Where's the weight??- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 32 of 32
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 7daysaweek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,637

    Where's the weight??

    I have been poking around the forums for a while and I see a lot of really lightweight bikes on here. I ride a Jabberwocky and my bike is about 23.5 lbs. I don't really think that's heavy and have no complaints but I've seen some in the 21 lb range and even a handful of sub 20 lbers.

    So my question is, where is the weight on my bike?

    I run tubes and I know the Nevy isn't the lightest front tire. I checked the weight savings if I were to change rims to say a Stans set, and it looked like that'd be about a quarter of a pound total (both rims). Most of the ones I have seen have the mandatory Thomson Stem/Post, King headset, and carbon bars which I have. I know it's a steel frame which makes it heavier but I've even seen some jabber owners claiming 19 lbs on a medium frame. with the same carbon fork and basically the same build as I have except for brakes and tubeless wheels/tires. I will be saving SOME weight by switching to a King BB and XT crank over Christmas but not a whole lot sooo....

    What gives? Are they lying or do I have some heavy parts I don't know about. Again, not complaining about 23.5 lbs, I'm just really curious where all the weight is. Are mech. disc brakes and tubes really costing this bike 3 lbs or more?

    18" Jabber frame
    White Brothers Rock Solid 29er (465 mm)
    DT 240s hubs/470 Rims/ DT spokes and alloy nipples
    King 1 1/8" Nothreadset
    Thomson stem (100 mm) / post(410 mm) Salsa Liplock qr clamp
    Monkeylite SL bars
    Ergon GX1's
    BB7's with FR5 Levers
    Stylo 1.1 GXP (2008)
    Surly 17t Cog
    WTB Pure V Saddle
    Kenda Nevy F(2.2) / SB8 R(2.1)
    Eggbeater C's
    KMC Z410 Chain.


    Thanks again!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    811
    yeah, I've noticed the same thing. I looked at the posted weights of a bunch of bikes that look to be similar to mine, then weighed mine and it was pounds heavier than expected, which bummed me out.

    my solution is to not weigh the bike anymore

  3. #3
    aka baycat
    Reputation: Ryan G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,478
    Mine is heavy, but ehhh who cares.

    Weight is usually in the wheels, and can be expensive to lighten up. Those BB7s are not light either.

  4. #4
    808+909 = Party Good Time
    Reputation: chumbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by grundy
    my solution is to not weigh the bike anymore
    +1

    I don't even have time to weigh my bike if I want to jam a decent ride into my week... some people have way too much spare time...

  5. #5
    1 ☼ ♥
    Reputation: mrkaztro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    47

    New question here. Integrity

    Those bikes may not be as light as they claim or maybe their scales are out of calibration Don't sweat it just ride!!!!

  6. #6
    Drinking the Slick_Juice
    Reputation: nuck_chorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,809
    time to drill holes in it
    "If women don't find handsome , they should at least find you handy."-Red Green

  7. #7
    UF Engineering Slave
    Reputation: HandyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    370
    tires, tubes, seat, brake rotors, wheels, grips. All places you could shave weight... but all of those parts are more important to work well than be light. It doesn't matter how light your seat is if its not comfortable... or how light your tires are if they don't grip (and I still don't see you cutting 4.5 lbs)

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,170
    Quote Originally Posted by 7daysaweek
    ...So my question is, where is the weight on my bike?
    Some people have really clean bikes?
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  9. #9
    one chain loop
    Reputation: fishcreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,360
    saddle, stem, cranks.
    everything sucks but my vacuum cleaner.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    196
    Maybe tubes (try lite 26" tubes) or saddle. Definitely the tires (most weight weenies run stupid tires).

    It costs a lot of dough to shave those last couple of pounds. Unless you are a professional racer, it won't make any difference anyway.

    BTW, that's a sweet looking ride.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldZaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by chumbox
    +1

    I don't even have time to weigh my bike if I want to jam a decent ride into my week... some people have way too much spare time...
    that's just funny right there ^ ... don't have time to weigh your bike. Love it. Dude you are literally the busiest person I know. It took me less than 3 minutes to weigh my bike. I'll bet I have almost 4 left over at the end of the week too

    Agreed on the tires (and tubes - go ultra light), saddle and grips. But, as said - the bike's gotta be comfortable. My SS came in at 19.85. I was amazed at where the weight was/wasn't. If you just compare mine and yours - look at the brakes, tires, saddle...
    When I built the bike, I looked at it and thought - "Damn that looks light". Then spent 3 minutes (sorry chumbox - just kidding ya) and weighed it. I don't think the pedals were on at the time.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,667
    Saddle, stem, cranks... get SL's instead of C's.
    A Ti railed WTB would be better, such as a Devo. Thomson stems are strong, but kinda heavy. Stylos are bricks.

  13. #13
    organically fed
    Reputation: w00t!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,175
    I think I measured a 10 oz. drop when I went ghetto tubeless in the front. That'd be 1.25 lbs. for both tires. Unfortch, the sh!tty Bontrager tires I have didn't work and the Stans (and then the Slime) leaked out of the sidewalls.

    The moral of the story, Bontrager sucks hairy balls.

  14. #14
    V-Shaped Rut
    Reputation: big_slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,163
    You could always take a big dump before you ride.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 7daysaweek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,637
    Thanks for all the info everyone. I definitely think some people are fudgin their weights a little and I know mine has places that can be lightened. Problem is I don't have one complaint in the world with my bike. I'm gettin the crank swapped out cause a friend raved about the King BB and talked me into buying one (which isn't hard to do with a brand-whore like me). I love my bike and it's much lighter than the 31 lb full-squish I was on before it so I'm not complaining at all. I was just curious if there was something really big I was missing that was costing me a lot of weight. I guess the little things that aren't worth the money all add up.

    As far as the parts suggested, I'm considering Stans rims but not til I beat the hell out of the ones I have, lighter eggbeaters are REDICULOUSLY expensive, I LOVE my saddle, and until the BB7's give me a reason to take them off I'm happy with them.

    Maybe one of these days I'll get that Moots UNO I've been wanting. Then I'll have an uber-light bike... only problem is, which would I ride???

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by 7daysaweek
    So my question is, where is the weight on my bike?
    I guess my answer would be that, of all your components, there are a lighter options. Even if its a small amount of weight on each part. A small difference over the entire bike can add up to a few pounds. I still think your bike looks great and looks like a blast to ride. I like jabbers so much I'm building one myself. Nice bike.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ia_ss157's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    599
    Yeah ditto the composition of the entire build. There usually obviously isn't one component that is a boat anchor, but rather everything as a whole. Those KMC chains are boat anchors! Thomson 27.2mm posts in the 410mm length are not light either. Their stems as well are awesomely built, but not light. Your bike shows some smart decisions in component spec and compromises light weight for moderate weight and uber reliability. For me I'd rather have a 24 pound bike that I can ride, instead of one that is 20 pounds that I am walking next to.

    Your wheels feature light hubs with a heavier xc weight rim. If you went to a No Tubes ZTR355 rim and then dropped the tubes, well I don't even want to consider how much weight you would lose. Probably 1/2-3/4 of a pound. And that's staying with the same tires. The difference in rotational weight is huge. Also be patient and wait out a good deal on some lighter hydro discs. The BB7s are standouts in performance and reliability, but not weight. I spent plenty of time on a 24lb ss this past season and loved the ride. The only thing it needed was a light wheelset to liven it up a bit. The wheels were great on the trails, but a little excessive on climbs, flats and such.

    Your bike has a great build. Don't worry about others fudged weights. They are the ones who know what it really weighs. And your hubs are definitely as light as ss hubs get.

  18. #18
    NardoSS
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by 7daysaweek
    As far as the parts suggested, I'm considering Stans rims but not til I beat the hell out of the ones I have, lighter eggbeaters are REDICULOUSLY expensive, I LOVE my saddle, and until the BB7's give me a reason to take them off I'm happy with them.
    That's the thing, you have to spend a lot to lighten up what you have and in the end you could have purchased a very lightweight slightly used bike that somebody never really used because they didn't like riding SS anyway.

    lol, you may even find that you don't like riding a 20 lb single speed by the way.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by 7daysaweek
    Problem is I don't have one complaint in the world with my bike.
    what's the problem again? just ride it and forget about the scale.

    seriously, I weighed my ss once, saw that it was 24-25 lbs, and I was all bummed out. but, in reality the problem is just one of cost. for a lot of money, my bike could be lighter and look better on the scale.

    I'm cheap, so I just decided to ignore how it looks on the scale.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldZaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    623
    I read a long thread on another board awhile back about weight - bike vs body. Pretty funny and insightful discussion. The net of it was there is little difference in shedding a pound from the body of the rider and a pound from the bike. In fact, when you figure in relative fitness as a product of reducing the body weight, less wind resistance from lower body weight... again, it was a pretty funny debate.

    The one area that had the most debate was rotational weight. Everything else is just dead weight - whether it's in the saddle or on it.

    The fact the my SS ended up light was more by luck than anything else - I've had that bike since 1995... recently converted it. I think the biggest upside I've experienced was last weekend riding very rocky steep trails - one spin on the leaf covered wet rocks and I was "cyclocrossing" the bike up the hill - first time I can honestly say I felt the "lightness".

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    673
    My hope mono pros weigh about a pound less than the bb7 setup. They work just as well. Converted xtr crank and bb weigh 250 grams less than the stylo. Any shimano chain will weigh less than that kmc. Ergons are heavy. Your wheels weigh more than you think with tubes.

    Don't worry about it. I actually switched back to bb7's because I like them. Colored chains are more fun, and ergons are confortable. I race on a 1000 gram stout front tire because I like the control.

  22. #22
    Oldie
    Reputation: zuk88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    227
    My newly converted Fetish weighs in at 27lbs, a tank in comparison to most bikes here. I just take my brother-in-law's advise "you don't need a lighter bike, you need bigger muscles"

  23. #23
    808+909 = Party Good Time
    Reputation: chumbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by zuk88
    "you don't need a lighter bike, you need bigger muscles"
    My new cycling motto hahha love it!

  24. #24
    I'm attracted to Gravity!
    Reputation: campredcloudbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    598

    here's the weight!
    27 pounds, before the bar end tape and Sun Rhynolite rim in back
    Extra training!

  25. #25
    V-Shaped Rut
    Reputation: big_slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,163
    Quote Originally Posted by OldZaskar
    The one area that had the most debate was rotational weight. Everything else is just dead weight - whether it's in the saddle or on it.
    Freakin engineers and their math.

    One thing that should be mentioned is that spending more on Ti bolts and such lightens your wallet as well so it doubles the weight loss effect.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,024
    Quote Originally Posted by campredcloudbikes

    here's the weight!
    27 pounds, before the bar end tape and Sun Rhynolite rim in back
    Extra training!
    My SS is a hair under 29 pounds, therefore I must be even stronger!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DrumSchtick2112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    45
    Fill your tubes with helium. That should make up the difference

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 7daysaweek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by DrumSchtick2112
    Fill your tubes with helium. That should make up the difference
    Of course... I can't believe I didn't think of this before!!!

    Filled my tubes with helium last night. My bike currently weighs a hair under 6 lbs. Amazing! Thanks for the tips. Here's a pic with the new helium filled tubes!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    7,170
    I was going to show the photo of my bike with helium filled tubes, but unfortunately it floated away while I was focusing. Last seen heading out over the Atlantic.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HOG farmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    215
    Nice ride brother. Get out and ride, pass people with lighter bikes and laugh.

  31. #31
    Sweep the leg!
    Reputation: Caffeine Powered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,803
    As most have said, don't sweat the weight. It looks like your bike has a steel frame. Most steel framed bikes are in the 23-24# range with high end, reliable parts.

    If you want sub 20# you need to drop some serious coin and get a helium tank.
    Authorities speculate that speed may have been a factor. They are also holding gravity and inertia for questioning.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 7daysaweek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,637
    Update: PROBLEM SOLVED. removed the valve stem caps. bike it down to a reasonable weight now.

    happy trails.

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.