Why are new bikes so heavy

spike3

Retrobike Rider
Feedback
View
Picked myself up a basic Pinnacle Ramin 1 of Facebook. £150 with deore gears it seems a bargain, as it was only used twice. But, after the 1st ride I couldn't help but feel it was sluggish and the 2.6" front tyre looked ridiculously big. The scales suggested a weight if 15.5kg (with baby seat attaxhed) I've switched both tyres to some used Maxis Beavers and saved 1kg in weight already. However, some googling suggests that they no longer make a 29er tyre that light with huge heavy tyres being the norm now. :( does anyone know of a 29er tyre that's still made narrow and light?
 

Attachments

  • 20230528_184223.jpg
    20230528_184223.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 24
Any XC tyre should come in comfortably at 600-700g tops. At 500g ish , the Beaver was an exceptionally light tyre by any standards. Even a modern 26” Schwalbe Billy Bonkers is 500g.

A Panaracer smoke (26”) was around 750g so I’m not sure that sub 700g for a modern larger diameter tyre could be considered heavy?
 
Everything on a modern bike is just bigger so marginally heavier all round. Frames, forks, wheels, bars.

Stems are shorter so could be considered a little lighter I guess. Less chain rings up front but more cogs out back.

Bigger wheels do feel more sluggish.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, it is the new normal.
 
@spike3 I should have thought you might be able to put gravel bike tyres on. A 700x45-50c tyre might work. It will depend on the width of your rims. WTB Riddlers in 700x45c are 550g I believe.
 
Check Mondraker podium RR SL ... never a frame was so light and the bicycle is quite light. 775gr the frame ... :oops::eek: Some tires weighs more o_O
Some Darimo, Tune, AX lighness, trick stuff etc and ... Sub 7kg. Easy 😅

1685368784816.png
 
Last edited:
Problem is in your first five words. It is a basic bike, built to a budget. Every part will be a bit heavier than high end parts, which all adds up. Looks like a nice bike though, especially at that price. Total bargain. Modern geometry also doesn’t lend itself to tamer, flatter trails and as a result the bike feels sluggish on them. Point it down something steeper and it’ll be a different story. There’s a lot more variation in geometry these days. In the early 90’s most bikes were 71/73 and handled very similarly. Today angles vary a lot and it’s not as simple to know how a bike will handle.

Have you gone tubeless yet? Not for the weight savings but for the reduced rolling resistance and ride quality.
Wolfpack Cross or Race are nice and light. They do a 2.2 which isn’t too big.
Careful of going much narrower, that bike probably had 30mm internal width rims. Narrower tyres will square off badly on wider rims.

My enduro bike came with heavy but strong wheels and tyres with inserts. Bike feels like a steamroller through the rocks but not very sprightly in tighter woody stuff. Bought a spare set of light wheels with Wolfpack tyres (Trail front and Cross rear) and it transformed the way the bike handled on flatter rolling trails.

Main thing is to give it time. Too many retro bikers dismiss modern bikes and trends just because they feel so different, without really giving them a chance.
 
Gravel King
Any XC tyre should come in comfortably at 600-700g tops. At 500g ish , the Beaver was an exceptionally light tyre by any standards. Even a modern 26” Schwalbe Billy Bonkers is 500g.

A Panaracer smoke (26”) was around 750g so I’m not sure that sub 700g for a modern larger diameter tyre could be considered heavy?

700g is tubby. Conti SpeedKing, Panaracer Gravel King and a whole bunch of other tyres, aimed at the gravel market, are way lighter than 700g. There are sooooooo many.
 
Problem is in your first five words. It is a basic bike, built to a budget. Every part will be a bit heavier than high end parts, which all adds up. Looks like a nice bike though, especially at that price. Total bargain. Modern geometry also doesn’t lend itself to tamer, flatter trails and as a result the bike feels sluggish on them. Point it down something steeper and it’ll be a different story. There’s a lot more variation in geometry these days. In the early 90’s most bikes were 71/73 and handled very similarly. Today angles vary a lot and it’s not as simple to know how a bike will handle.

Have you gone tubeless yet? Not for the weight savings but for the reduced rolling resistance and ride quality.
Wolfpack Cross or Race are nice and light. They do a 2.2 which isn’t too big.
Careful of going much narrower, that bike probably had 30mm internal width rims. Narrower tyres will square off badly on wider rims.

My enduro bike came with heavy but strong wheels and tyres with inserts. Bike feels like a steamroller through the rocks but not very sprightly in tighter woody stuff. Bought a spare set of light wheels with Wolfpack tyres (Trail front and Cross rear) and it transformed the way the bike handled on flatter rolling trails.

Main thing is to give it time. Too many retro bikers dismiss modern bikes and trends just because they feel so different, without really giving them a chance.
With a few tweeks I think I can get the weight down to a more sensible 12kg, I wish they still made the Beaver tyre, that's taken 1kg off it. I have some Easton carbon bars to go on and the saddle needs switching as well. I went for a ride tonight and di just under 6 miles. I'll see how it performs once it's lost 3kg.
 
The Ramin is a great bike. Think the frame should be triple butted aluminium, so weight won't be there for a modern 29er
 

Latest posts

Back
Top