Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Mountain Biking (http://www.bikeforums.net/mountain-biking/)
-   -   My new mountain bike is 34 pounds.... (http://www.bikeforums.net/mountain-biking/897265-my-new-mountain-bike-34-pounds.html)

Pamestique 06-26-13 09:51 AM

I don't want to get into a 29 v 26 debate - where I live, just about everyone is buying into the 29 craze and I can see from manufacturers that is the trend but... again I am not an expert or know all that much about bikes... but have been riding a long time and well, just don't get the whole 29er thing (and yes I have tried them out).

I understand the wheels roll over obstacles better... well if obstacles are a problem, why not road ride instead? I thought the whole point of mountain biking was learning the skills of negotiating over roots, rocks, through sand, switchbacks etc all things roadies don't encounter (I am old school that way). Now I see new riders buying 29ers and expecting them to do everything the 26er does - it can't and won't ever. These guys are just tearing up an d destroying old established trails trying though... they never learn skills and they never learn patience - its all about "how fast can I go without anything getting in my way"... is that about it?

BTW I recently sold my Stumpjumper hardtail - a 26er - with all the custom upgrades and wheels it weighed in around 24 lbs. and it was fast! I would bet a skilled rider on that bike would beat a skilled rider on a 29er any day of the week!

AND maybe I don't understand the OP but I thought he said he paid $1900 for the bike - it should weigh less than 34 lbs at that price...

Papa Wheelie 06-26-13 10:34 AM

I think that is boils down to what one person wants, vs what another person expects, vs what somebody else will accept. You really CANNOT compare any of the situations. Suspension forks made our rigid bikes more comfortable, which REALLY made them faster, for longer periods of time. Are you riding a rigid bike, or did you buy into the whole "suspension fork" trend? When do "trends" stop, and it is actually progression? The point that YOU stopped accepting product progression, is that were everybody else should have also stopped? I like to ride a road bike, but that is a totally different challenge than mountain biking. I like to roll over any and all obstacles that I can, when mountain biking, but I want my risks cut to a minimum. I find that my larger wheeled 29'er makes the risks far less. If I wanted to simply hone my skills to their highest potential, I would go rigid, and try to shred the gnar. I am going to end up in the hospital though, so what is the point in that? Progression is about making the bike work better, allowing me to go faster, for longer durations of time, over more challenging terrain. You can dismiss what every engineer is trying to do (make bikes work better) as some marketing "trend" all you want.

slowride454 06-26-13 11:50 AM

last week I rode a tight single track course and was humbled to say the least on my 29er. There was one tight RH switchback I could not navigate at all. I had to almost stop. A friend was riding his backup bike, a very old 26" single speed no suspension classic. He let me borrow it. WOW! I am not a good rider, I am old, fat, uncoordinated, and lack bravery. That bike made me feel like a little kid again on my 20" BMX bikes. The single speed made my knees feel like I was 80 going up hills though. It sure got me thinking. How much fun would a carbon 26" with a 1X11 with an aggressive geometry be in the tight stuff?

paradigm shifte 06-26-13 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamestique (Post 15785143)
a 26er - with all the custom upgrades and wheels it weighed in around 24 lbs. and it was fast! I would bet a skilled rider on that bike would beat a skilled rider on a 29er any day of the week!

Why?

Papa Wheelie 06-26-13 01:17 PM

One of the guys in my normal riding group rides a Gary Fisher 26" full suspender. He said that he likes to ride it because "it is more fun to jump stuff, on the downhills." One day I was following him along, and he was shredding the gnar! He must have been getting 5" off the ground, and jumping maybe 1 or 2 feet down the trail! Once I saw that, I had no more questions.......

ColinL 06-26-13 01:25 PM

LOL @ sarcastic post.

My 26" FS is a size XL and it weighs 24.5 pounds. It has 'only' 115mm rear travel, but I'm taking it to Colorado for a week to ride in the Breckenridge / Keystone area. (It's a family vacation and that's the destination for all manner of hiking, biking & kayaking. I know there is way radder stuff to ride elsewhere in CO.)

Papa Wheelie 06-26-13 02:46 PM

1 Attachment(s)
It all boils down to what you think you need, and what you can actually get by with. I picked this beast up a week ago. I have taken it on four lunch time rides with my buddies. Each ride is about 15 miles long, of single-track, with about 1,000 to 1,500 feet of elevation gain. You know what? The bike did JUST FINE. http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=325670

zenout 06-27-13 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamestique (Post 15785143)
I don't want to get into a 29 v 26 debate - where I live, just about everyone is buying into the 29 craze and I can see from manufacturers that is the trend but... again I am not an expert or know all that much about bikes... but have been riding a long time and well, just don't get the whole 29er thing (and yes I have tried them out).

I understand the wheels roll over obstacles better... well if obstacles are a problem, why not road ride instead? I thought the whole point of mountain biking was learning the skills of negotiating over roots, rocks, through sand, switchbacks etc all things roadies don't encounter (I am old school that way). Now I see new riders buying 29ers and expecting them to do everything the 26er does - it can't and won't ever. These guys are just tearing up an d destroying old established trails trying though... they never learn skills and they never learn patience - its all about "how fast can I go without anything getting in my way"... is that about it?

BTW I recently sold my Stumpjumper hardtail - a 26er - with all the custom upgrades and wheels it weighed in around 24 lbs. and it was fast! I would bet a skilled rider on that bike would beat a skilled rider on a 29er any day of the week!

AND maybe I don't understand the OP but I thought he said he paid $1900 for the bike - it should weigh less than 34 lbs at that price...

1900.00 is very low price for a new full suspension....I cant control the weight,i didnt create the bike.When you dont spend much,your gonna sacrifice something.

License2Ill 06-28-13 08:16 PM

34lbs? Time to remove the reflectors. Maybe shave the grips.

Pamestique 06-29-13 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenout (Post 15788954)
1900.00 is very low price for a new full suspension....I cant control the weight,i didnt create the bike.When you dont spend much,your gonna sacrifice something.

My Juliana I purchased last year was around that (I think $1875) and even before upgrade it weighed much less; around 28 lbs. It was a good fully even before I upgraded (but I could not help myself) Of course it is a 26er so doesn't have the heavier weight of 29 wheels.

samburger 06-29-13 11:25 AM

My FS 26" came out at 32.x# weighed standing up on a regular bathroom scale. Numbers may have been slightly off since I was holding it up. And FWIW I've put somewhere around $1700 or so in it building it up from sale/closeout/lightly-used parts. I haven't weighed it since I first finished the build & I've swapped out the shock & a few other small parts since then. Its current weight is approximately 'light enough to put on the roof rack after a long ride' pounds.

Pendergast 06-29-13 01:26 PM

I checked a few reviews and listed bike weights for FS 29ers in that price range, and around 30 lbs.(assuming the weights listed are without pedals) seems pretty common. A few are a pound or two lighter. Jamis gives the weight of their XCR 29 Sport as 32.25 lbs. Add pedals to that and it's getting close to what you say your bike weighs. So yeah, your Camber may be on the heftier end of the scale in that price range, but I wouldn't worry about it.

License2Ill 06-29-13 05:58 PM

Yeah, I don't want to get in a debate, but uh....I'm slow as **** either way. It's good to know my old pos fsr xc is a lightweight by today's standards though. I feel faster now.

Duke of Kent 06-30-13 05:48 AM

My HT 29er, running race wheels, 100mm RS SID RCT3, and 36t x 11-36t is just over 18lbs.

My 26er FS AM bike moves between just above 24lbs and just below 26lbs, depending on tires. Santa Cruz Blur LTC. 150mm front, 140mm rear.

formicaman 07-01-13 09:58 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong(and I usually am), but as far as I know weight really only matters when it's rolling weight, aka wheels. Beyond that, extra pounds don't make any more difference on the bike than on your person, so a lock, water, or a beer belly all make the same difference -not much. Am I right here?

zenout 07-02-13 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by formicaman (Post 15804854)
Correct me if I'm wrong(and I usually am), but as far as I know weight really only matters when it's rolling weight, aka wheels. Beyond that, extra pounds don't make any more difference on the bike than on your person, so a lock, water, or a beer belly all make the same difference -not much. Am I right here?

You are right.

patrickgm60 07-02-13 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by formicaman (Post 15804854)
Correct me if I'm wrong(and I usually am), but as far as I know weight really only matters when it's rolling weight, aka wheels. Beyond that, extra pounds don't make any more difference on the bike than on your person, so a lock, water, or a beer belly all make the same difference -not much. Am I right here?

Weight matters most on climbs. The steeper the climb, the more advantage a lighter bike/wheels/belly provides. The rolling weight distinction is minor, from what I recall.

formicaman 07-03-13 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrickgm60 (Post 15808317)
Weight matters most on climbs. The steeper the climb, the more advantage a lighter bike/wheels/belly provides. The rolling weight distinction is minor, from what I recall.

I could stand to lose at least 15 pounds, so I'm not gonna worry that my bike is 29.

Elduderino2412 07-03-13 09:50 AM

2013 Camber Comp should only weigh about 29 lbs on the showroom floor

zenout 07-03-13 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elduderino2412 (Post 15810567)
2013 Camber Comp should only weigh about 29 lbs on the showroom floor

Its not a comp,its just a camber.Comp is 600.00 more.

Pamestique 07-03-13 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by formicaman (Post 15810429)
I could stand to lose at least 15 pounds, so I'm not gonna worry that my bike is 29.

Best advice... I tell people why worry about spending all that money to save 2 lbs of weight on a bike... just stop eating junk food and lose a few pounds - cheaper and healthier!

Elduderino2412 07-03-13 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenout (Post 15810955)
Its not a comp,its just a camber.Comp is 600.00 more.

I think those only weigh about 31 lbs. Guessing you weighed it w/pedals and other stuff on their. That isn't all that bad, and average for a intro full suspension 29er

Zephyr11 07-03-13 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elduderino2412 (Post 15811251)
I think those only weigh about 31 lbs. Guessing you weighed it w/pedals and other stuff on their. That isn't all that bad, and average for a intro full suspension 29er

Or he has a bigger size bike than the one you weighed.

cryptid01 07-04-13 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by formicaman (Post 15804854)
Correct me if I'm wrong(and I usually am), but as far as I know weight really only matters when it's rolling weight, aka wheels. Beyond that, extra pounds don't make any more difference on the bike than on your person, so a lock, water, or a beer belly all make the same difference -not much. Am I right here?

nope.

A 230 lb person on a 20 lb bike will always be faster than a 130 lb person on a 120 lb bike.

Pamestique 07-04-13 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cryptid01 (Post 15814044)
nope.

A 230 lb person on a 20 lb bike will always be faster than a 130 lb person on a 120 lb bike.

Was that intended not to make sense? :twitchy:


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:59 PM.