Da-um, I just weighed my bike- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 47 of 47
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    93

    Da-um, I just weighed my bike

    And it weighed in at a feathery 27.6lbs.. My bike is built to ride and I love it, but I swear that all of my geared bikes have weighed in at under 28lbs including my first matt red metal matrix Specialized Stumpy purchased in 1993. Tonight, the guy at the shop said "Hey, what's that thing weigh?" and I shrigged my shoulders while he grabbed his scale.


    What are some realistic weights of some singlespeeds around here?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MellowCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    877
    If you ride it fine the weight probably doesn't matter much really.
    My Spot 26'er came in at 22.5lbs, my Surly 1x1 around 25lbs, my Raleigh XXIX was 28.5lbs, and my Karate Monkey is 27lbs.
    "When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Cincinnati because it's always 20 years behind the times." Twain

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    93
    I'm good with the weight, but I was a bit surprised at the total. The weight of the bike really never came to my mind while I was building it up. and NO, this doesn't mean a trip to Blingstrom's for a new set of chi-chi this or that. If I've learned one thing over the past $10K or so of bike parts it's ride something until you wear it out assuming it's safe. (learned, but forgotten on a regular basis)

  4. #4
    fresh fish in stock...... SuperModerator
    Reputation: CHUM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,631
    got my FS Racer-X SS in at 21.5lbs.....

    then i finally shook the WW virus...it's too much $$
    Click Here for Forum Rules

  5. #5
    Kiss my Grits!
    Reputation: Chim Chim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    115

    Trek 69'er

    I beleive that my Trek 69'er weighs in at about 25.5 lbs. It is what it is. I figure that it is cheaper to drop 5 lbs off my waist than 50 grams off my bike.
    Sometimes, with a very strenuous effort, I will fatigue.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jsord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    102
    My steeeel 08 Redline Flight with Rampage 2.3 and Reba race...27.5

  7. #7
    Time to go farther
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,338
    20lbs for a weight weenieish 29er Selma but my bike is built to ride. I have no doubt in the parts on there whether it's 500 miles of the Colorado Trail or the 2700 Great Divide. Tires are changed to conditions but even then we're talking 800g on the top end and 600g on the low end right now.

    With a rigid SS 29er, I could ride at least a 18lbs flat bike if I had enough money and be confident in the parts selection for anything I intend to throw at it. No KCNC seatposts or Crows for tires, etc.

    Obviously this is going to vary by rider but I"m not tiny. 5'11"/160lbs
    On-One Lurcher SS
    Speedway Cycles Fatback Ti SS
    1984 Trek 560
    http://slipangles.blogspot.com/ - It's supposed to be fun

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Blind Dog
    And it weighed in at a feathery 27.6lbs.. My bike is built to ride and I love it, but I swear that all of my geared bikes have weighed in at under 28lbs including my first matt red metal matrix Specialized Stumpy purchased in 1993. Tonight, the guy at the shop said "Hey, what's that thing weigh?" and I shrigged my shoulders while he grabbed his scale.


    What are some realistic weights of some singlespeeds around here?
    The lightest my bike has been was somewhere around the twenty three pound mark. With tires and a build that I feel comfortable with giving a regular thrashing to and not getting stuck 20 miles from anywhere I end up around 27. The 27 pound build rides much better than the 23 pound one.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: traffic002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,938
    My 15" Redline Monocog Flight 29 with Surly cog and SPD 520 pedals = 26.3#

    My LBS was warning me to not injure my back as I lifted the bike on his scale. He was theorizing that it weighed more than his Rize 3. I'm not so sure. :P

    I think the regular monocog, especially in a larger frame size comes in closer to 30#.

    And my Cannondale Rush 4 comes in at 29.7# with pedals.
    Just get out and ride!

  10. #10
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,861
    large Rize 3 tubeless 25.8# so your redline is very close if i had tubes it would be lighter then my rize.
    My 26" GT avalance SS that i just threw together is a 28.9# tank!

  11. #11
    Ovaries on the Outside
    Reputation: umarth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,366
    I have a Monocog as well, a 650b conversion of an older 26" frame. All fairly middle range, heavy parts. As I was building it up I decided to donate an older saddle I didn't love to a friend in need and as I began my search for a replacement, a brooks showed up on craigslist. I figured my bike would weigh 25ish, but with a brooks is probably weighs forty lbs. I can't lift the saddle with one hand. They only use the fattest cows.

    If I could build my fairly simple dream bike, it'd be around 25, though I'd love to get a sub twenty pounder for quick explosions.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: farrisw1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    227
    Just put together a 1x1 with some good parts but no WW stuff and it came in @ 24.0 on the nose.....I expected a tad more so I'm pretty pleased with that

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: santacruzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    686
    My Air 9 converted SS is 21.2 lbs with Fox fork, Stan's 355/ztr hub wheels, xtr cranks, brakes and decent everything else. Lots of fun so far

  14. #14
    bike rider
    Reputation: mattkock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,152
    I need to take new pictures because it's 14lbs 6oz now. I was accused on here of having a ShowBike , I don't even know what that is. This is my bike, the bike I ride everyday on every trail. Total # of mechanical failures since March 2009 are ONE flat tire. Look at the build, with the exception of tires every single part is tried and tested and bombproof. I Love my bike.



    My Bikes Kick Ass!!!

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    578
    My 1x1 was 30 lbs with a shock on the front. I could not believe how heavy it was when I weighed it. I knew it was not light, but I didn't think it would be that much.

    I swapped out the shock for a rigid carbon fork and now I am right at 25 lbs.

  16. #16
    jdg
    jdg is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    243
    My El Mariachi with the stock fork, heavy front tire and bar is 25.00 even which is perfect although I'd like to have it at the same weight with a Reba. My '96 Jamis Dakota LE ss with Eno hub and rigid fork is 23. Bought a Rig frame, cranks, seat, seatpost and headset for $75.00 and am curious to try it with an On-One carbon fork I have.

  17. #17
    Life is a 700c circle...
    Reputation: Norris_Hanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by mattkock
    I need to take new pictures because it's 14lbs 6oz now. I was accused on here of having a ShowBike , I don't even know what that is. This is my bike, the bike I ride everyday on every trail. Total # of mechanical failures since March 2009 are ONE flat tire. Look at the build, with the exception of tires every single part is tried and tested and bombproof. I Love my bike.



    Matt you seem like a nice guy with a passion for nice bikes, which I respect. However, I keep seeing this bike posted all over the place and I always want to comment, but then I think better of it... well not today.

    I like that bike, it's a nice bike. BUT that bike could not be really ridden at that weight where I live here in the desert southwest, at least not for very long. I estimate that the tires would not last more than a ride or two, the wheels would not last long either I'm afraid. I like rigid bikes, I even tried to ride one here for a few months and got beat to a pulp, so that too would not work for me, but maybe it would for others more masochistic than I. I had one of those ultra light seats and it caused too many issues on long epic type rides. Microdrive is cool looking but the silt here would wreak havoc on that as well. The Ti frame is great, I have no issues there. I have to side with the others that unless your riding only on smooth/ buff singletrack that bike has got to be very impractical. I'm no clyde either, I weigh ~ 150 lbs.

    FWIW I ride a steel 29'er Karate Monkey that weighed in initially with heavy duty wheels, reasonable tires, and rigid at ~24.5 lbs. Now it weighs probably closer to 27 lbs with a Reba on it but I can still pedal it faster than alot of guys and it has yet to have any mechanical issues. I can ride it for hours and hours comfortably. If I lived in a more forgiving region you can bet my bike would be built lighter, but I hate breaking expensive parts and walking back to the car. If that bike works for YOU thats great, just keep in mind that a 14 lb. bike is definately not practical for most people and that's why you catch the flak that you do.

    That bike is like an F1 car, awesome to admire, but I would'nt want to drive one everyday. Not bagging just stating an opinion, have a great day

  18. #18
    Time to go farther
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,338
    Norris,

    I totally agree on Matt's bike (it would never survive the AZT 300 as is) though it is cool...but if more people applied the weight weenie *perspective* and were willing to spend the money, not crazy money but some money, then they'd be riding lighter bikes.

    And everyone rides differently, terrain, weight, soft touch or ram through etc. For me the "magic number" may be 18lbs, for you maybe it's 21. But until you've really tested some lighter stuff on every component the bike isn't as reliable AND light as it can be. I get crap for being a weight weenie all the time but I'm a pretty tame weight weenie to be honest. What's cool about the weight weenies is their perspective and willingness to question everything and try new stuff.
    On-One Lurcher SS
    Speedway Cycles Fatback Ti SS
    1984 Trek 560
    http://slipangles.blogspot.com/ - It's supposed to be fun

  19. #19
    Life is a 700c circle...
    Reputation: Norris_Hanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    588
    I'm a moderate "weight weenie"... when I can afford to be. My bike will get lighter as parts need replaced but not with crazy lightweight stuff. I value ridability and reliability over extreme lightweight. Of course I don't want to ride a tank either. Your right, it's an awesome bike and I'm sure it's perfect for some conditions... but if I rode it around here I'd better have my hiking boots on.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: traffic002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,938
    That Ti bike is lighter than my carbon fiber road bike.

    Granted, I could probably drop a couple pounds lifting the gears and shifter assemblies. But I still wouldn't take it on our local trails.

    Very cool though.
    Just get out and ride!

  21. #21
    I'm gonna have to kill ya
    Reputation: roybatty666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    321
    It really depends on where you ride and how you ride, my SS is a few parts off completion and is looking to be about 16.1 lb, I am confident that all the parts will hold up fine on the Trials I go on, yes there are a few rocky down hills that I won't be tearing down like I do on my 7" AM bike, I will casually go down pick the best (smoothest) line.

    Some of the trials you US guys post are awesome and full on the whole time, where I am in the UK there is nothing like that so the need for a tough 28lb SS is not there even Suspension (although nice) is hardly there.

    To me SS is the perfect setup to be a WW not only for the lighter drive train but because I ride more carefully being on a rigid and I take more in of the countryside and actually enjoy the whole experience rather than scream down trials eyes weeping trying not to crash (again very fun) I also like stopping and chatting to people.

    Oh and SS and WW on the uphills go together like peas and carrots.

    Horses for courses and all that

  22. #22
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,419
    i dunno, my puss was a little under 19lbs, and built for reliability. bb7's, 100mm r7 fork, dt swiss xr1540's and 2.1 kenda small block 8's (non tubless tires ran tubless), m960 crank, ti cog, thomson post and wtb stealth seat, avid levers, shimano 520 pedals, cheap truvativ bars and stem, heavy salsa grips, heavy bmx chain. if i wanted to put the money into it, i could upgrade the pedals, brakes, seatpost, seat, stem, bars, and grips to get it probably into the 17lb range with little effort. A decent rigid fork would get it down much more, and the bike would still be pretty damn reliable.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,816
    I think it's very possible to be weight conscious about your bike without being a weenie about it; you just need to sweat every single part. My ride weighs 20 even without an fragile parts or parts which can't perform.

    It almost seems to me like a lot of single speeders are anti-weight weenie, and boast about using big and burly parts.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: traffic002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,938
    This is a fascinating thread.

    Judging by the fact that my (cheaper) steel framed 29-er weighs in at 26# stock, I can see that with some key upgrades, I can easily get it in the low 20s and still be quite burly.

    If I started with a lighter frame and spent even more money, then 20 should be no problem. I think the gathering of database of parts and results and folks trying out a bunch of different combinations allows the on-lookers to see where they would like to shoot for.

    Maybe ignorance is bliss. If I never rode a 20# SS on the trails, maybe I don't know what it is like to "fly" up the hills. And I won't be in misery not having the funds to have that kind of bike. I can see trying to get close to those target weights would run me more than what I paid for the bike.

    I don't think I DON'T want to have a light bike. Just not in the cards.
    Just get out and ride!

  25. #25
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by traffic002
    This is a fascinating thread.

    Judging by the fact that my (cheaper) steel framed 29-er weighs in at 26# stock, I can see that with some key upgrades, I can easily get it in the low 20s and still be quite burly.

    If I started with a lighter frame and spent even more money, then 20 should be no problem. I think the gathering of database of parts and results and folks trying out a bunch of different combinations allows the on-lookers to see where they would like to shoot for.

    Maybe ignorance is bliss. If I never rode a 20# SS on the trails, maybe I don't know what it is like to "fly" up the hills. And I won't be in misery not having the funds to have that kind of bike. I can see trying to get close to those target weights would run me more than what I paid for the bike.

    I don't think I DON'T want to have a light bike. Just not in the cards.
    for me, it's not really about climbing faster. I feel that the bike handles faster and i'm more in tune with the trail when it's lighter. The lighter it is, the more it's like the bike isnt even there. I can just look at a big step-up or steep rocky climb or super rocky traverse and think "i want to get over that, and here's my plan of attack". The lighter bike helps me more or less throw myself over or through the stuff without having a boat anchor strapped to my feet.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,816
    Quote Originally Posted by traffic002
    Maybe ignorance is bliss. If I never rode a 20# SS on the trails, maybe I don't know what it is like to "fly" up the hills. And I won't be in misery not having the funds to have that kind of bike. I can see trying to get close to those target weights would run me more than what I paid for the bike.
    It's well worth trying a light bike at least once. Also, to get a bike reasonably light doesn't take a lot of money, it just takes more work. Like when a part breaks or wears out, being willing to replace with a lighter part, not just one that's good enough. It also means shopping around for deals and finding what the best value is. I help myself, I keep a spreadsheet for all my bikes with all the components and their weights listed; it lets me easily identify where I can most effectively lose weight.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: traffic002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,938
    Quote Originally Posted by ISuckAtRiding
    for me, it's not really about climbing faster. I feel that the bike handles faster and i'm more in tune with the trail when it's lighter. The lighter it is, the more it's like the bike isnt even there. I can just look at a big step-up or steep rocky climb or super rocky traverse and think "i want to get over that, and here's my plan of attack". The lighter bike helps me more or less throw myself over or through the stuff without having a boat anchor strapped to my feet.
    Yes, I imagine it would be easier to toss the bike around.

    On our local trails, lightweight..."wheels" for example, is a double edged sword. Yes they are better for accelerating and decelerating. But with all the difficult rock and root garden we have to negotiate, the heavier wheel actually acts as a flywheel to maintain momentum.

    A lighter wheel will assist in decelerating and acelerating in/out of corners. But the heavier wheels will allow you to roll past a trail "feature" but more importantly series of "features" a lot better.

    Also with traction diminished with rain, heavier wheels actually provide better stability over the difficult terrain.

    I rode my friend's Ibis Alibi that weighs 23#. Fun bike. I climbed on that thing like a road bike. But when we encountered really bumpy areas, I was slowed way down by each bump. My stumpjumper that weighs in closer to 26# wouldn't lose much in the bumps but couldn't hang in the climb. In terms of handling, I would say I liked the stability of my bike better. But my friend was no slower.

    So what does this all mean?

    I guess it really does come down to preference. But at least having the datapoints there and good discussions helps to make more educated decsisions on our bike set ups.
    Just get out and ride!

  28. #28
    I'm gonna have to kill ya
    Reputation: roybatty666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by bad mechanic
    It's well worth trying a light bike at least once. Also, to get a bike reasonably light doesn't take a lot of money, it just takes more work. Like when a part breaks or wears out, being willing to replace with a lighter part, not just one that's good enough. It also means shopping around for deals and finding what the best value is. I help myself, I keep a spreadsheet for all my bikes with all the components and their weights listed; it lets me easily identify where I can most effectively lose weight.
    Its a slippery slope once you start going down the WW route.

    I haven't even finished my SS WW build and I already want to swap out my oros for some R1s

    My mate wasn't that fussed about weight but now after feeling mine and a few others he has just started building around a 960g Scale frame and is heading for a 17.5lb geared, front suspension build

    It really isn't cheap

  29. #29
    Mtbr Forum Sponsor - Homebrewed Components
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by traffic002
    Yes, I imagine it would be easier to toss the bike around.

    On our local trails, lightweight..."wheels" for example, is a double edged sword. Yes they are better for accelerating and decelerating. But with all the difficult rock and root garden we have to negotiate, the heavier wheel actually acts as a flywheel to maintain momentum.

    A lighter wheel will assist in decelerating and acelerating in/out of corners. But the heavier wheels will allow you to roll past a trail "feature" but more importantly series of "features" a lot better.

    Also with traction diminished with rain, heavier wheels actually provide better stability over the difficult terrain.

    I rode my friend's Ibis Alibi that weighs 23#. Fun bike. I climbed on that thing like a road bike. But when we encountered really bumpy areas, I was slowed way down by each bump. My stumpjumper that weighs in closer to 26# wouldn't lose much in the bumps but couldn't hang in the climb. In terms of handling, I would say I liked the stability of my bike better. But my friend was no slower.

    So what does this all mean?

    I guess it really does come down to preference. But at least having the datapoints there and good discussions helps to make more educated decsisions on our bike set ups.
    completely agreed. I run 100mm on the front to try and smooth things out, which i guess kinda goes against what i said earlier, but it works very well for me and i cant explain it. I think part of it is compromise..... a rigid fork would be better for accuracy and nimbleness, but the 100mm of travel helps so much on the other 50% of the ride. I find a light bike plus some squish makes for a good combo for my style. Also on a side note, i run pretty high air pressure for a number of reasons. So the fork basically lets me run the high air pressure without killing my wrists.

  30. #30
    Life is a 700c circle...
    Reputation: Norris_Hanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    588
    There is also a big weight difference between a 26" wheeled bike and a 29'er. Apples and oranges really. 29'er weigh more.

    I will say it one last time, it's generally not the bike... it's the rider that gets the job done.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Norris_Hanna
    I will say it one last time, it's generally not the bike... it's the rider that gets the job done.
    True, but generally the right bike will make it much more fun.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Slurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    629
    I weighed my bike once. Didn't change anything. Its really all in your head.

    If you really want to worry about weight, just focus on rotating mass (wheels/tubes/tires). Everything else is just trivial.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    45
    I got my steel Dean down to 23.xx pounds with new tires.



    i dunno, my puss was a little under 19lbs.
    I have a hard time believing that, gotta see it on a scale.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    13
    I've seen two 1X1's listed so far that weighed in at 25 and formerly 30lbs respectively and can't help but wonder what kind of parts builds these bikes have.

    I had a mechanic friend of mine build me a Surly about 7 or 8 years ago and with a few budget minded purchases he completed my bike for around $500 and it weighs 22lbs even. There are several lower end components and a few niceties like a Fat City rigid fork and Magura HS-22 hydraulic rim brakes. But overall the bike was built rock solid and affordable. Now after 7 (or 8) years of abuse the only parts I've replaced have been the usual suspects, tires, chains, etc. So what gives?

    And recently I had started looking at newer bikes thinking that I might be ready to buy, but after checking out some of the offerings, their components and sometimes their weights, I finally just decided to it would be better to just snag me another 1X1 frame and hold onto it. Dang all the new-fangledness and their weight penalties!!

  35. #35
    251
    251 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 251's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    543
    14 year old M2 frame, no weight-weenie parts, 22 lbs:

    Dave

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: farrisw1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    227
    [QUOTE=Surlyninja]I've seen two 1X1's listed so far that weighed in at 25 and formerly 30lbs respectively and can't help but wonder what kind of parts builds these bikes have.

    Mine weighed in @ 24 even with the following build list:

    frame: 1x1
    fork: rigid 1x1
    stem: Thomson Elite X4
    headset: CC 110
    bar: Bontrager Xlite carbon
    grips: Peaty lock on
    levers: XTR
    cables: XTR
    brakes: BB7
    crank: LX Hollowtech
    chainring: Salsa 32T
    cog: Surly 15T
    pedals: Crank Bros Candy SL
    post: Thomson Elite
    post clamp: Salsa
    wheels/spokes: DT 5.1/DT Super Comp
    hubs: BWW
    skewers: Salsa(front)/Halo Hex bolt on(back)
    tires: Conti MK 2.4 (w/tubes)
    seat: Bontrager ?

    I guess 24lbs seems like alot compared to some bikes on here but I can still haul ass on so I'm cool with it!

  37. #37
    bicycle rider
    Reputation: morganfletcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,716


    Big guy, big bike, built for fun, happy as a clam,

    Morgan

    P.S. Edit, here's an interesting metric. My bike / human (both unadorned) weight ratio is .13. What's yours? My bike is kinda heavy, but as it compares to me the ratio is pretty good. Kinda puts the weight weenie thing in perspective.

  38. #38
    one chain, two sprockets
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by morganfletcher
    ...here's an interesting metric. My bike / human (both unadorned) weight ratio is .13. What's yours? My bike is kinda heavy, but as it compares to me the ratio is pretty good. Kinda puts the weight weenie thing in perspective.
    That is interesting, as this whole thread reeks of WW-ism.

    My SS is 36lbs, built with many DH parts (including the wheels). It is heavy to carry around, load in the car, etc. But I never notice it while riding. Just yesterday I was practicing "rolling" picnic tables - no brakes, one wheel at a time, up onto the bench, quickly to the table before I run out of space to wheelie off. Can''t do that too many times on a light bike.

    I ride the same bike eveywhere. My SS/human ratio is 0.16.

    Tom P.

  39. #39
    Time to go farther
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,338
    Tom you can if you don't mess up!

    My ratio is .125 for better or worse. And it's a thread about bike weights, it's bound to be a bit weight weenie. But if you're happy with a 36lbs sled, I won't fight ya on it. I'll just be happy mine weighs 1/2 and works for me.
    On-One Lurcher SS
    Speedway Cycles Fatback Ti SS
    1984 Trek 560
    http://slipangles.blogspot.com/ - It's supposed to be fun

  40. #40
    Te mortuo heres tibi sim?
    Reputation: scrublover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    8,846
    This is a touch over 25#, though it is meant to be a bit heavier/tougher than the average XC ride.



    Florence Nightingale's Stormtrooper

  41. #41
    one chain, two sprockets
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Pivvay
    But if you're happy with a 36lbs sled, I won't fight ya on it.
    A sled is pretty close, but I usually refer to it as the tractor.

    Tom P.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: el davido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    71

    Aint no fly like a superfly

    Figured I would join the parade as well. My Superfly ss weighs in at 17lbs 8 oz. I recently won the day of endurance race at rocky gap st park with 7 laps totaling 63.2 miles. I have had it for a month and have logged 302 miles already. Nothing crazy. All bontrager parts. It gets ridden at Patapsco, Loch Raven and Gunpowder all pretty technical.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  43. #43
    you said.. Member
    Reputation: Captain Crash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by scrublover
    Please stop posting that bike. Every time I look at it my steed (SC Titan) gets angry cuz it knows I'd be unfaithful. Seriously, love that thing.
    This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: knightscape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    79
    This thread sparked my curiosity. I just spent the evening disassembling my bike, cleaning and weighing every single component. My rigid Monocog 29er weighs in at 27.6lbs, of which, 9.6lbs is the frameset. I built it up with decent components and I don't really have much interest in trying to lighten the load. I ride the pants off this bike and it hasn't failed me yet. I usually break before it does.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    20

    Parts List?

    I'm sure this has been posted elseware so pardon my ignorance. But can someone please post the link or the parts list for Matt's 14.14lb bike.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    20

    Mary-Land Represent!

    El Davido,

    That's my stompin ground. I used to go to UMBC and CCBC, lived north of Towson. Those trails are all the goods! Where in MD are you?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: el davido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    71
    Bowleys Quarters dare hon.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.