# 22 lb full sus bike?!?!?!?!



## 02GF74 (13 Aug 2009)

I was watching Specailized epic carbon bike on ebay - new cost £ 4.5 k, didn't quite make reserve but seller is saying it weighs in a 22 lb!!! 

eeek!! that is 10 kg.

Now if memory serves me well, way back I was looking at British Eagle road bike and that was pretty light in its day, 9.5 kg?!?!?!? 

Hence the spesh is pretty darn light, even for road bikes.

Or is my memory playing tricks - was 9.5 kg about the norm back in the mid 80s for road bikes!???


----------



## fossyant (13 Aug 2009)

Yup....9kg is a good weight...that's what my steel roadies weigh--from the 90's.......


----------



## RedBike (14 Aug 2009)

I don't see whats special about that. If anything 22lb seems a little heavy for a 4.5k bike.

My MTB is now well under 10kg. Soon to be sub 9kg when I swap the Reba suspension forks for rigid carbon forks.


----------



## mr Mag00 (14 Aug 2009)

redbike is your bike full sus?


----------



## RedBike (14 Aug 2009)

No, it didn't cost 4.5k either though!


----------



## RedBike (14 Aug 2009)




----------



## addictfreak (14 Aug 2009)

My MTB weighs in at 10.6kg and I thought that was light!

My roadie is around 7.5kg.

But both become a lot heavier with my fat ass on them.


----------



## montage (14 Aug 2009)

My carbon roadie is 9kg 

....but it is a 60cm frame....I think I could loose a fair bit by swapping out my compact cranks (which are solid)


----------



## mr Mag00 (14 Aug 2009)

i didnt suggest it did, but that is why yours wil, be lighter. 22lb isnt heavy for a full sus bike


----------



## User482 (14 Aug 2009)

It's very light but why do people get so hung up about it? I weigh 75 kg. My camelbak takes 2kg of water, plus pump, tube, multitool, food = 3kg minimum total. Add another 2kg at least for clothes, helmet & shoes. That makes a total of 80 kg, so a difference of 2kg for the bike is neither here nor there.


----------



## 02GF74 (14 Aug 2009)

User482 said:


> It's very light but why do people get so hung up about it? I weigh 75 kg. My camelbak takes 2kg of water, plus pump, tube, multitool, food = 3kg minimum total. Add another 2kg at least for clothes, helmet & shoes. That makes a total of 80 kg, so a difference of 2kg for the bike is neither here nor there.



it is very important - since the bike is powered by you, you use energy to move every gamme of yourself and every gramme of the bike.


----------



## Radius (14 Aug 2009)

Given the current Trek Madone frame ways less than a full water bottle, 10kg is in no way light by bike standards of today. Isn't the UCI road bike minimum weight limit 6.9kg?


----------



## User482 (14 Aug 2009)

02GF74 said:


> it is very important - since the bike is powered by you, you use energy to move every gamme of yourself and every gramme of the bike.




The energy difference for powering 78 vs 80 kg is insignificant to most people. If you are a racer looking for the last few seconds of performance, it's worthwhile, but mtbers would be better off buying a bike that performs well unless they're a whippet that concentrates on non-technical terrain.


----------



## User482 (14 Aug 2009)

Radius said:


> Given the current Trek Madone frame ways less than a full water bottle, 10kg is in no way light by bike standards of today. Isn't the UCI road bike minimum weight limit 6.9kg?



Road bikes don't come with full suspension and disc brakes!


----------



## Brainache (14 Aug 2009)

I used to have a Grifter and that was about 3.5 tonne!

Sorry, bored at work and couldn't resist B)


----------



## nosherduke996 (14 Aug 2009)

Any way, one good thing about a heavy bike is that it builds better muscle power to pedel it. You would,nt get the worlds strongest man, training by pulling a smart car on a rope instead of h.g.v. would you ?


----------



## dodgy (14 Aug 2009)

I think people underplay the importance of a light bike, yes I'm aware that the complete weight of rider + bike makes weight savings of 2 or 3lbs seem negligible, but it does make a difference. Mate of mine has a Whyte E120 (full sus) and it weighs in about 23lbs, we often swap bikes around on rides (I have a Specialized Stumpy FSR 120 Pro) and you can feel the lightness of his bike, especially uphill. And yes I know the suspension arrangements on each bike are different, but a lighter bike is faster - we've timed it.
My next MTB will be a lightweight hardtail at around 20lbs I reckon, that will be about 9lbs lighter than my current FSR. That's well over half a stone!


----------



## User482 (14 Aug 2009)

dodgy said:


> I think people underplay the importance of a light bike, yes I'm aware that the complete weight of rider + bike makes weight savings of 2 or 3lbs seem negligible, but it does make a difference. Mate of mine has a Whyte E120 (full sus) and it weighs in about 23lbs, we often swap bikes around on rides (I have a Specialized Stumpy FSR 120 Pro) and you can feel the lightness of his bike, especially uphill. And yes I know the suspension arrangements on each bike are different, but a lighter bike is faster - we've timed it.
> My next MTB will be a lightweight hardtail at around 20lbs I reckon, that will be about 9lbs lighter than my current FSR. That's well over half a stone!




That would only be true if you don't consider the terrain. I know for a fact that my current MTB is faster than my old one on my local loop (I've timed it). It is also 2-3lbs heavier.


----------



## barq (14 Aug 2009)

You've also got to take into account dead weight vs rotating weight. B)

But User482 has a point about the terrain. I ride my regular off road loop on two different bikes and, despite the climbing involved, the short travel full suspension MTB is faster than the lighter hard tail.


----------



## User482 (14 Aug 2009)

barq said:


> You've also got to take into account dead weight vs rotating weight. B)
> 
> But User482 has a point about the terrain. I ride my regular off road loop on two different bikes and, despite the climbing involved, the short travel full suspension MTB is faster than the lighter hard tail.



And lest I come across as a biking God, there's a guy in my club with a very light, short travel hardtail who easily beats me downhill (I have a 5" full susser).


----------



## dodgy (14 Aug 2009)

User482 said:


> That would only be true if you don't consider the terrain. I know for a fact that my current MTB is faster than my old one on my local loop (I've timed it). It is also 2-3lbs heavier.



Don't get you. I'm talking about riding 2 different bikes up the same hill near where I live (a hill that I really hate actually, but it was a good test).


----------



## User482 (14 Aug 2009)

dodgy said:


> Don't get you. I'm talking about riding 2 different bikes up the same hill near where I live (a hill that I really hate actually, but it was a good test).




I'm talking about riding 2 different bikes around the same circuit near where I live. The heavier bike is quicker.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (14 Aug 2009)

my bike is usually the lightest by a long way on the few group rides i've been on. it's always at the back on climbs tho, not thru choice either


----------



## dodgy (14 Aug 2009)

User482 said:


> I'm talking about riding 2 different bikes around the same circuit near where I live. The heavier bike is quicker.



Understood and happy for you


----------



## User482 (14 Aug 2009)

dodgy said:


> Understood and happy for you



Thanks! I don't dismiss the effect of weight, but it's just one of a number of factors determining how fast you can ride, especially on an MTB.

barq mentioned rotating weight - this is something I really notice when accelerating. Unfortunately, any time gained with my lightweight High Roller tyres was lost with repeated pinch flats!


----------



## maurice (14 Aug 2009)

High Rollers aren't light!!

I didn't think bike weight made much of a difference, until I got a new 23lbs hardtail. 
Racing my 31lb full sus I was finishing around 60/90 in races. With the hardtail I went into the top 1/3 straight away.


----------



## User482 (14 Aug 2009)

maurice said:


> High Rollers aren't light!!
> 
> I didn't think bike weight made much of a difference, until I got a new 23lbs hardtail.
> Racing my 31lb full sus I was finishing around 60/90 in races. With the hardtail I went into the top 1/3 straight away.



The ones on my bike are 480g. That's very light for a 2.1" tyre. Anyway, as I say, weight is just one of a number of factors - your light hardtail would be a real handful at one of the Welsh trailcentres for example.


----------



## maurice (14 Aug 2009)

I'm surprised how light they are, the 2.35's I was using were pretty heavy and draggy.


----------



## User482 (17 Aug 2009)

maurice said:


> I'm surprised how light they are, the 2.35's I was using were pretty heavy and draggy.



I checked them on my kitchen scales! The 2.35s have a different tread pattern and tougher sidewalls so I'm not surprised they feel heavy.

As an aside, I switched to a Kenda Blue Groove & Nevegal for this weekend's trip to Afan & Brechfa. No pinch flats and much more confidence on the technical downhill sections. They weigh more (about 620g each) bu they're worth it.


----------

