Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:56 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:16 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16739
Location: Yorkshire, England
Of course it is, so is learning to use the search function to get numerous other theories and similar talk on this for increased insight to peoples 'personal' opinions, none I remember have been scientific.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:20 am 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:48 am
Posts: 6974
Location: Bristle
It doesnt make that much difference in the grand scheme of things. But we're men, and bike geeks. It gives us numbers to chase, and that's an end in itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:33 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:49 am
Posts: 4061
Location: A veritable floating palace
You can make some properly bad lightweight bikes. Out of all the bikes I've ridden, the ones I've enjoyed the most and kept the longest have been mid-range butted steel.

Besides, a bike that fits and is comfortable are both much more important than one that is just light, which is why (a) modern bikes aren't chasing weight in the same way they did in the nineties and (b) you see so many unridden nineties mountain bikes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:23 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
chris667 wrote:
You can make some properly bad lightweight bikes. Out of all the bikes I've ridden, the ones I've enjoyed the most and kept the longest have been mid-range butted steel.

Besides, a bike that fits and is comfortable are both much more important than one that is just light, which is why (a) modern bikes aren't chasing weight in the same way they did in the nineties and (b) you see so many unridden nineties mountain bikes.


Agreed - it's largely an enthusiasts obsession, rather than anything on true merit - else the enthusiasts would always be at their ideal fighting weight.

Spending time, money, effort on obsessive lightness in your equipment, when some may be carrying several pounds, perhaps stones in bodyweight more than is ideal, is just missing the woods for the trees, in that special way that middle aged men, with money to burn, and time to fill, do.

Not that there's anything wrong with that - far from it - but unless you're applying the same rationale to yourself, it's a bit of a toothless artifact. Don't get me wrong, a reasonably light bike tends to be more pleasurable to lug about - I'm not suggesting otherwise - but to focus on it, without consideration to your own weight, is shortsighted, too. Put it this way, a nice, light-ish bike can be perceived when riding, but nothing feels better, when you're riding, than to be fit and in shape, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:14 pm 
King of the DuckBoard
King of the DuckBoard

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:30 pm
Posts: 21466
yes it does matter. But fitness is more important.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:22 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:57 pm
Posts: 1301
Location: Porto / Plymouth
First of all, apologies for not using the search function before starting this thread. No doubt this is the kind of discussion that has been had since time immemorial!

My own weight weenie days, circa 1995, took place while I was already at (or below) my ideal body weight, so losing weight was never a possibility. Now, of course, nearly 20 years later, I spend far too much time sitting at a desk, and I am now at the other end of the healthy weight range (89 kg at 6'3"). Dropping another 10 kg would perhaps put me at a good weight.

I too have rediscovered the joy of rigid steel, after years of lusting after superlight Ti or Al, and my current ride is a mid range Diamond Back which suits me just fine. It weighs in at about 26 lb and I'm not too bothered about getting it lighter, although I do enjoy buying the odd trick / retro part off retrobikes. Tinkering with my bike is almost as soothing as riding it, I find. Weird as it seems (to my wife at least), seeing a gradual improvement in my bike is part of my motivation for keeping the bike going, and for getting out to actually ride it.

My joy of steel also extends to the ease of which a steel frame can be fixed / teased back into shape, and I do now feel I have got this bike frame with me for life.

This post seems to have been a random brain dump!


Last edited by ultrazenith on Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:44 pm 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:33 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: New Forest
I need to finish my (loooooong overdue) weenie project.

I'm at my ideal weight, nothing more to be lost. That said, I'll never compete on this bike; so why try?

Why not.

My Retrobike obsession is entirely about nostalgia. A lot of the 90s scene for me was about weight reduction/weenieism, and I thought it would be fun. It's also an excuse for me to buy the lightweight parts I lusted over BITD.

Yes, you can feel a difference that a light bike (especially wheels/tyres) can make, but there are other factors that make as much if not more of a difference, so if it floats your boat, go for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:03 pm 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:49 pm
Posts: 3210
Location: Bracknell,East Berkshire.
An MTB can be too light in my experience. Too light = too skittery and unstable and flexy. Flimsy tyres, flexible wheels, cranks, stems and bars can all ruin the thrashability of a bike. Aiming around the 25lb mark for a hardtail always seems sensible to me, nice compromise of weight and robustness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:06 pm 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 8433
Location: Oh Canada!
in respect to reducing weight… i think you'd achieve more/easier saving weight off the rider than weight off the bike. also prob less taxing on the wallet as well. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:13 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
Sub 20lbs seems perfectly easy and relatively cheap if you are patient, but I don't care as long as the bloody thing doesn't wrench my arms off when I go to throw it in the back of the truck. 25lbs is fine for me. I would rather a tough bike than a delicate one, and one I wouldn't throw myself off a cliff were it to disappear.

Each to their own though.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: boxxer, Gerard, rc200ti 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