What is the ideal weight range?

doublem_1

I understand the quest to get your MTB as light as possible but I was wondering what the ideal weight range is for a hardtail. Or even how heavy is heavy? I am currently building up my MTB at the moment so will get it weighed as soon as its done.

rockmonkeysc

That depends on what sort of riding you are building it for. An XC race bike needs to be a lot lighter than an all mountain hardtail. Frame size makes a difference as well.

njee20

Horses for courses. There is no right answer.

In 2003 I had a 23lb carbon hardtail - noodly 28mm SID forks, v-brakes, 120mm stem, narrow flat bar. It was pretty terrifying to ride frankly. Fast forward 10 years and I have a FS bike with 100mm Fox forks, disc brakes, fatter tyres and it weighs 3lbs less.

I much prefer the Top Fuel to the old hardtail, in every possible way! Doesn't mean I'd want to ride a 20lb FS bike for DH racing though...

Thewaylander

What Njee says.

It all depends on what and how you ride, for me most bikes below 30lb feel flexy and bendy on the steeper rooty trails i enjoy. it's all personal choice and depending on what you ride

supersonic

I try and get the lightest I can for the money, but still retain a decent level of performance and robustness.

lawman

For my kind of bike, 140/150mm travel FS around 25/26lbs with dropper post and pedals, though with frames and wheels getting lighter but tougher all the time, a sub 25lb with the right kit on it should be achievable. I know Cube do a 22lb stereo with 160mm travel, but thats without pedals or a dropper and stupid light seatpost and saddle, its basically a carbon seat with zero padding :shock:

louthepoo

supersonic wrote:

I try and get the lightest I can for the money, but still retain a decent level of performance and robustness.

This all day long. I've got a very light bike - 20lb carbon hardtail, which is great up hills and on the flat but very bouncy on anything downhill that can have it hopping! I think I'd probably go up to about 26lb if I wanted something that could handle the bouncy downhills

supersonic

My GT weighs about 22lbs. Not super light, but the frame is a good blend of strength and forgiveness (and can take a 140mm fork at a push). The XTR wheels are by no means light, but for the weight are as tough as they come. rest of the parts follow the same theme.

ride_whenever

I've got my C456 to just sub 24lbs with a dropper and 2.4 tyres. Next up is xx1 when it comes back into stock at the uk distributor which should drop a load more, but I'm toying with the idea of a 1*10 xtr setup because I do love the shimano shifting again having played with the new saint stuff.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as too light, as long as you have the travel you need (want), the gear range you require and it is strong enough for your riding. The only problem tends to be the depths of your pockets.

supersonic

1x 10 xtr/xt could be a decent compromise: gear range will be 327% compared to 420%, but if you can live with that will have a set up of similar weight for a fair bit less.

lawman

ride_whenever wrote:

I've got my C456 to just sub 24lbs with a dropper and 2.4 tyres. Next up is xx1 when it comes back into stock at the uk distributor which should drop a load more, but I'm toying with the idea of a 1*10 xtr setup because I do love the shimano shifting again having played with the new saint stuff.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as too light, as long as you have the travel you need (want), the gear range you require and it is strong enough for your riding. The only problem tends to be the depths of your pockets.

Thats bloody good going!! Mines a hair over 24.5lbs with dropper and 2.25 Schwalbes, already running xt 1x10, but it does a deore cassette which weighs about the same as a small moon :shock:

I completely agree, if its light, stiff and strong why not have it if you can afford it? The idea that light bikes aren't as capable over rough terrain is flawed imo, some WC DH bikes are pushing the 32/34lb barrier no heavier than many AM bikes as stock and if anything DH bikes are only going to get faster and faster. Easton have just released the Havoc Carbon wheels that weigh just 1560g, which if they hold to abuse will be a chuffing good wheelset!! I did read somewhere Steve Smith has been using them for a bit, can't remember where but they must be tough if he can run them!

doublem_1

Some good opinions here, thanks for your time guys. I can't wait to weigh mine once it's built. I weigh 8 stone 11lbs so I don't think I'll be overly eager to shed weight off of it. Although I will be looking at upgrading the wheels I reckon.

scarbs85

On this theme, where are the best places to shed meaningful weight? Forks, wheels often a good starting point, then does the pork hide anywhere in particular? Or is it a case of shedding it little and often from lots of components like bars, seatposts, drivetrain components etc etc?

njee20

Depends entirely on how it's built. Stock saddles/bars/stems/seatposts can often be really rather heavy, but it'll depend. Likewise Deore cassettes are pretty heavy.

Next up is xx1 when it comes back into stock at the uk distributor

Why pay silly UK prices? You can get it cheaper than trade buying abroad!

rockmonkeysc

scarbs85 wrote:

On this theme, where are the best places to shed meaningful weight? Forks, wheels often a good starting point, then does the pork hide anywhere in particular? Or is it a case of shedding it little and often from lots of components like bars, seatposts, drivetrain components etc etc?

Tyres and tubes can be a good place too loose weight. Then bulky items like cranks, cassette and frame.

njee20

Price up the cost per gram saved - this will show you where you can prioritise. Grips and tyres are 'quick wins'. Frames (particularly if FS), forks and wheels are significantly more outlay, but are where you can make the biggest individual differences.

Northwind

One of mine's steadily getting heavier again, 32lbs with its everyday tyres on and worth every pound Closer in weight to my downhill bike than my Ragley. OTOH my Soda's lighter than my road bike.

if you're serious about reducing weight, just get some less accurate scales, or better still just make the number up entirely.

Thewaylander

Northwind wrote:

One of mine's steadily getting heavier again, 32lbs with its everyday tyres on and worth every pound Closer in weight to my downhill bike than my Ragley. OTOH my Soda's lighter than my road bike.

if you're serious about reducing weight, just get some less accurate scales, or better still just make the number up entirely.

This i'm not convinced by half the wieghts people state.

I know my bike is a tank running its DH tyres currently but rocks up at 35lbs, Couldn't care less it rides awesome and you can point and shoot it down anything and it just steam rollers instead of being bounced all over.

it's personal preference all the way and dependent on what you ride and how you ride it.

The Rookie

I'm not sure a bike can ever be too light, what I am convinced by is that it may not be strong/stiff enough, if that means adding weight to make it strong/stiff enough it's not the same as it having been too light!

Downhill bikes are getting lighter through technology, while maintaining or increasing stiffness, don't see the riders saying they are too light!

10.8Kg (near enough, depending on tyres) on my Kraken is fine for me on XC or trail/centre (Cannock mostly).

Thewaylander

Not disagreeing, but there are limits, and light and strong is really hard to acheive.

Using Dh as example is fine, but remember most models you can actually buy at the top end hardly ever get below 35lbs and if they do there prohibitvly expensive.

njee20

Not disagreeing, but there are limits, and light and strong is really hard to acheive.

Well it's relative, but the adage of cheap/light/stong; pick two isn't far off the mark.

You're right, you won't get a 10" travel DH bike to 20lbs, but you can get them down to 32-34 or so, which puts it on par with a £400 hardtail, which is pretty impressive really.

Thewaylander

it is very impressive

Though i think a few of those have air sus, and alot of the riders who would ride more casually than say WC racers definately go coil for comfort

Still it's definately moved fwd a long way, not sure how much further they can go with it in terms of weight be interesting to see,.

njee20

A bloody long way I suspect! I'm not sure full on DH bikes will move that far, but I reckon we'll get sub 25lb trail/enduro bikes (with dropper posts etc) and sub-20lb XC race bikes becoming common place.

Northwind

I think for sure a bike can be too light for a person's tastes- like, my rigid Soda is some stupid weight, can't remember exactly but it's within a metric bawhair of 20lbs. Anyway, it's fantastic at some things, but every so often a bit of trail just slaps it about, and it's not the lack of suspension, it's just that it has so little momentum of its own. Uphill rock gardens especially, it takes very little to stop it (for the same reason it takes very little to start it).

I love that, it's a totally different ride but it could be maddening to another person.

The Rookie

Northwind wrote:

. Anyway, it's fantastic at some things, but every so often a bit of trail just slaps it about, and it's not the lack of suspension, it's just that it has so little momentum of its own.

Is that it though, or is the frame too compliant and then rebounding back (no real daming in a frame unlike decent forks/shocks - and everyone complains about cheap and nasty undamped suspension), I don't know and neither I suspect do you, you are making an assumption it's the weight.

Thewaylander

Since momentum is a function of weight i think he can be relatively justified in his asumption if i'm honest.

mrmonkfinger

One of the joyous things about being a bit saggy round the mid section is that I don't care how heavy my bike is, its a small fraction of my weight whatever it weighs.

bennett_346

Thewaylander wrote:

Since momentum is a function of weight i think he can be relatively justified in his asumption if i'm honest.

supersonic

Cheap light strong and all that. Still rings true, a lot of money goes a long way!

Thewaylander

bennett_346 wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

Since momentum is a function of weight i think he can be relatively justified in his asumption if i'm honest.

Ok mass. sorry

Northwind

The Beginner wrote:

Is that it though, or is the frame too compliant and then rebounding back (no real daming in a frame unlike decent forks/shocks - and everyone complains about cheap and nasty undamped suspension), I don't know and neither I suspect do you, you are making an assumption it's the weight.

Eh, no, I'm drawing conclusions based on how it rides, and the fact that the lighter it gets the more obvious it is.

TBH there's nothing about the frame that feels or acts like undamped suspension- quite the opposite really, it feels soft rather than springy. But I found the same thing on my rigid carrera, which weighed about 2lbs more but had nothing of compliance about it at all.