Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:36 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Super lightweight tricked out sub 20 ib bikes? Cool or rubbish?
No way - pointless - feel like riding uncooked spagetti. Wouldnt risk my life. 13%  13%  [ 8 ]
Kinda ok 25%  25%  [ 16 ]
Awesome weight engineering prowess. I'd drill my tyres if I could. 63%  63%  [ 40 ]
Total votes : 64
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:48 pm 
Mr Benn
Mr Benn
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:07 am
Posts: 7199
Location: Omnipresent
I crashed into a friend's 1993 Cinder Cone which I seem to remember being that era of pretty thin steel tubes and I ripped it in two! My old fashioned 1988 Saracen Trekker was absolutely fine. We were going 50mph down a hill on the road though. I haven't been that fast since.

Currently got an XLM to around 20lb I reckon.

I like light. Haven't spread that theory as far as my tummy though. :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:28 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 2044
I generally refer to myself as a recovering weight weenie so:

Light is and was cool. Super light bikes do bounce off things.
A proper full susser just beats the light weight concept hands down.
But I still weigh things all the time and buying tires takes weeks of research.
Turning into a confessional.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:51 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:08 pm
Posts: 958
Location: Mansfield, Notts
Light is definately cool, yeah it did get to stupid extremes but like a couple of other people said on here it got things moving and company's too design light weight bits that were strong as well. Not really into the make your bike lighter by drilling everything to bits though just the cool light weight parts. I can remember seeing in a issue of mbuk during that period a boulder defiant ti fully kitted out so it could be as light as possible think it was about 22lb and full suspension at that I so lusted after that bike even though in reallity it would of probably folded in half. Still has to be said definately COOL :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:15 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:34 am
Posts: 1145
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
This thing is apparently 11.37lbs!!! :shock: :shock: :shock:
Image


Personally I think that specifically engineered lightweight components are great, but I would never want to ride a bike with drilled components!
I remember trying to make my Clockwork as light as possible (through upgrading gradually to lighter components) but I never would've drilled the rims! If the bike doesn't have integrity then you're not going to enjoy riding it.
Still, a light bike is cool but going over the top to impress your mates is uncool...
I'm still undecided!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:36 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:56 pm
Posts: 4776
Location: No brakes? Way to commit soldier.
BITD lightweight often meant bendy and breakable unless you were spending lots of cash but these days materials technology has moved on a fair bit and MTB designers better understand the stresses placed on components and where the weight needs to be. I think that its perfectly feasable to build a modern bike around the 20lb mark and keep it 'rugged', but this is retrobike :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:40 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:23 am
Posts: 1256
Location: Winchester
Russell wrote:
BITD lightweight often meant bendy and breakable unless you were spending lots of cash but these days materials technology has moved on a fair bit and MTB designers better understand the stresses placed on components and where the weight needs to be. I think that its perfectly feasable to build a modern bike around the 20lb mark and keep it 'rugged', but this is retrobike :)


Totally agree with you... but that makes a light modern bike just normal, wheras a floaty light retrobike is uber cool! 8) Note; 'cool' not 'good'...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:18 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:14 pm
Posts: 13407
Location: Warwick
Cant believe the majority of you would "drill your tyres" to save weight :D :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:51 pm 
Mr Darcy
Mr Darcy
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:36 pm
Posts: 5687
Location: Bicester
Jez, I found sanding to be more effective.
and a stanley knife on every other nobble :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:45 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:12 am
Posts: 2461
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
jez-2-many-bikes wrote:
Now this may raise some decent debate...

Are sub 20ib mountain bikes cool?


Sorry not familiar with that unit of measure....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:54 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:28 pm
Posts: 1748
Location: The Netherlands
andrewl wrote:
jez-2-many-bikes wrote:
Now this may raise some decent debate...

Are sub 20ib mountain bikes cool?


Sorry not familiar with that unit of measure....


me neither, but if it's Punds, then it would be 9.1 Kilo.
Light weight is cool, but most of the lightweight builders, don't build a bike light with the intention to build a strong bike. My LTS is 12,2 kilo (older set up) that is 26.8 LB which I think is quite ok, for a 97 fully. I used some lighter parts to keep the weight a bit down, but the have to be strong. Like a Flite TT saddle, Easton CT2 post, CT2 bar, but on the other hand, I used Magura's. It wasn't a light weight project.
My brother wanted a weight weenie bike, result now 8.5 kilo (18.7) and it will be less then 8 kilo(17.5).
Scott Pro Racing on Sniperworks

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 02gf74, Bing [Bot], cce, Gruff, minor_LEGEND, Stick Legs, wiggviv, xxnick1975 and 54 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