You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Righto, gone from DT Swiss 5.1 rims to Stans 355's and from 2.35 High Rollers to 2.25 Nobby Nics. Saved nearly 1.5lbs and it's rotating mass so maximum benefit.
Changed the E13 DRS chain device to a Gamut dual, which saved about another 1/2 lbs or so.
Got about £200ish left to spend so is it?
Sell the Pikes (454 air u-turn) and get some Thors or Revelations teams. This should save approx 3/4lbs. (This will cost a bit more than the £200 if it's the revs)
[b]or[/b]
look elsewhere such as seat posts,saddles,foam grips and maxle lites etc. for example, Carbon posts and Ti fly saddle instead of Thomson and Ti Belair.
Just the carbon post, saddle and maxle lite will also save about 3/4lbs ish as well. This option is slightly cheaper than changing the forks
Bike already has XT all through and carbon bars & 540 pedals. Plus an RP23 rear shock
My view is probably the forks, any other opinions on which way to spend?
[insert stupid, unfunny but someone always does it comment about having a poo before riding]
weigth****chers?
Weight of bike bits is way over-rated, and rotating weight even more so. By all means do it as a project, but you'll spend many pounds for next to no performance gain. Think of the total bike rider clothing camelbak weight, and consider your weight savings as a % of that figure.....
always go before riding, never feel comfortable pooing al fresko.
so that one is covered.
and 3/4lbs is a pretty big dump!
Remove both wheels, place the remaining frame over your shoulder and run.
It's worked at SITS before...
I think you're right about the forks. Big change in weight, no real loss of strength.
id go for an ibeam seat/post combo, they save you quite a bit, esp if you have a tough butt and can get on with the i-fly (like me 8) ). both wiggle and crc have had good offers on them recently too.
what pedals do you use? you can save 1/2lb over chunky flats if you get some ti axles wellgo mags off ebay. £50ish from hong kong. doh! just saw you run spds.
i can recommend the 2010 revs, i noticed the difference in weight but i was taking off talas 36 rather than pikes
I think rider position is more important try to get your position to be as efficient as possible
going 1x9 will save you a lump too, especially if you are running a tensioner already. its not for everyone but its simple, keeps your chain on and saves nearly a pound.
I think it's safe to say that running 1 x 9 will kill me 😆 or I'll spend most of the climbs walking.
From your forks/wheels I'm guessing it's an AM bike? Are you racing or just want to save weight as I think there's point where the performance/pleasure is taken out by using too light components plus the cost!
I would also go for the sdg post saddle combo. Very good value compared to standard set up in terms of lighteness per £. I bought manitou minutes for my prophet for lightness (and colour match and cheapness) but would pefer a few more grams and a few less pounds for a plusher fork.(though they may just need servicing)
💡 for £200 i'll push you up some hills 😀
if you're using lock on grips replace them with foam ones.
I-Beam's = standard seat plus post at 400g or iFly + post 360g
Ashima rotors = 113g for a 183mm
Ti bolts/washers/nuts throughout - about £2 each and half the weight - should save 150-200 grams
CRC had some EA90 stems on offer, will save circa 50g for £40
As Thor runs a 180/185 rotor as standard, save an adaptor/bolts - another 30g.
KCNC bolt seat post at 10g, save 30g over QR.
Titanium axles for your 540's, save 55g for £60
It all helps, and ignore what anyone else says.
Not a weight saving but to get a performance improvement from £200 have you considered either some skills training or some professional bike fitting sessions looking at you foot/pedal interface. Perhaps some shims in your shoes could make a difference.
However, from your original post, if you want to buy new kit for that reason, I think you're right to be looking at the forks.
Already got the fitting service sorted Onzadog.
The bike fit is more like clothing, which is a different budget 😆
this £200 is new bike bits. I think it's called retail therapy
[i]It all helps, and ignore what anyone else says.[/i]
Yup, never mind the physics, never mind the basic science, just spend silly money.... 🙄
Fit an XTR cassette, ti post and saddle. Or even lighter tyres.
All the parts on your bike sound shit hot, if you've got a few hundred quid your wanting to spend, why not buy another bike (something totally different to what you have)?
[url] http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLessWeight_Page.html [/url]
For example; here is a 5kg weight saving, which would cost at least a million pounds, the advantage over a 2km climb?
8.7 seconds....
💡 stan's notubes
stan's notubes
already fitted as part of the 355's/NN wheels. Well yellow tape anyway
[i]Yup, never mind the physics, never mind the basic science, just spend silly money[/i]
So [b]crikey[/b], does that also mean that if I add 5 kgs to your bike, it'll make no difference to your riding?
Stop talking bollocks.
No, it would make me about 8 seconds slower...
Weight is over-rated, and even more so in. the context of modern UK mountain biking, with 3-4 lilies of camelbacks plus baggy clown shorts draped around chubby ITbods. If you can prove me wrong, give it your best...
Posting from phone, excuse the predictive text!
all else being equal lighter bikes are more fun to ride.
theres no equations for that.
Lighter shoes?
What about spending the money on those you love and start appreciating them and the soul more.
yersen...
Of course weight matters especially for climbing.
[i]Yup, never mind the physics, never mind the basic science, just spend silly money [/i]
Simple physics tells you that the less you have to carry up the less work is required to do it. Therefore if you you put in the same amount of work but have less weight then the laws of physics tell you that you will go faster.
Lets assume that you are a lean muscle machine, and carry only what you need for your days trail bashing. So therefore it make sense to lighten your bike becuase the lighter your bike is the fast you can go or further you can go. It's makes perfect scientific sense. Granted not carrying a camelbak, tools etc will also save weight but they are needed, so if you have light good tools then again a light bike helps.
There is a law of deminishing returns though, i.e. there comes a point when the amount you have to spend to shave off a few grams becomes stupid.
Blow your cash on the forks.
[i]Simple physics tells you that the less you have to carry up the less work is required to do it.[/i]
Simple mathematics tells you that reducing a weight of about 100kgs by 1kg or 2 kg or 5 kgs will get you up hills by a few seconds quicker.
As I said, do it as a project, but if you are expecting performance gains by lightening a bike by a few kilos in the context of a typical UK mountain biker, you really are having a laugh....
[i]There are two "non-technical" explanations for the effects of light weight. First is the placebo effect. Since the rider feels that they are on better (lighter) equipment, they push themselves harder and therefore go faster. It's not the equipment that increases speed so much as the rider's belief and resulting higher power output. The second non-technical explanation is the triumph of hope over experience—the rider is not much faster due to lightweight equipment but thinks they are faster. Sometimes this is due to lack of real data, as when a rider took two hours to do a climb on their old bike and on their new bike did it in 1:50. No accounting for how fit the rider was during these two climbs, how hot or windy it was, which way the wind was blowing, how the rider felt that day, etc.
Another explanation, of course, may be marketing benefits associated with selling weight reductions.[/i]
...admittedly from Wikipedia, but a nice summary all the same.
There's a lot of weight saving things you can do without spending money, eg cut off all of the seatpost surplus to that needed for minimum insertion for your riding position. Makes an alloy post lighter than a Ti one (until you do the same to the Ti one 🙂 )
Drill holes in non structural parts - ever see Eddie Merckx's hour record bike? The ends of the handlebars can lose a wee bit. Drill out non structural bolts etc. A hole in the outer end of your brake and gear levers isn't going to weaken them.
You can drill out your rims in the well - basically add a few more holes between the spoke access holes.
That's about 2-300 grams saved. Save the £200 🙂
[i]As I said, do it as a project, but if you are expecting performance gains by lightening a bike by a few kilos in the context of a typical UK mountain biker, you really are having a laugh....[/i]
That depends, if your racing then lets be honest ever second counts. So actually the answer is yes, you do get a performance gain. A few seconds here and there makes alot of difference in a race. Infact it makes a lot of differene just blasting the woods, it means your ahead of your mates 😉
The new Revelations are extremely light, the 150mm ones with maxles are barely any heavier than my old 130mm QR ones. Not quite as strong as Pikes but not lacking. I'm flogging off guitar crap to pay for a set for the hemlock, it's a huge single item weight saving though.
"As I said, do it as a project, but if you are expecting performance gains by lightening a bike by a few kilos in the context of a typical UK mountain biker, you really are having a laugh...."
It's just plain nicer to ride a light bike- you can shift it around more effectively under you. it's not all about climbing, in fact, I feel more benefit on the way down.
There's a lot to be said for feeling a robust, confidence inspiring bike underneath you.
I've done a lot of work on this, I've resorted to using spreadsheets and pivot tables to find the cheapest way of losing the most weight from my bike. My 34lb (new) bike is now a 30lb bike but the biggest loss per £ was switching to a tubeless setup. Thankfully I already had the parts I needed so weight loss wasn't massively expensive, but to lose much more weight will mean investing in XTR or Mavix SX wheels to drop the weight down to 28lb or less.
I'm happy to set my sights on 29.5lb and leave it there.
The placebo effect...
...it's not just for homeopaths...
😉
The placebo effect's underrated tbh, unless you're racing it's not about being fast and awesome, it's about feeling fast and awesome.
Still, it is a cast iron fact that a 25lb pound bike is easier to throw around on the trails than a 30lb bike, and so on.
spend the spare cash on a biking trip....
There'll always be a lighter stem, brake or bolt. Remove the gears, ditch the front brake, go rigid at the front, fit 1" slicks.
OR
Have a dump, ride the heavier bike, sweat like a pig, enjoy.
The combined weight of me and my bike is over 200lb. If I lose 1lb of weight off my bike it will be less than a 0.5% change in weight and cost a significant amount of money. My fitness varies by more than 0.5% from day to day, therefore I don't stress too much about weight. My advice would be to ride the wave of diminishing returns at its optimum point and spend the money you save on coke and prostitutes of your preferred sex and sexuality.
Ti bolts everywhere.
http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesLessWeight_Page.htmlFor example; here is a 5kg weight saving, which would cost at least a million pounds, the advantage over a 2km climb?
8.7 seconds....
Err, hang on a minute, thats bassed on a gradient of 0.03 rise/run. I.e. less than a 1 meter climb every 30 meters....hardly a gradient at all.
Enter something far more realistic like 1 in 10 meters, still not the steepest of climbs, and your suddenly 40 seconds or 125m ahead. reduce the riders power from 250w or increase his weight, and the figure increases further.
Change the gradient to some of the steeper stuff like a 1 in 4, oh look, 125 seconds ahead. So understanding and using your own example actually proves that weight makes a resonable difference!
This business of combining the bike and rider weight is a load of theoretical garbage.
Getting up a steep hill usually involves considerable body weight shifts so the ratio of rider weight to bike weight is important and a light bike makes a difference.
I've timed myself on long offroad climbs and the difference 3-5lbs makes is considerable.
Light is good and lighter is better.
Unbelievers are welcome to come on a long ride with me - I need someone to carry my camping kit 🙂
Spend £180 with mr Jedi and learn to ride the bike as is
Priceless !!!
clive - Member
Spend £180 with mr Jedi and learn to ride the bike as isPriceless !!!
Good idea, but completely different issue.
Spend £180 with mr Jedi and learn to ride the bike as is
Already been on a course at Llandegla and a Nigel Page course. Just need to perfect all that has been taught me. 🙄
Getting up a steep hill usually involves considerable body weight shifts so the ratio of rider weight to bike weight is important
That's a load of theoretical garbage.
My experience both of light and heavy bikes myself and of friends riding them is a couple of pounds difference in weight of a bike makes a lot more difference than it should do logically.
Carry on chaps; there is a whole industry and a very large secondhand market based on the people who believe that saving a few hundred grammes will make them appreciably quicker.
It's still nonsense.
..and unless physics has changed since I was at school, total weight of bike/rider/baggyclownpants/Camelbakwith3litresofwatercosI'ddehydrateanddie/6inchesoftravelforthat30secondbitinthewoods is far more important than a 'light' bike.
As the example above shows, you would be 2 minutes quicker up a [b]2 kilometer[/b] 1 in 4 climb if you spent enough money to lose 5 kilos...
..probably works out at about £10-£15 pounds a second up that mythical climb; fill yer boots!
Meh, weight loss without performance loss is enough of an end in itself I rekon. A really light bike (like, sub 9kg) is a totally different thing to ride than a 15kg one, even if you add a 6kg rucksack. perhaps psychological but it matters not. True perhaps that saving 100gr is no real saving in itself, but save that 5 times and that's a half kilo ... then we're talking.
I have a similar fork (Pike ... but 426 coil UTurn) and have been thinking of a similar upgrade. Thor/TALAS32/Rev would each be a clear half kilo lighter than what I have on there atm but blimey they're not cheap.
I got lucky last week and found a 15mm '09 Talas 32 RLC for <450 Euros so grabbed it. Otherwise, I don't think I'd pay the 700+ asking for the weight saving (because let's face it, the Pike is an excellent fork)
you didn't say what brakes you have in the OP, there can be 200+ gr to be saved there .... again only worth it if you can find a deal or anyway want an upgrade, but Avid seem to be pushing Elixir CR carbons pretty hard atm, they can be found for 200 quid a set if you're lucky
Crikey, you seem to be giving examples that disprove your point. On a typical race or ride, you'll be climbing far more than just 2km. And 2 minutes is a huge amount. Imagine intervals and having an extra 2 minutes rest period between them, for the first few climbs that'll be enough for your HR to fully recover!
You seem to justify your point by making out everyone themselves is over weight which isn't the case. If you were really fat, then you'll start breaking lightweight bits. But why carry around more weight than you need to? Same goes for what's in the backpack, which seems to be part of your point, but again this just proves that weight matters when you're going up!
If the point is it's not value for money, well only the person with the money can judge it's value to them.
Didn't one of the mags do an article in 09 (or even 08) where they tried to test where and how weight mattered (or not)?
Also weight for me in order of 'badness', based upon m/c and cycling:
Rotating weight / Weight at the end of 'levers'
Unsprung weight
Outside of C of G
And while I don't notice so much a full 3.0l Camelbak, I do notice that 3kg's on a bike - especially when lifting over fences.
I better you have more fat to shed out of you than weight saving from the bike.
Get under 10% body fat and THEN you can start to think about loosing weight from the bike. A factor a lot of you seems to elude is the weight/rigidity ratio.
My new wheels are heavier than my old ones (rim being big stuff and so). However the weight gain is largely compensate by the rigidity of the wheel (and by the gain going down). It's all good to have light stuff, but if it's made of cheese no point.
Anyway this on is a STW classic, people with more money than sense/skill/fitness will get amazing evidence to prove that blowing cash on a bike to make it light is the way forward. Other people will just enjoy riding their bikes. Usually ahead of the credit card skill ones.
Nobody seems to have asked the sensible thing yet - what kit is [i]actually[/i] on your bike! Full build list please!
Get under 10% body fat and THEN you can start to think about loosing weight from the bike
blimey dad, are you whoring STW now?
Oh, you're not my dad ... then I'd just as soon you stop telling me what I can and can't do, tyvm
😉
juan - Member
I better you have more fat to shed out of you than weight saving from the bike.Get under 10% body fat and THEN you can start to think about loosing weight from the bike. A factor a lot of you seems to elude is the weight/rigidity ratio.
Thats a majorly low % body fat for a none athlete male, agree most of us (myself included) have a lot of weight to loose, but that is a significant figure for someone to aim for.
Thats a majorly low % body fat for a none athlete male, agree most of us (myself included) have a lot of weight to loose, but that is a significant figure for someone to aim for.
Well if you are that much bothered about the weight of your bike it means you are after efficiency, hence you probably train and ride several times a week too. So you should get to this kind of figures quite easily.
not many people are under 10% body fat. Im about 14% and probably one of the lightest people on the forum.
More to the point, the guy said riding 1x9 would probably kill him - if that's the case then making the bike lighter isn't really going to gain him much in the way of performance.
Kev
Im about 14% and probably one of the lightest people on the forum.
Now I see a very stupid bet coming on here 😉
Frankly, I'm not that interested in having a light bike so that I can go faster than other people - as seems to be the assumption here.
I want a light bike because its easier to move about, more responsive on tricky terrain and lets me be out longer for less effort. All these things equal more fun.
As far as I'm concerned, the possibility of being quicker than the next man is at the back of my list.
That statement about 1x9 is cobblers IMO. AFAIR you lose 2 effective gears off one end and three off the others. The rest on a 27 speed setup are just duplicates and over laps.
To the OP - change the Pikes to some Revs.
reading this with intrest as I look at weight loss for rider and bike for the summer enduros but this is last 2 years experience, 10 mile course with a 4 mile climb and then 2 x 1 mile steep climbs, rider weight 13.5 stone(currently 14.5)body fat about 18% maybe a bit more all using a garmin gps. bikes all times within one week of each other
24lb yeti asl 2.1 racing ralph time 1hr 03m 28
28 maverick 2.3/2.1 maxxis ignators 1 hr 03 05
35 lb turner rfx horst link 2.35 blue groove/2.25 maxxis advatages 1.03.35
Rider condition 35 lb bike rough, left a lung somewhere, 24 breathing and okay 28lbs good
point for me yeti was nervy on the downs or i was........turner made loads of time on the downs stuck in on the climb, maverick great compromise.
Lesson for me I am not the greatest or quickest rider especially on the downs so a bit more weight helped, target weight for me is 28/29lb with out getting silly with the money.
Light strong cheap choose 2 still is the motto.
Juan speaks a lot of sense. Unless you're at the real top end (of whatever type of riding, look at Steve Peat's WC bike, bolts out of rotors etc) then it's just not worth dropping the cash.
I know this yet have 3 bikes and am as equally stupid as the rest. Why? Who knows, one for a therapist one day... (currently not in therapy as the £35 a week seems a lot - 10 weeks = a new set of wheels - the irony!)
Scienceofficer, I get what you're saying but why do you want to put in less effort? Maybe that's what you need to look at.
I ride with a club. If the Yeti is off the road, I'll take a 38lb Commencal Meta 6 set up for uplift days. I still ride with the same people at the same pace and I definitely don't spend any less time riding. Sure I might be a bit slower up but I'll be near the front on the way down...
poppa - Member
"Getting up a steep hill usually involves considerable body weight shifts so the ratio of rider weight to bike weight is important"
That's a load of theoretical garbage.
So you sit rigidly in one position and don't need to move your body weight to get up steep climbs? I think Sky are looking for such a rider right now.
If people are going to quote physics as justification, they need to take into account that the rider is moving around on the bike, ie his mass is moving relative to the bike and that has an effect on how the bike gets up the hill - it's not all in the legs.
For example, watch a single speed rider on a steep pitch. The rider's body moves forward and then the bike gets pulled up - the rider is using the displacement of his CoG to help get the bike uphill. Sort of like swimming uphill. Probably not the best explanation, but that's how it feels to me. A heavy bike makes this exercise more difficult. Geared riders may not do this to the same extent, but they do use this technique.
For the sake of this post let's assume that no-one is using a bike that has been lightened to an unrideable state.
Classic STW....
OK, lets try a real world (as near as possible) example;
Using the above analytic cycling link, and the figures for Minch Moor, which I calculate to be a height gain of 421 metres over about 10 km, the figures for weight loss come out at;
For a 100kg rider/bike combo, you would be 51 seconds quicker by losing 3kg.
For the same guy to lose 5kg you would be 88 seconds quicker.
For those who think these time gains are massive, I'd love to see someone manage to do three climbs of Minch Moor and get times that didn't vary by a minute...
My point is that a 2km 1 in 4 climb is an [b]enormous[/b] climb.
..and losing 5kg is an [b]enormous[/b] weight loss.
thus; the performance gain from buying lighter bike bits is very very small and very very expensive.
51 seconds in a three hour ride... Is it really worth the £3-£4-£500 (and the rest....) it would cost?
Basic cycling adage; you can't buy performance...
..and while I'm in the mood, the idea that rotating weight is somehow important is not actually true. Weight is weight whether it spins, pirouettes, swings or bounces.
Rotating weight is only a factor when you are accelerating, and the average chubby mountain biker doesn't accelerate very fast at all. ([i]Please think of the children before you tell me about the little accelerations that you make when you are climbing... Trust me, they're not significant[/i])
[i]If people are going to quote physics as justification, they need to take into account that the rider is moving around on the bike, ie his mass is moving relative to the bike and that has an effect on how the bike gets up the hill - it's not all in the legs.[/i]
No, but you still have to get you and the bike and all your stuff to the top of the hill; lighten the bike by 10 kilos and put ten kilos on your back; same weight, same physics, same work required to get to the top.
crikey
Out of interest, how heavy is your bike and how heavy are you? For me, its 80kg and 11kg (140mm HT w/o pedals).
For the record I sit and spin up climbs, unless its horrendously steep whereupon I will lockout my fork and stand. In either case I do not try and move my bike back and forth(!) as this would be a waste of energy, on the contrary I try to pedal as smoothly as possible. The only thing getting you up that hill is the force acting on the cranks. Not trying to sound rude, but I am not sure what you mean by the rider 'moving forward and then the bike gets pulled up'.
The bottom line is that the energy required to move an object by a vertical distance (ignoring rolling resistance etc for a minute) is mgh, where m is the mass, g is the acceleration due to gravity and h is the height. Increase m by 1% and you increase the energy you need by 1%.
This is true whether you are pedalling uphill, or swimming uphill. 😉
The interesting weights are the actual ones; without pedals? 🙄
I'm about 80 kgs, and have a FS about 14kgs, but then I wear another few kgs worth of Camelbak, helmet, gloves, shoes, tube, pump, water, mobile, house keys etc.
I reckon about 100 kgs all in.
...On my road bike, the bike weight is nearer to 7 kgs, and I carry less gubbins, so come in about 90 kgs.
[i]I do not try and move my bike back and forth(!) as this would be a waste of energy[/i]
well, if you do move the bike side to side you'll find you can use your arms as well as your legs - if you keep your body still it can be quite effective - watch roadies on a steep bit and you'll normally see good use of this technique.
"the bike weight is nearer to 7 kgs"
Crikey, crikey, that's pretty light.
Aye, tis a Scott Addict...
..with pedals.. 😉
For handling surely you're better off keeping the weight on the bike (low) and removing it from the rider (high)?
I'd be interested to see though how handling changes when the rider/bike weight ratio is changed. A little guy on a DH bike vs donkey kong on a 20lb XC bike.
donkey kong on a 20lb XC bike.
offtopic but I saw a >>100kg dude (he had height AND width!) racing a carbon Scott Scale at the Spa 24 hr in'08. I was sure he was going to stand on the pedals and rip the frame in 2 but it seemed to survive
Bloody hell lads,
I only wanted to do a bit of retail therapy.
This is getting a bit daft now, (but makes a good lunch time read). 😆
and more importantly, who the hell has less than 10% body fat FFS.
who the hell has less than 10% body fat FFS.
roadies, that's who
*shiver*
[img] 
[/img]
"who the hell has less than 10% body fat FFS"
I do. I eat what I like, when I like, and never seem to put on an ounce.
It drives my wife to distraction as she seems to be able to absorb calories just by looking at the wrong sort of food.
Ahhh STW...
From bicycle lightening bling to wwaswas' wifes {I'm sure absolutely delightful} bum in 80 posts.
Quality. 😆