Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:31 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:28 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 1851
Location: Launceston, Australia
Hey, I didn't say I wouldn't like it, just what they reckoned :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:09 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:15 pm
Posts: 3499
Location: Behind you with the duct tape pulled out.
Not that fantastic I had some orange f9? The ally forks they came in at sun 650g and they were getting onn for 20 year old.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:39 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.
The bike is, at best, a relatively small fraction of the rider's weight.

If you are riding a 17lbs full suspension bike, you should not feel a radical difference between that and a 25lbs one, other than in climbs and when lifting it in and out of the motor/etc.

Lots of the weight weenie yabbidy yabbidy is just the sound of obesssives justifying their love of snake oil.

With motorbikes, especially trail bikes, weight makes a hell of a difference.

A lightweight 100kg bike is much more chuckable than one that is 180kg.

But for the average rider, that is most of another bodyweight on top.

Going from 17lbs to 25lbs is a lot relative to the bike, but so little relative to the rider.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:02 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:57 pm
Posts: 4074
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Had to clean the topic a bit. Keep it civilized please.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:44 pm 
Old School Hero

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:25 pm
Posts: 220
Location: Swansea
In the end, a light bike is faster over distance on regular xc/trail terrain. Ie. Real world riding.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:15 am 
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.
It depends what your local average trail is.

I am not arguing against light bikes, not at all.

I cannot stand bikes that wrench my sockets when I try to lift them.

My belief is that most bikes will be sub 20lbs ten years from now.

My point about 17-25lbs bikes is about luggability.

Once you get up to 30 lbs range bikes get unweildy to flick around without downhill momentum. We are talking leverage.

You can still lever a 25 lbs bike around fairly easily.

We generally reach a point where it gets too heavy, unless we are Arnies.

My point was that bikes are still luggable and chuckable until they get up to the 25/30 range, so something 17lbs won't be that radically better.

However, like motorbikes, you can throw anything around when you have the grunt.

Sorry if I sounded anti weight weenie, which would be ironic as I am a reformed weenie myself. I did not mean to come over that way.

Lighter is always better for fuel consumption, but just like a lot of nice cars I have had they may handle better with a little ballast.

:)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:54 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:06 pm
Posts: 4440
Location: Herts UK
highlandsflyer wrote:
My belief is that most bikes will be sub 20lbs ten years from now.



I don 't believe that - most bikes i.e. the vast m ajority of bikes are the Argos/Tesco/Apollo/Carrera type will never get near that.... unless carbon fibre frames can be made for £ 20.

Better quality bikes mya but probbly not - my 1999 Gary Fisher weighs 0.6 kg less than a 2010 Cube. Top end bikes will but there is a limit to how light they can go - reliable - cheap - light <-- choose 2.

Scott and cannondale are pushing sub 900g frames, can't see them going much less than that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:24 am 
98+ BoTM Winner / Gold Trader
98+ BoTM Winner / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:29 pm
Posts: 1650
Location: Netherlands
I ride a couple of nice steel 29ers and arguably they both are "new technology" by default. Both running 1x10 gears, one is a trail spec and the other a lightweight race-day build. The trail bike weights in at 27 lbs with with sturdy wheels and front suspension. The lightweight features a sub 4 lbs frame, rigid carbon forks and a parts pick that keeps it sub 20 lbs.

Every time I switch over from one to the other I continue to be amazed by the difference in feel the first 15 minutes. You can't argue with physics is an advertising slogan that comes to mind. But "knowing" is one thing, it doesn't do justice to the sensation. The lightweight gives an effortless feeling and makes me think I can conquer the world. And I've said this before, Holland IS flat, it's not just when climbing.

The trail bike at first gives the impression that I have lead in my shoes and no power in my legs. But then, after riding for a while, I hit my favourite singletracks. I'm slicing through the trees in the forest the bike just rips it up like the tool it is, I love it.

There is no denying the perception of those first 15 minutes though ......


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:53 am 
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.
02gf74 wrote:
highlandsflyer wrote:
My belief is that most bikes will be sub 20lbs ten years from now.



I don 't believe that - most bikes i.e. the vast m ajority of bikes are the Argos/Tesco/Apollo/Carrera type will never get near that.... unless carbon fibre frames can be made for £ 20.

Better quality bikes mya but probbly not - my 1999 Gary Fisher weighs 0.6 kg less than a 2010 Cube. Top end bikes will but there is a limit to how light they can go - reliable - cheap - light <-- choose 2.

Scott and cannondale are pushing sub 900g frames, can't see them going much less than that.


Remember this is RetroBike, not RetroMountainBike.

The prevalence of composites will be key I reckon, and the trend towards simpler designs with less gears that is already established.

:)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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