Current bike too heavy? All mountain

cts5555

Hi guys

I bought a Marin Quake AL7 new back in 2008 ( 2006 model ), after riding a Kona Coiler for about a year, the Quake has been and still is a fantastic machine in great condition, however I have always found it very tough on the climbs. I started riding again this year after about 2 years off ( kids ), and a combination of fitness level and bike weight (excuse? ) has made me consider a change...

I generally ride all mountain trails, such as Whites Level, Cwmcarn ( up and down ), Brechfa etc

I have been looking closely at a custom built Lapierre Spicy, built around Fox Float 160mm with some beefier hubs and wheels, it weights in at 30.8lbs complete.

My Quake weights in at 38.5lbs complete.

Im currently 180lbs and 5ft10, should get down to about 170lbs at my normal 'riding' weight.

Im not a 'pro' rider by any means, and have never rode the Quake near its potential, i would however like to stay in the 150-160mm travel range without blowing a massive budget.

Now i dont have the option to test ride the bike, but i would like to know opinions on if the weight saving is going to be instantly noticeable on the climbs, whilst still performing well on the downs...? Or do i just suck it up and spend more time in the gym!!?

ilovedirt

The quake is a REALLY heavy bike. I know a guy that used to own one and I wouldn't have wanted to have pedalled that thing anywhere, let alone UP a hill! If you get a modern 140-160mm travel bike, it'll be significantly easier to pedal up hills and probably just as capable riding down them.

cts5555

Thanks for the quick reply.

Of course it is heavy... it does however pedal well and has pro pedal and adjustable fork travel. Im more concerned about purchasing a new bike purely with weight saving in mind, and wondering if 8lbs or so will make a noticeable difference... Or should i aim to lose a bit more weight to compensate a little!

Would a 30lb Spicy build be considered a light larger travel bike?

I've been out of the game for a while and not overly familiar with some of the newer bikes, they review very highly!

TheNorthernTrain

Have a look at some of the Canyon models. Great spec for great money. I just recently hauled my Torque Ex up and down the length of Wales, does everything I need it to going down and while it's not the lightest bike out there I managed to pedal it up everything that the 10 other bikes rode up...

cts5555

Wow, some nice bikes there at great prices, although they seem to be selling old stock before releasing 2014 models, and have nothing in my size.... The AL+ range appeals! Very light weight, good spec, good prices.

But i still return to my original query regarding noticeable differences in weight

slickmouse

cts5555 wrote:

Wow, some nice bikes there at great prices, although they seem to be selling old stock before releasing 2014 models, and have nothing in my size.... The AL+ range appeals! Very light weight, good spec, good prices.

But i still return to my original query regarding noticeable differences in weight

Its a very good question and not one youl get a sensible answer of the weight weenies on here

A lot depends on your motivation for cycling, if your purpose is ultimately to increase you fitness and loose weight, then in simplistic terms ( upto a point) the heavier the better. if your focused on how high/howfast you can climb then the lighter the better

Then there is the sub question, if your the latter, whats most crucial, riders weight or bike weight. Its clearly the riders weight in answer, spending a fortune getting a bike thats 5lb/10lbs lighter, if your two stone over weight is delusional, if you believe it will make any noticeable improvement to your performance, it does make them easier to lift over fences however

on the narrower question of which is better, 10lbs off your weight or 10lbs off the bikes, then again a reduction in the riders weight will show most benefit, particularly as in getting that reduction you will also have improved your fitness/diet

So in short, if I were you, id ride my ''heavy bike '' as hard as I could for as long as I could and burn off the 10lbs of body weight, THEN if your still not satisfied buy a lighter bike

cts5555

Thats a good answer, and answers directly my question!!

At present, im not 'enjoying' riding as im finding it extremely hard work, im not 'unfit', but also not as fit as i used to be....

More gym / saddle time needed, then i will reconsider my options!!

Thanks for the help guys

rockmonkeysc

The quake is a bit of a tank, thats nearly as heavy as my downhill bike!
A lighter bike will make a huge difference. I would avoid longer travel German bikes, their rear suspension doesn't work particularly well, prone to blowing through travel and wallowing.

cooldad

slickmouse wrote:

cts5555 wrote:

Wow, some nice bikes there at great prices, although they seem to be selling old stock before releasing 2014 models, and have nothing in my size.... The AL+ range appeals! Very light weight, good spec, good prices.

But i still return to my original query regarding noticeable differences in weight

Its a very good question and not one youl get a sensible answer of the weight weenies on here

A lot depends on your motivation for cycling, if your purpose is ultimately to increase you fitness and loose weight, then in simplistic terms ( upto a point) the heavier the better. if your focused on how high/howfast you can climb then the lighter the better

Then there is the sub question, if your the latter, whats most crucial, riders weight or bike weight. Its clearly the riders weight in answer, spending a fortune getting a bike thats 5lb/10lbs lighter, if your two stone over weight is delusional, if you believe it will make any noticeable improvement to your performance, it does make them easier to lift over fences however

on the narrower question of which is better, 10lbs off your weight or 10lbs off the bikes, then again a reduction in the riders weight will show most benefit, particularly as in getting that reduction you will also have improved your fitness/diet

So in short, if I were you, id ride my ''heavy bike '' as hard as I could for as long as I could and burn off the 10lbs of body weight, THEN if your still not satisfied buy a lighter bike

Absolute and total rubbish.
Whilst losing body weight is obviously beneficial, your body is used to carrying your weight.
A chunk off the bike will be far more noticeable when riding than the same chunk off your body, especially if that chunk is off rotating parts like wheels and tyres.
Taking a dump before a ride does not make a difference.

slickmouse

cooldad wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

cts5555 wrote:

Wow, some nice bikes there at great prices, although they seem to be selling old stock before releasing 2014 models, and have nothing in my size.... The AL+ range appeals! Very light weight, good spec, good prices.

But i still return to my original query regarding noticeable differences in weight

Its a very good question and not one youl get a sensible answer of the weight weenies on here

A lot depends on your motivation for cycling, if your purpose is ultimately to increase you fitness and loose weight, then in simplistic terms ( upto a point) the heavier the better. if your focused on how high/howfast you can climb then the lighter the better

Then there is the sub question, if your the latter, whats most crucial, riders weight or bike weight. Its clearly the riders weight in answer, spending a fortune getting a bike thats 5lb/10lbs lighter, if your two stone over weight is delusional, if you believe it will make any noticeable improvement to your performance, it does make them easier to lift over fences however

on the narrower question of which is better, 10lbs off your weight or 10lbs off the bikes, then again a reduction in the riders weight will show most benefit, particularly as in getting that reduction you will also have improved your fitness/diet

So in short, if I were you, id ride my ''heavy bike '' as hard as I could for as long as I could and burn off the 10lbs of body weight, THEN if your still not satisfied buy a lighter bike

Absolute and total rubbish.
Whilst losing body weight is obviously beneficial, your body is used to carrying your weight.
A chunk off the bike will be far more noticeable when riding than the same chunk off your body, especially if that chunk is off reciprocating parts like wheels and tyres.
Taking a dump before a ride does not make a difference.

wheels dont reciprocate, they rotate, completely different concept

TheNorthernTrain

A bit like condensing posts I suppose...

cooldad

My apologies for using the wrong word, I feel like an idiot.
Fortunately, unlike some, I will not be a blithering idiot permanently.

And, apart from that blonde moment, my argument is valid.

slickmouse

cooldad wrote:

My apologies for using the wrong word, I feel like an idiot.
Fortunately, unlike some, I will not be a blithering idiot permanently.

And, apart from that blonde moment, my argument is valid.

no not realty if wheels HAD reciprocated your argument would have been valid, but as they don't it isnt

cooldad

Now edited, pity you can't edit yourself some new brain cells.

rockmonkeysc

Getting a lighter bikes makes more difference than loosing weight. Last year I changed my bike for one 6lb lighter. This year I lost three stone. When it comes to climbing the weight off the bike made a bigger difference. For endurance my weight loss makes a bigger difference but thats probably more down to my fitness.

slickmouse

slickmouse wrote:

cooldad wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

cts5555 wrote:

Wow, some nice bikes there at great prices, although they seem to be selling old stock before releasing 2014 models, and have nothing in my size.... The AL+ range appeals! Very light weight, good spec, good prices.

But i still return to my original query regarding noticeable differences in weight

Its a very good question and not one youl get a sensible answer of the weight weenies on here

A lot depends on your motivation for cycling, if your purpose is ultimately to increase you fitness and loose weight, then in simplistic terms ( upto a point) the heavier the better. if your focused on how high/howfast you can climb then the lighter the better

Then there is the sub question, if your the latter, whats most crucial, riders weight or bike weight. Its clearly the riders weight in answer, spending a fortune getting a bike thats 5lb/10lbs lighter, if your two stone over weight is delusional, if you believe it will make any noticeable improvement to your performance, it does make them easier to lift over fences however

on the narrower question of which is better, 10lbs off your weight or 10lbs off the bikes, then again a reduction in the riders weight will show most benefit, particularly as in getting that reduction you will also have improved your fitness/diet

So in short, if I were you, id ride my ''heavy bike '' as hard as I could for as long as I could and burn off the 10lbs of body weight, THEN if your still not satisfied buy a lighter bike

Absolute and total rubbish.
Whilst losing body weight is obviously beneficial, your body is used to carrying your weight.
A chunk off the bike will be far more noticeable when riding than the same chunk off your body, especially if that chunk is off reciprocating parts like wheels and tyres.
Taking a dump before a ride does not make a difference.

wheels dont reciprocate, they rotate, completely different concept

OK now you can explain why a small saving of weight on ROTATING parts makes any real world difference if you body is 10 lbs over weight

ive got baited breath for your ''technical'' explanation of newtons 2rd law of motion in this scenario

bigmitch41

You may of course feel more motivation to ride a new lighter and shiny bike than the old heavy one you have at the moment, you'll soon loose those extra lbs...

TheNorthernTrain

slickmouse wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

cooldad wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

cts5555 wrote:

Wow, some nice bikes there at great prices, although they seem to be selling old stock before releasing 2014 models, and have nothing in my size.... The AL+ range appeals! Very light weight, good spec, good prices.

But i still return to my original query regarding noticeable differences in weight

Its a very good question and not one youl get a sensible answer of the weight weenies on here

A lot depends on your motivation for cycling, if your purpose is ultimately to increase you fitness and loose weight, then in simplistic terms ( upto a point) the heavier the better. if your focused on how high/howfast you can climb then the lighter the better

Then there is the sub question, if your the latter, whats most crucial, riders weight or bike weight. Its clearly the riders weight in answer, spending a fortune getting a bike thats 5lb/10lbs lighter, if your two stone over weight is delusional, if you believe it will make any noticeable improvement to your performance, it does make them easier to lift over fences however

on the narrower question of which is better, 10lbs off your weight or 10lbs off the bikes, then again a reduction in the riders weight will show most benefit, particularly as in getting that reduction you will also have improved your fitness/diet

So in short, if I were you, id ride my ''heavy bike '' as hard as I could for as long as I could and burn off the 10lbs of body weight, THEN if your still not satisfied buy a lighter bike

Absolute and total rubbish.
Whilst losing body weight is obviously beneficial, your body is used to carrying your weight.
A chunk off the bike will be far more noticeable when riding than the same chunk off your body, especially if that chunk is off reciprocating parts like wheels and tyres.
Taking a dump before a ride does not make a difference.

wheels dont reciprocate, they rotate, completely different concept

OK now you can explain why a small saving of weight on ROTATING parts makes any real world difference if you body is 10 lbs over weight

ive got baited breath for your ''technical'' explanation of newtons 2rd law of motion in this scenario

*Grabs popcorn*

You really are a clever individual! Does it not get boring...

cooldad

The longer the radius, the more force required to turn a wheel, so mass at the rim is harder to accelerate (or decelerate) than mass at the hub.

slickmouse

cooldad wrote:

The longer the radius, the more force required to turn a wheel, so mass at the rim is harder to accelerate (or decelerate) than mass at the hub.

thats an argument against 29''wheels, nobody has mentioned increasing or decreasing the radius only changing the weight by a small amount, that also clearly discounts any weight saving from lighter hubs in your original, '' get lighter wheels''

cooldad

slickmouse wrote:

cooldad wrote:

The longer the radius, the more force required to turn a wheel, so mass at the rim is harder to accelerate (or decelerate) than mass at the hub.

thats an argument against 29''wheels, nobody has mentioned increasing or decreasing the radius only changing the weight by a small amount, that also clearly discounts any weight saving from lighter hubs in your original, '' get lighter wheels''

Lighter wheels means lighter wheels, however your pinhead interprets it. All weight saving helps, wheels and tyres more than most.
Digging again? Carry on.

slickmouse

cooldad wrote:

Digging again? Carry on.

out of your depth AGAIN

TheNorthernTrain

slickmouse wrote:

cooldad wrote:

The longer the radius, the more force required to turn a wheel, so mass at the rim is harder to accelerate (or decelerate) than mass at the hub.

thats an argument against 29''wheels, nobody has mentioned increasing or decreasing the radius only changing the weight by a small amount, that also clearly discounts any weight saving from lighter hubs in your original, '' get lighter wheels''

No it's not...

He has just stated the reason why mass at the rim is harder to accelerate. Without it his statement would be a bit nonsensical. Often like your posts sometimes. He said nothing about increasing radius or wheel size.

Lighter rims/tyres/tubes... all still make part of the rotating mass.

cooldad

Either a troll or an idiot. I'd like to believe troll, if you were actually any good at it.
I'd like to be charitable.

slickmouse

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

cooldad wrote:

The longer the radius, the more force required to turn a wheel, so mass at the rim is harder to accelerate (or decelerate) than mass at the hub.

thats an argument against 29''wheels, nobody has mentioned increasing or decreasing the radius only changing the weight by a small amount, that also clearly discounts any weight saving from lighter hubs in your original, '' get lighter wheels''

No it's not...

He has just stated the reason why mass at the rim is harder to accelerate. Without it his statement would be a bit nonsensical. Often like your posts sometimes. He said nothing about increasing radius or wheel size.

Lighter rims/tyres/tubes... all still make part of the rotating mass.

he said lighter wheels, he didnt specify how that weight was distributed between hub spokes and rims

so how much lighter exactly would this RIM be ? and then what percentage difference would it make to acceleration

then

calculate the loss of acceleration due to the rider being 10lbs heavier and
subtract the lesser from the greater

please show working out

cooldad

Somebody should tell him he'd be so much quicker if he lost all that weight off his legs.

TheNorthernTrain

And arms and shoulders... Far too much excess weight. Think how much of a disadvantage that must be on his aerodynamics too.

cts5555

Umm, didn't mean to start a war, just looking for some advise!!

TheNorthernTrain

Welcome to the forum... Happens all the time. Not your fault don't panic. Just sit back, grab some popcorn or other sweet treats, hold on tight and enjoy the ride.

cooldad

cts5555 wrote:

Umm, didn't mean to start a war, just looking for some advise!!

Welcome. Not a war, just a minor skirmish with a severely disadvantaged opponent.

ilovedirt

slickmouse wrote:

TheNorthernTrain wrote:

slickmouse wrote:

cooldad wrote:

The longer the radius, the more force required to turn a wheel, so mass at the rim is harder to accelerate (or decelerate) than mass at the hub.

thats an argument against 29''wheels, nobody has mentioned increasing or decreasing the radius only changing the weight by a small amount, that also clearly discounts any weight saving from lighter hubs in your original, '' get lighter wheels''

No it's not...

He has just stated the reason why mass at the rim is harder to accelerate. Without it his statement would be a bit nonsensical. Often like your posts sometimes. He said nothing about increasing radius or wheel size.

Lighter rims/tyres/tubes... all still make part of the rotating mass.

he said lighter wheels, he didnt specify how that weight was distributed between hub spokes and rims

so how much lighter exactly would this RIM be ? and then what percentage difference would it make to acceleration

then

calculate the loss of acceleration due to the rider being 10lbs heavier and
subtract the lesser from the greater

please show working out

I love armchair physicists that know fuck all about physics.