesterday...
My entry level,70.5 ha sort of XC biased bike weighted 30.6 pounds :shock: . I was pretty shocked and weighed it twice more to check!

So realising that i have been pedalling a 30 pound bike around for the past 4 years got me thinking - does weight really matter?

Would I notice a 28 pound build on the Cotic, or even a 32 pound build?
As I would only have one bike, after a few rides would I perceive any weight as 'normal' as I got used to it?

Your opinions would be greatly received as they may affect the final component choices on the new build.
Cheers,
Si

The Rookie

You'll notice the bike feeling more/less responsive, acceleration is more to do with wheel (complete with tyres etc) weights than total bike weight, shed just 400g in a pair of tyres and it's quite noticeable, but you won't actually cover any given ride that much faster. As the Cotic frame is heavier, at the same total weight as your hopper it will feel more responsive as the wheels will be lighter.

13.9Kg is about what I'd expect, it's about the same weight as the Voodoo Hoodoo or Carrera Vulcan which are similar specs.

Check link in sig to my Kraken, 11.5Kg with pedals as at that stage, another 200g ish coming off at the moment in brakes and an HT2 chainset.

felix.london

Depends where and what you're riding I guess. My Rockhopper is down to 12kg (26.4lbs) which is a good weight for riding the big mountains over here. I wouldn't really want it any heavier for the very long and steep half-day climbs but wouldn't want it too much lighter for what amounts to proper DH on most descents.

LAUNCH69

Climbs for me are usually simply a matter of spinning to the top so that can enjoy the downs.
Also around here I don't think I would experience the 'pleasure' of a half day climb.
I would like a build that I did not have to nurse down a descent as finesse is not a word I would use to describe my riding . . .
Is there really a noticable long term result of losing 2.6 pounds or is it simply a matter of just build it and ride it?
(weighing my hopper made me realise that my coil toras probably weigh about the same as the 36s!)

The Rookie

Even plowing up a long climb (which I do enjoy - though in a different way to a 'white knuckle' frenetic decent) you won't notice the weight difference that much, it's more in how responsive the bike is, direction changes, lifting the front, quick accels out of tight corners etc that I notice.

lawman

Rotating weight is the most noticable place to make a bike more sluggish/lively. I always say buy the best wheels you can afford. A lighter fork than the 36 might help too, unless you are seriously bombing down DH runs or are quite heavy, a 32 with a 15mm would be a better fit imo or if you are buying new, the 34 would be spot on

LAUNCH69

I am going to be buying new - the 34 does look good, but i'm not sure about the CTD system. no one seems to love it in reviews. Also there really is not alot in it weight wise.

lawman

LAUNCH69 wrote:

I am going to be buying new - the 34 does look good, but i'm not sure about the CTD system. no one seems to love it in reviews. Also there really is not alot in it weight wise.

Had a quick spin on a 32 with CTD in the LBS t'other day, I can see why the non-factory forks might be abit meh, but the trail adjust on the 34 should give you a few options, I think I'd just leave it in one of the trail settings all the time tbh, and I run a lot of low speed compression on my 32's anyway. It's far from ideal, but atleast you should still be able to get a good setup.

Northwind

People obsess about climbing when talking abot weight, and sure it makes a difference but it's not that important a difference IMO- just means I take a little longer to reach the top, not that fussed. But coming back down, I much prefer a light bike, far easier and nicer to handle. Not everyone agrees, some people like a bit more momentum.

Oh... A BFe will descend well with 150mm forks but you might find it a bit waggy and hard work on the climbs. Mine had 120-150mm uturn Revelations on it which really suited it, helped it climb but also gave it basically 2 different characters- descending on 120mm was fun too.

LAUNCH69

I get the impression that weight does matter, but more in a handling/ acceleration way than holding back climbing too much.
Also proposed forks may be too long for happy climbing.
Right going to start a thread on 34 vs 36 and float vs talas.
Thanks for your opinions, this place is always great as a sounding board.
Si

The Rookie

34 Float - sorted for you! Seriously that I think is a more important decision than a lb here or there! (And I'm a weight weenie...however I try and look at the bigger picture, if I can do the same thing for the same price for lighter, I will, otherwise I'll pick what performs better)

cloudynights

weight matters if your out all day on a cross country ride, if your just doing a quick 2 or 3 hour ride then its not gonna be that noticable

Northwind

That doesn't make any sense, the difference is identical. If you mean the difference to overall fatigue levels, then sure, but that's far from the only place weight makes a difference.

njee20

Whilst light bikes feel better (to me), I think you get the same benefit from losing weight off you, and considering most can lose at least the weight of their bike I'm not convinced of the benefits in chasing ultimate light weight.

The number of people on Weight Weenies riding <20lb bikes who weigh >100kg is ridiculous!

70\ʹspenguin

njee20 wrote:

Whilst light bikes feel better (to me), I think you get the same benefit from losing weight off you, and considering most can lose at least the weight of their bike I'm not convinced of the benefits in chasing ultimate light weight.

The number of people on Weight Weenies riding <20lb bikes who weigh >100kg is ridiculous!

Amen!

felix.london

70\'sPenguin wrote:

njee20 wrote:

Whilst light bikes feel better (to me), I think you get the same benefit from losing weight off you, and considering most can lose at least the weight of their bike I'm not convinced of the benefits in chasing ultimate light weight.

The number of people on Weight Weenies riding <20lb bikes who weigh >100kg is ridiculous!

Amen!

Indeed!

bennett_346

Of course weight matters. Or we'd all be riding 20kg steel behemoths.

Pointless question!

lawman

bennett_346 wrote:

Some pointless answer

bennett_346

lawman wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Some pointless answer

errr no.

bugger off.

LAUNCH69

If you read through the opening you would realise that I was talking of trailbike weights. Not huge vs featherweight but more 28 pounds vs 32. You could move those parameters by 2 pounds or so.
The point was whether with only one bike would you truly feel the difference after a couple of months, or if you would simply adapt and not notice.
Would the saving of 2 pounds truly change how you ride?

The Northern Monkey

Weight does matter!!

But it depends on the application!

I love the RL for XC, its easy to ride and chuck about... but I just dragged the Canyon out for the 1st time in ages, blooody hell its heavy! But it will kill the DH!

lawman

LAUNCH69 wrote:

If you read through the opening you would realise that I was talking of trailbike weights. Not huge vs featherweight but more 28 pounds vs 32. You could move those parameters by 2 pounds or so.
The point was whether with only one bike would you truly feel the difference after a couple of months, or if you would simply adapt and not notice.
Would the saving of 2 pounds truly change how you ride?

As I said before about rotating weight being more noticeable, I switched tyres recently, same tread pattern and size, but heavier casing and the difference was noticeable instantly, and thats only 100 odd grams per tyre we're talking. Losing weight of stuff like forks makes the front feel lighter and sometimes easier to place, I noticed the front end of my old bike went much lighter when I switched from my heavy weight tora's to revelations. Buy the best wheels, tyres and forks you can buy, and if need be, save on groupset.

The Rookie

Guideline priorities from me would be
1/ Anything easy to change at minimal cost (e.g. Grips which you may well want to change anyway)
2/ Tyres (you'll want the right ones for where you ride anyway)
3/ Tubes, cheap way to save 80g an end, schwalbe lightweight options are around 120-130g and you have the old ones as spares/backup.

After that it's replacing stuff as it wears out or when you fancy an upgrade, wheels are forks give execllent ebnefits (forks in ride as well as weight) but cost quite a bit more than the above!

bluechair84

You are supposed to have fun on the descents with a trail bike and I thing there is a minimum weight limit for descending. Light weight bikes 'ping' off of trail debris and can be kicked off line easily turning a fun descent into a buck-fest. 28-29 pounds I think is the lower limit for a trail bike. At that weight you'll already be noticing that it won't hold a line on a descent as well. As said, try and loose some weight in the wheels if you can, but don't think that lightweight is the end-game for a trail bike.

EH_Rob

bluechair84 wrote:

You are supposed to have fun on the descents with a trail bike and I thing there is a minimum weight limit for descending. Light weight bikes 'ping' off of trail debris and can be kicked off line easily turning a fun descent into a buck-fest. 28-29 pounds I think is the lower limit for a trail bike. At that weight you'll already be noticing that it won't hold a line on a descent as well. As said, try and loose some weight in the wheels if you can, but don't think that lightweight is the end-game for a trail bike.

Having just gone from a lightweight XC hardtail to a fully coil Santa Cruz Nomad I'd agree with this. Sure, I now can't climb quite as fast, but I can still climb.

lawman

bluechair84 wrote:

You are supposed to have fun on the descents with a trail bike and I thing there is a minimum weight limit for descending. Light weight bikes 'ping' off of trail debris and can be kicked off line easily turning a fun descent into a buck-fest. 28-29 pounds I think is the lower limit for a trail bike. At that weight you'll already be noticing that it won't hold a line on a descent as well. As said, try and loose some weight in the wheels if you can, but don't think that lightweight is the end-game for a trail bike.

I'd say a lower weight limit for a trail bike is much closer to 24/25lbs. Limiting factors are always components, tyres, forks wheels. The only time I ever feel a descent turning sketchy is if I'm absolutely ragging the HD down our local DH courses, which are pretty darn steep in places, and I feel the forks start to flex a little, but overall I'd say geometry and tyres make a bigger difference than weight in terms of surefooted-ness. A 25lb trail bike with decent tyres and good geometry is going to be much quicker than a 29lb bike with poor, steep geometry.

As an example my 456c is slacker than the HD so despite being lighter than my HD and a being a hardtail, it can in some circumstances feel less nervous, so much so that until the HD gets an angleset I'll be using the 456 with mud tyres in uni DH races

mrmonkfinger

bluechair84 wrote:

28-29 pounds I think is the lower limit for a trail bike.

Bit arbitrary, no? Why not 29.5? Or 50? Or 1?

Geometry and how well the bike is set up for your body & riding style are the important factors, not minimum weight?

Northwind

bluechair84 wrote:

You are supposed to have fun on the descents with a trail bike and I thing there is a minimum weight limit for descending. Light weight bikes 'ping' off of trail debris and can be kicked off line easily turning a fun descent into a buck-fest. 28-29 pounds I think is the lower limit for a trail bike.

This is a matter of taste... If you want a rockplough, you need a bit of heft but since you don't ride a light bike in the same way it's not that simple. A heavy bike will batter down a rough line better than a light bike, but a light bike has other options than just battering down it.

FWIW people said the exact same thing about downhill bikes- going light was a bad idea, they wouldn't ride right.

bluechair84

mrmonkfinger wrote:

bluechair84 wrote:

28-29 pounds I think is the lower limit for a trail bike.

Bit arbitrary, no? Why not 29.5? Or 50? Or 1?

Geometry and how well the bike is set up for your body & riding style are the important factors, not minimum weight?

Because that's my preference. Each to their own. I'm not saying this to the exclusion of other factors such as geometry and set-up, I'm meerly saying that light weight should not be the end game for a trail bike as it isn't conducive to 'fun-going-down'.

Northwind

If you say, "isn't always" then I'll agree.

bluechair84

Northwind wrote:

If you say, "isn't always" then I'll agree.

I'm sure there's a mandate against such a thing in BR But yeah, it's definately personaly preference and bikes with high quality kit can mitigate deflection on rough trails. So light weight isn't always the end game for a trail bike.