sherpaPeak

you are right, there is a big hole in my argument. but that was used more like a metaphore. also, I would not quiet use the garbage bag analogy while talking about bike weight. i assume, it does not matter if a garbage bag is 19" tall or 17" tall. does it? but it matters quiet substentially, when it comes to bike size/fit. I dont know, people probably use custom fitted garbage bags these days, what do I know.

what I meant is, you can get accustomed to the weight up to a certain extent. you build up your strength and stamina to handle the extra weight. thats not a bad thing. more specifically, if I can afford a $300 dollar bike that weighs 35lbs as oppose to a $700 bike that weighs 25lbs that I can not afford, I would rather work on my strength, ability and weight to cancel out that extra 10lbs. If I am racing, competing or a speed demon thats a different question. but then again you have to have the money for it.

So, that was the premise of my argument. its flawed, but I hope there is some merit in it.

never

I don't agree with that....you really need the right tool for the job. Just as my 6"/6" Coiler allows me to go way faster than my 80mm Rockhopper on downhilll sections, my 23lb Rockhopper allows me to do so much more when climbing compared to my 36+lb Coiler (I haven't weighed it, I'm just guessing). Granted, regular climbing with the Coiler has made me stronger but I can climb more technical stuff on the Rockhopper, and most of it has to do with the weight. Even though geometry difference is a factor between those two bikes, my basic point is that an extra 10-15lbs makes a big difference in what you can do with the bike.

And if you get to the point where you can ride a heavier bike as fast and as skillfully as a lighter bike, you would have been even further ahead if you were on that light bike all of the time.

*EDIT* Keep in mind that I am referring mainly to XC bikes...I have no interest or plans to lighten my Coiler because I feel that it is not necessary for what I want the bike to do.*

mcoine

If technicality is what you like, a lightweight bike is definitely what you want.

ghettocruiser

I dunno. I tend to think of technical trails as obstacle-strewn stunt trails, where I would much rather be on my 40+lb freeride bike than my weight-weinie hardtail. The hardtail might be faster, but it's also a lot more terrifying going down and off things.

mcoine

Have mountain bikers turned into a bunch of sissies due to fs bikes or what? I rode a fully rigid bike for years and years on east coast rocky trails, at good speeds. I got hurt a few times, but that goes with the sport. With a light bike you can maneuver around or hop over obstacles. Just what are people riding over with their 130mm of travel anyway?

ghettocruiser

It's just a threshold-type thing. People usually ride at their "slightly terrified" level on downhills. On my big bike I can ride steeper lines and higher obstacles at the same *fear threshold* as I used to on my hardtail.

And I actually have a lot more than 130mm of travel. I need it to compensate for my increasing age...

Edit: I also used to break a lot of parts on my XC bike when I used it for everything. With a heavier bike I break stuff less and only use the featherweight stuff when I need to. In the long term I think it's cheaper.

never

Exactly...things that I thought were fast and steep on my XC bike are nothing on my FR bike. It's hard to describe until you ride one...you gain the confidence and trust in your bike which allows you to push the limits beyond what you ever thought possible before. Granted, some XC/singletrack trails are less exciting with the FR bike than the XC bike but in other cases, with the FR bike, you find yourself looking at lines you never would have considered before.

dminor 

I'll second that thought. The only thing I use an XC hardtail for is actual XC and duathlon racing. And even then, it's not really fun - - it's just effeicent work. For everything else I use my FR/DH sled. Sure I suffer on the climbs some; but the fun factor that it gives everywhere else on the trail is worth the inconvenience.

Bikes were just bikes to me until they started sprouting full suspension. When they began resembling my faithful Monoshock dirt bike, that's what really kindled my interest.

sherpaPeak

yes there are different vantage points from where you can see the original poster's position differently.

when I have a Kona Coiler and a Rockhopper to play with, I can do whatever I want. how much do you think is the cost of that kind of flexibility? and lightness? if I may. when you have that kind of money to spend on bikes, sure, you can go as light as you want. you can get better technically a lot faster. but how many of us can really afford it.

there is a segment of riders who dont have that kind of financial luxary. for me, I used to work as a dish washer when I was going through college. I used to work late night/early morning shifts. Almost every morning (around 5am) after my shift, I used to ride home on a old old Raleigh. on my way back there was a Giant Bike store, in the window they had a Giant Iguana. I used to look at it every day.

for the longest time I did not have the money to buy it. I saved, i dont know for how many months (skipping lunch, never going out to eat, more disgusting - not doing laundry for a long time), the money bit by bit to buy the Iguana. and I finally bought the Iguana. remember that a 2001 Iguana was not exactly a great bike. but it was to me. and that was absolutely the best I could afford. it was not as light as you would like. but for me, this was the bike.

now, the original poster is riding an aggressor. and questioning about the weight. do we know how much more he can afford. and if I assume that he can not afford a lot more than the aggressor's price range (I could be wrong), what would be your recommendation. a rockhopper or a coiler!?

what I said is not an ultimate solution. but, an way of dealing with what he has. I guess, when you are limited in certain ways, you learn to deal with whatever you have.

I apologize to the original poster if I made wrong assesments and if my comments offended him/her.

thanks

C Law

Very Sweeeeet!

I remember the first MTB I bought also , (with my own money not a gift or something the parents bought) At the time I had little or no income to speak of. It was used. It was probably a bit pigish. I couldn't have cared less though with how much it weighed. I was just enjoying the ride.

sherpaPeak

thats what I am talking about!!!

aggressor is an entry level bike, and I think that coujured up my memory of the first real bike. and I know how it feels to get your first bike. I did not care about weight either.

yes, i did got my iguana brand new, cause at that point I was SOOOO fed up with my used and old Raliegh that I promised to myself - no junk.

never

Then in essence you are just justifying owning a heavier bike....i.e., I can't afford a lighter bike so I am going to use my heavy one to make me a better rider. There isn't anything wrong with having a heavier bike but one's personal situation and what they can afford has no bearing on how a heavy bike performs compared to a lighter bike. And again, keep in mind that all of my comments are focused on XC type bikes. My discussion wasn't directed to the OP, I was discussing your comments. And when you get to experience a lighter bike, you will understand. I was just using my Rockhopper and Coiler as examples of heavy and light bikes because I have been using them back to back lately. I guess I could have used my wife's hardtail which is a 33lb 18" Kona Lana'i. Between that and the Rockhopper, there is a 10lb difference, they are more similar bikes, and you can really notice the weight difference when you ride them.

If all you have is a bike that is heavier, you will experience performance gains by shedding weight, especially in key areas. But if you can't afford to....just keep riding it and have fun!

Maelstrom 

Someone else mentioned it, but I ride heavier bikes. My "xc" bike is 35ish. I would rather have a bike I sometimes have to hike a bike instead of having weight weenie parts I eat through in a matter of a couple of months. I like to set and forget at the beginning of the season as it were.

hooligan

Mine is about 35lb, a dirt jumper, the only reason its 35lb and not 36lb, is that I have a fox vanilla on it.

mtnbiker66

I'm with ya'. I'll spin my Bullit to the top of the mtn to get the payoff of the fun heading down. I get a good workout getting it to the to top so it's good for me and my fat butt..

sherpaPeak

i think in essence we are saying the same thing, but with different formation. your last sentance captures my position rightly and adequately "If all you have is a bike that is heavier, you will experience performance gains by shedding weight, especially in key areas. But if you can't afford to....just keep riding it and have fun".

my bottom line was to say that - "dont worry about weight so much so that it affects having fun with whatever bike you have. so, try to do the best with what you have". I respect your disagreement. but, my focus was more on money, cost of buying light bikes, and sometime misplaced concern about weight. to me, and this is my personal opinion, if I am not racing I dont care if I have few more ounces on my bike while riding.

now, lets analyze your statement "you are just justifying owning a heavier bike". its not justification. I meant to say that if a havier bike is all you can afford, then dont worry about weight. try to have as much fun as you possibly can. logically, I did not say that its better to have a havier bike than a lighter bike. if I did that that would have been a justification.

"I am going to use my heavy one to make me a better rider." I did not mean a better rider, but a stronger rider. again that is under the presumption that - a havier bike is all that you can afford and you are not involved in a race of any kind.

"when you get to experience a lighter bike, you will understand." I ride a K2 Zed 4.0 2005 model and a Kona Cinder Cone 2005 model. I dont know if they fit your "lighter bike category", but, trust me, I LOVE riding them. do you have any suggestion about a "lighter bike" that will help me understand the joy of riding a lighter bike. I would appreciate that.

thanks for a healthy discussion. I learnt from it.

regard.

mcoine

I suggest upgrading a few components of your bike to knock a few pounds off. Off the shelf bikes typically have a few parts they sneak in to cheapen things up, and those parts are usually heavy. You will love them even more when they are a couple pounds lighter.

hills

14 kg heavy?

Flak

I think having a light bike would be great. But if you cant afford one, its not something you should think about. To say "you should get a lighter bike" to someone that cant afford one isnt fair.

I agree with sherpa. Get the best bike you can afford and just enjoy it. Comparing your bike to something thats 20lbs isnt realistic, because unless you can afford one, whats the point of even thinking about it? Worry about the things you can control, don;t sweat the stuff you cant.

mcoine

Sherpa has two decent bikes, he can afford it, unless he stole them.

Litespeed35

Er...so you're both partly right, in that there is a difference between a 35 pound and 25 pound bike. But, it's nowhere near as large as the example given with trash bags - you're not "carrying" your MTB unless you have a flat - you may be flinging it around, but given that it's still carrying its (and your) weight, I'd guess that unless you're bunny-hopping you throw around <20% of the actual bike weight. So now we're down to a difference of 2 pounds - which could be noticeable.

I think the point is that a) being overly concerned about bike weight if your body fat is high is somewhat of an oxymoron and b) losing human weight is a lot cheaper. For me to get back down to 170 pounds (which would be ten pounds), it'll cost me much less than dropping my 27 lb Santa Cruz down to 17 pounds. Assuming that was even possible, I'd guess it would cost at least $4k - me running every day for a month would cost me about $100 in running shoes and laundry...

Peace

mcoine

thats 30.8lbs for us americans. But it depends, is it a fs bike, xc?

sherpaPeak

I wish! actually I bought the Zed few months ago and I have enjoyed riding it quiet a bit.

But, my 19 year old brother has borrowed that bike for a couple of times and he loves it. He wants to get into mountain biking (his previous obsession skateboarding). I figured, if I could hook him up with MTBing, I would have a biking buddy for a long time. it will also help us create a common ground for communication (which was not ideal in recent past). So, my brother wants to buy it from me.

he already paid off 60% for the bike and it will be his in another month or so. But, in the meantime, I bought a Cinder Cone '05 for $550. I paid for it with some of my savings and the money from my Zed. so, I will have two bikes for another month, and then I will have to let the Zed go.

to me, Cinder Cone is a decent bike. and, yes with its reduced price I could afford it. I would not be able to buy it for the origional price. before getting this bike I was actually looking to buy a base rockhopper.

mcoine

Ah, well you got a sweet deal on the cinder cone. I have a similar predicament, my bike is 7 years old and I could not begin to afford to buy a new bike like it. Fortunately it keeps going and I don't have to replace parts that often.

hills

yeh..its full sus