Modern Technolgy Is Great

Hey, I didn't say I wouldn't like it, just what they reckoned

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.

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.

Had to clean the topic a bit. Keep it civilized please.

In the end, a light bike is faster over distance on regular xc/trail terrain. Ie. Real world riding.

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.

highlandsflyer":2t0hlqjp said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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 ......

02gf74":1esan7hv said:

highlandsflyer":1esan7hv said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.