• 06-03-2013
    chrismtnman
    Just curious, how much would you spend to drop 2.5 lbs off your bike...
    Assuming all things (ride, etc) are equal. Random question, but I am in the process of building up a new bike and I am starting to question myself.
  • 06-03-2013
    Cary
    Just curious, how much would you spend to drop 2.5 lbs off your bike...
    Except for wheels and tires, where a major benefit arrises from the weight loss, not much. My opinion is that the focus on the bike should be suspension performance and wheels and tires. Anything at or above Shimano SLX or SRAM X7 offers very little change in performance. The difference is mostly weight loss and in some cases better durability.
  • 06-03-2013
    .WestCoastHucker.
    ridiculous question IMO. if all things are going to be equal, why would you spend any money at all?
  • 06-03-2013
    chrismtnman
    Interesting responses so far. People spend incredible amounts of money to drop the weight of their bikes. I know the rolling weight of the wheel is of most importance, but I can say that riding bikes that are generally lightweight vs. bikes that are chunks, you notice a huge difference in effort exerted and how the overall bike feels (taking jumps, bunny hopping over logs, etc.).
  • 06-03-2013
    jlmuncie
    It depends on how much the bike weighs to begin with. If it weighs 35 lbs then I wouldn't expect to pay too much (relatively) to loose 2 lbs. If the bike weighs 21 lbs then I would expect to pay a lot more. It also depends on the quality of the bike.
  • 06-03-2013
    chrismtnman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlmuncie View Post
    It depends on how much the bike weighs to begin with. If it weighs 35 lbs then I wouldn't expect to pay too much (relatively) to loose 2 lbs. If the bike weighs 21 lbs then I would expect to pay a lot more. It also depends on the quality of the bike.

    Good response. Going from 26.5 to 24.
  • 06-03-2013
    LaLD
    Going from 26.5 to 24 can usually be done for a couple hundred bucks depending oh what your getting. getting under 24 pounds is when it starts really costing you.
  • 06-03-2013
    KevinGT
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LaLD View Post
    Going from 26.5 to 24 can usually be done for a couple hundred bucks depending oh what your getting. getting under 24 pounds is when it starts really costing you.

    That depends on what's been done. If a few hundred have already been spent to get from 29 to 26.5, then getting to 24 can still be pricey.

    My trail bike is sitting at 26.0 and it would cost a bunch to get it to 24.
  • 06-03-2013
    Zuarte
    If you really want to drop in one go, changing your suspension fork out to a Niner rigid carbon fork ought to do the trick.

    Or cut the drive train down to a single speed.

    If you want to keep all of the bike's current function, that's going to start adding up quickly.
  • 06-03-2013
    moefosho
    Depends on your budget. You can slowly find good deals over time or you can just go all out.

    For instance.
    sold my m317 wheelset for XT wheelset ~520g dropped -$40
    Mountain King 2.2 tires for Nobby Nic Evo tubless ~ 400g dropped - $50
    - 2 tubes ~ 240g dropped - $0
    swapped Aluminum bars for Used Answer Carbon bars ~ 100g dropped - $25
    Selle Italia Carbonio saddle ~ 100g dropped - $45
    Foam grips instead of lockons ~ 80g dropped - $20

    Thats about 3 lbs lost on my bike and mostly rotating mass and it cost me less than $200. I just had to look for deals.
  • 06-03-2013
    chrismtnman
    How in the world did you get an XT wheelset for only $40 more than the m317?

    Also, where did you buy your Evos and how much were they?
  • 06-03-2013
    moefosho
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chrismtnman View Post
    How in the world did you get an XT wheelset for only $40 more than the m317?

    Also, where did you buy your Evos and how much were they?

    Bought the XTs for 190 shipped off ebay. Sold the m317s for 150 on cl.

    I got the Evos from Crosslakesales on ebay for $40 plus 10 for shipping.

    Schwalbe Nobby NIC EVO TL UST Tubeless 26" x 2 25" Pair Mountain Bike Tires New | eBay
  • 06-03-2013
    chrismtnman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by moefosho View Post
    Bought the XTs for 190 shipped off ebay. Sold the m317s for 150 on cl.

    I got the Evos from Crosslakesales on ebay for $40 plus 10 for shipping.

    Schwalbe Nobby NIC EVO TL UST Tubeless 26" x 2 25" Pair Mountain Bike Tires New | eBay

    Ahhhh, the 26". Need the 29ers. I do like Crosslake though. Have bought other stuff from them.
  • 06-03-2013
    OldZaskar
    The idea that only the rolling weight matters is crap. Static weight - the bike or your body or your Camel back or your bottles... absolutely "counts". But, how and why it counts is up to you.

    In 2010, a friend and I did some power calculations (using a power meter) on the way home from a race. Using the top 3 finishers' (I was 3rd) times, we determined that if my combined bike, body, gear, etc. weight were 5 pounds lighter, I'd have finished 2nd - assuming the same power output. It would've taken 13 pounds to get the first place spot. These calc's were based on static weight - not wheels/tires/tubes.

    But as LaLD already said - lightening up is very dependent on your start point. Getting my old LX-equipped GT with WTB wheels lighter was cheap. Shaving weight off my Cannondale Carbon Scalpel 1 will cost a bit more. Well, now that I swapped out the comically heavy tubes in favor of some Stans. So, in that case, I dropped .75 lbs off a $7,000 for about $2.00. I'd venture to say that's an anomaly.
  • 06-03-2013
    moefosho
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OldZaskar View Post
    The idea that only the rolling weight matters is crap. Static weight - the bike or your body or your Camel back or your bottles... absolutely "counts". But, how and why it counts is up to you.

    In 2010, a friend and I did some power calculations (using a power meter) on the way home from a race. Using the top 3 finishers' (I was 3rd) times, we determined that if my combined bike, body, gear, etc. weight were 5 pounds lighter, I'd have finished 2nd - assuming the same power output. It would've taken 13 pounds to get the first place spot. These calc's were based on static weight - not wheels/tires/tubes.

    But as LaLD already said - lightening up is very dependent on your start point. Getting my old LX-equipped GT with WTB wheels lighter was cheap. Shaving weight off my Cannondale Carbon Scalpel 1 will cost a bit more. Well, now that I swapped out the comically heavy tubes in favor of some Stans. So, in that case, I dropped .75 lbs off a $7,000 for about $2.00. I'd venture to say that's an anomaly.

    Agreed that static weight is still weight. It makes the bike feel more nimble, makes it easier to control, and easier to climb with. It is also important for me to cut fat off my body (have lost 12 lbs with diet and exercise in the last 5 months) because it doesnt help me.
  • 06-03-2013
    chrismtnman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OldZaskar View Post
    The idea that only the rolling weight matters is crap. Static weight - the bike or your body or your Camel back or your bottles... absolutely "counts". But, how and why it counts is up to you.

    In 2010, a friend and I did some power calculations (using a power meter) on the way home from a race. Using the top 3 finishers' (I was 3rd) times, we determined that if my combined bike, body, gear, etc. weight were 5 pounds lighter, I'd have finished 2nd - assuming the same power output. It would've taken 13 pounds to get the first place spot. These calc's were based on static weight - not wheels/tires/tubes.

    But as LaLD already said - lightening up is very dependent on your start point. Getting my old LX-equipped GT with WTB wheels lighter was cheap. Shaving weight off my Cannondale Carbon Scalpel 1 will cost a bit more. Well, now that I swapped out the comically heavy tubes in favor of some Stans. So, in that case, I dropped .75 lbs off a $7,000 for about $2.00. I'd venture to say that's an anomaly.

    I know theoretically the weight you shave off your body should be a 1:1 ratio of benefit when compared to shaving off your bike weight, but I just have a hard time believing it is true. When I started biking seriously 1 year ago, I dropped 30lbs. I was wayyyy to skinny. I then added back on 10lbs from trying to jump up my caloric intake. I can tell you that there is a big difference in riding experience with being my current weight and riding a 20lb bike vs my previous low weight and a 30lb bike. The lighter bike you can maneuver better, jump better, etc.

    And taking that to the extreme, I know that if I tried to ride a 56.5 pound bike (if such existed) now vs. riding my current 26.5 lb bike before I lost weight would not be the same experience.

    I don't know why all that is, but I swear it is true.
  • 06-03-2013
    AZ
    One dollar per gram. Or I go on a diet.
  • 06-03-2013
    OldZaskar
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chrismtnman View Post
    I know theoretically the weight you shave off your body should be a 1:1 ratio of benefit when compared to shaving off your bike weight, but I just have a hard time believing it is true.
    I don't know why all that is, but I swear it is true.

    I don't disagree. These discussions are tough - we don't live in a lab. We're working with different bodies and different bikes.

    At my current weight. I probably don't have much weight to lose. Dropping 5 pounds would be very tough to do - ensuring I'm only dropping fat. Contrast that with dropping weight on a bike - as long as you're not eliminating parts or jeopardizing strength - weight is weight.

    So, yeah - there's definitely a scenario where you're better off dropping weight from the bike. But, the guy who's carrying 15 extra pounds of fat, who drops 1 pound of fat... that's going to be the same as dropping 1 pound of (static) bike weight.
  • 06-03-2013
    Cary
    Just curious, how much would you spend to drop 2.5 lbs off your bike...
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chrismtnman View Post
    I know theoretically the weight you shave off your body should be a 1:1 ratio of benefit when compared to shaving off your bike weight, but I just have a hard time believing it is true. When I started biking seriously 1 year ago, I dropped 30lbs. I was wayyyy to skinny. I then added back on 10lbs from trying to jump up my caloric intake. I can tell you that there is a big difference in riding experience with being my current weight and riding a 20lb bike vs my previous low weight and a 30lb bike. The lighter bike you can maneuver better, jump better, etc.

    And taking that to the extreme, I know that if I tried to ride a 56.5 pound bike (if such existed) now vs. riding my current 26.5 lb bike before I lost weight would not be the same experience.

    I don't know why all that is, but I swear it is true.

    That is because the bike is in many respects unsprung weight. For a straight seated climb on a smooth road, it wouldn't matter if it was on the bike or you. For everything else, you are moving the bike relative to your body so the additional weight can be felt and it takes more energy.
  • 06-03-2013
    ziscwg
    Spend the money on a coach or training plan.

    Wheels and tires matter, but I would not be dropping cash on a carbon Easton seatpost to save weight. Now, if you busted something, then consider the upgrade.
  • 06-03-2013
    moefosho
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CDMC View Post
    That is because the bike is in many respects unsprung weight. For a straight seated climb on a smooth road, it wouldn't matter if it was on the bike or you. For everything else, you are moving the bike relative to your body so the additional weight can be felt and it takes more energy.

    ^^^
    This. Any weight taken off the bike will give you more performance compared to weight taken off your body.
  • 06-03-2013
    One Pivot
    At a point, you start giving up a lot of performance to go lighter. At 26 pounds on most mountain bikes, you're more than likely buying unreliability and flexy parts trying to hit 24, or tires with no traction and questionable rims.
  • 06-03-2013
    MSU Alum
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dirty $anchez View Post
    One dollar per gram. Or I go on a diet.

    Son of a gun, I was gonna say that! But not the diet thing.
  • 06-03-2013
    OldZaskar
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    At a point, you start giving up a lot of performance to go lighter. At 26 pounds on most mountain bikes, you're more than likely buying unreliability and flexy parts trying to hit 24, or tires with no traction and questionable rims.

    ^That^ had to be captured and preserved as one of the all-time best comments. Part of me hopes you were kidding... but that part is overshadowed by the rest of me... that well... thinks you weren't.

    My 29" full suspension mountain bike weighs 22.7 pounds. It is the stiffest, quickest, crispest handling bike I've ever ridden. Oh, it's also an extra large too.
  • 06-03-2013
    Mr5150
    I guess all of you who say 2.5lbs doesn't matter have never backpacked. It does matter. All things being equal, 2.5lbs lighter means you're gonna go up hills faster and be less tired at the end of the day.

    Simple math says it takes X amount of energy to propel you forward. You+bike equals mass. Mass divided by energy equals speed. Now is it worth it, cost-wise to go lighter? that my friends, only you can answer.

    There is a reason why the racer boys go light.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by One Pivot View Post
    At a point, you start giving up a lot of performance to go lighter. At 26 pounds on most mountain bikes, you're more than likely buying unreliability and flexy parts trying to hit 24, or tires with no traction and questionable rims.

    Nope. My 24lbs HT is more solid than most off the shelf 29lbs bike loaded up with cheapo crap. Low end wheels, low end forks are heavier. What you are saying is that XT stuff is gonna break before Deore. I think not.