Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:27 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:53 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:46 pm
Posts: 304
Surely if you were going to buy a bike you would go and try it/pick it up to try the weight? Too heavy go try another? I don't want or need to buy a brand new bike as my riding style has changed from my youth so can't warrant the purchase.

I did look at a Giant Anthem (2 grand one) with a look of buying it go looning about on. Without a doubt I'd have gone quicker on it than my 92 Explosif on the trails but it would definitely be harder work on it to ride to the trails on it.

But why don't manufacturers put weight on the spec sheets?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:54 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:00 pm
Posts: 392
MikeD wrote:
samc wrote:
The initial point still stands - why don't bike manufacturers/shops tell people what those weights can be, without making them jump through hoops to either find a review online, or get the guy in the shop to cart out the scales?


Because most people don't give a shit, and rightly so :)



Haha! If only that'd been the second post, we could've saved ourselves nine pages of banter :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:59 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11106
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
...and if they gave a shit they probably just shed more than the difference between one bike or another.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:00 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:00 pm
Posts: 392
Chopper1192 wrote:
Because there's no set standard between manufacturers.
Because one manufacturers size L will be a different size to another manufacturers size L, making comparisons of weight utterly redundant...


I'm not interested in differences between manufacturer sizings and wouldn't judge them purely on that, all I'm after is a ballpark for any given model of bike - the middle size of anything, and the likely variation in quoted data.

eg. Cannondale Prophet: 32lbs +- 6%
or Giant XTC: 26lbs +- 4%

If a medium Cannondale Prophet is twice the size of a medium Giant XTC then perhaps they're designing for a different species?! Given a ballpark of 12%, geometries and fit become irrelevant but they give a customer an idea if they're on their way into the shop to buy a tank or a butterfly, that's all I ask! :facepalm:

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY GIVE ME A ROUGH IDEA.

A VERY ROUGH IDEA IS FINE

Please.

Won't somebody think of the [80s] children? :cry:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:35 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 pm
Posts: 2574
Location: The Cock Inn, Tillett, Herts
But Giants size M is dimensionally different from other manufacturers size Ms, making it a moot comparison.

Why the hang up with lard? The moment you're 20 feet up the road you'll know if its a decent bike. Plenty of light bikes that ride like a p.o.s. re same way there are some lardo-O's that are still a hoot to fling off a steep
Descent.

It like these chumps who buy one bike over another because or had an XT groupset, when the rivals Deore kitted machine actually works better...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:12 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:25 pm
Posts: 1787
Location: It's not easy being a dolphin.
:lol: :lol: ...I'm enjoying this thread. Some comments related to:

"Because they don't want to pander to idiots that think weight is more important than how a bike rides and performs."
"Any fool that buys a bike based on a claimed weight rather than the way it rides is a, Erm, fool."
"Because most people don't give a shit, and rightly so "

Hands up those who think a bike weight as some bearing on how a bike handles! Come on, they are related!

I may be a bit of an old roady in the past where admittedly there is a total obsession about weight and I may be brain washed that way, but if you cock your leg over a 10 Kg bike vs a 20 Kg bike they will perform different and arguably - all other things being equal - the 10 Kg will be nimble, faster acceleration, faster deceleration and not feel like a anvil between your legs up climbs.

Also, I'm the kind of guy who will justify a double dollop of branston pickle with the mayonnais because of having a Ti front skewer...but that just me. :facepalm:

On another note, the suggestion of getting a modern then stripping off the bulk with your own selected kit is a good way to go. I prefer to mix the right light retro stuff with the right light more modern stuff and I know a 10 Kg with a good fit just feels right for what I do. The lightest frame I had was this http://www.mtbr.com/cat/older-categorie ... 10crx.aspx and it rode great but in all honesty I cringed every time a rock / stone hit the down-tube and knew it would fail at some point.....according to the manufacturer the market simply went out for light weight bikes as people all wanted full suspension. Shame really.

It seems though around 2005-ish, things did put on bulk. Rock Shox SIDs spring to mind that have got heavier but of course much better. Nothing wrong with Titec 118 gram Ti handlebar if it's not abused by going down the white cliffs of Dover. Tyres have got much better and lighter. Some of lightest rims are old skool where really the weight savings on modern wheels is down to the hubs alone.

Finally, asking the chap in the bike shop to weigh the damn bike in front of you is the way to go.....ask him to strip it down too and get the individual component weights in a spread sheet to study at leisure would be even better :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:43 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:27 pm
Posts: 988
Location: Devon
Quote:
Hands up those who think a bike weight as some bearing on how a bike handles! Come on, they are related!

I may be a bit of an old roady in the past where admittedly there is a total obsession about weight and I may be brain washed that way, but if you cock your leg over a 10 Kg bike vs a 20 Kg bike they will perform different and arguably - all other things being equal - the 10 Kg will be nimble, faster acceleration, faster deceleration and not feel like a anvil between your legs up climbs.


Of course weight has an impact, it's just not the the only (or most important) factor, and its perfectly possible for a heavier bike to ride better than a lighter one, and the problem with the obsession with weight is that it blinkers people to the more important things, like performance and durability.

Besides, we're not talking about 10kg versus 20kg, most models at any given price point and in the same category will only differ by a few pounds at most (0.5 - 1.5kg tops), and in some cases that's only a tyre change or bar/stem/seatpost worth of difference.

Quote:
Some of lightest rims are old skool where really the weight savings on modern wheels is down to the hubs alone.


I call shenanigans on that, modern hubs are not much lighter if at all, now they have to support a disc brake, and show me a retro rim that weighs 350 - 400 grams, has a 21mm internal profile, supports tubless tyres and is strong enough for DH riding... Rims is one area where massive improvements have been made. The Mavic 217/517/717 used to be a bit of a bench mark at 395g for a decent XC rim, but you certainly couldn't batter it on a DH bike for long, and any rims lighter than that definitely needed handling with care, but there are now lighter stronger, wider and tubeless compatible rims available that put them to shame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:58 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:25 pm
Posts: 1787
Location: It's not easy being a dolphin.
Agree with this. Just wanted to balance the fact that weight is still / can be an important consideration when buying a bike and can't be entirely dismissed as wrong or stupid even if I did mention an extreme scenario.

It's good to know the weight rather than being told about all these wonderful features like "shadow rapid rise normal" or "hydro-formed 59 CT weave" or "under bar inboard lock-out" or "carbon cladded wrapped cranks" that probably don't have any bearing (or at least very miniscule) at all on how the bike handles. Just ranting now I suppose.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:02 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:27 pm
Posts: 988
Location: Devon
I agree with you too, weight IS important, and in two equally spec'd, and equally performing bikes the lighter would always be the one I'd pick, I just think people get a bit too hung up on it, and that's coming from someone with a modern 18lb carbon XC bike! (that cost lees than £1k FYI)

There are many more important things to look at and I get a bit fed up with all the acronyms and show-boating of the manufacturers too, the magazines have a lot to answer for too with pushing certain tech at consumers and making them belive that they must have X Y and Z before they could even possibly think of riding a bike in a forest...

I recently had a few questions from a guy looking to get his first proper MTB, he'd been reading all the mags and websites and was absolutely genuine when he asked me if a full-sus 140mm travel bike was going to be enough for him to start riding or if he should look for something with more, he thought I was bat-sh1t mental when I suggested that perhaps he would be better off looking at a 100mm hardtail as a good starter bike to see how he got on first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:21 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:00 pm
Posts: 392
amedias wrote:
...and that's coming from someone with a modern 18lb carbon XC bike! (that cost lees than £1k FYI)


Hold the phone, there maybe a bulge appearing in my trousers right now; what's this witchcraft? 18lbs for under a grand? Now you're talking. What's the setup?


My obsession with weight might stem from a 90s hay day, but it's been reinforced by the bikes I've owned; a DH singletrack course I rode on my 30+ lb Marin Mount Vision was easily conquerable in 4/5ths the time on my lightweight HT Cannondale - simply down to flickability.

Yes full suspension has it's benefits, but I've ridden that HT Cannondale down World Cup DH courses (for which it was not designed) and for me, for my style of riding, weight and flickability made more of a difference than anything else.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fitzroybikeco, Yahoo [Bot] and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group