unclebuck

I think spending hundreds of pounds to shed a little weight is pointless. As said above ride through some mud, and all the theoretical weight saved is lost. Plus really light bikes are prone to failure under stress. Fine for road or fire break type riding though, but pointless for anything more technical.

UB.

[Edited by unclebuck - 6/3/2003 10:30:40 AM]

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I'm looking for one of these for our lass. She has a decent bike, although it never goes off road, and it's quite heavy, having a steel frame.
I had the idea of getting a cheap alloy frame for it, something along the lines of the men's ones that can be had for £100 or so, but no dice.
I CAN have one for big money, and I CAN buy a complete cheap bike with one, but don't seem to be able to source a frame on it's own.
Anyone got any ideas? And yes, I know I ought to spend at least £300 etc, but she only ever rides it on holiday, and then only on roads!
Cheers guys,
Alcazar

mega_stream

While the frames probably quite heavy the biggest change you can make on a heavy bike is to get some light wheels, rolling mass theory.

It's all the parts on cheaper bikes that all add up to equal a heavy bike, seat + seat post, cranks, pedals etc.

I got obsessed with the weight of my bike, ended up sending 3 grand on it getting the best bits money could buy

Weighs about 21lb now

Then I go out and get it caked in 22lb of crud

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

<<<Then I go out and get it caked in 22lb of crud >>>

I'm with you there: mine has a titanium frame and weighs about 21.5lb. I can hear it sigh with pleasure as I hose the crud off it:
No idea where to source a frame then? I do have a set of decent wheels she could have, from when I went disc brakes...........
Alcazar

beemerboy

alcazar, i got a full sus frame and gas forks, bought from a bike show.
let me dig them out tomorrow. and take a pic or 2

BB

beemerboy

its a saracen frame, blue & yellow.
BB

MarkO

My bike weighs in at a porky 26lb.

Always used to make me laugh when my old riding partner and I were continually buying bits for the bike to get the weight down as low as possible. In the end, he had a CF Specialized frame, CF Judy forks (lovely....) and XTR everything, with titanium bolts, etc., etc. Bike weighed something similar to the 21lb mentioned above.

Then, of course, we'd go out and ride having scoffed a huge curry the night before, which probably added 4lbs to the total weight of the bike+rider.

MarkO

What a load of crud!!!

Why, exactly, do you think light bikes prone to failure? What evidence is that based on? More MTB 'expertise' from UB....

Unless you're doing serious DH or you're building a big air jump bike, lighter materials such as CF, Ti or Al aren't really any more likely to fail than heavier materials such as steel! CF can have its weaknesses, but it's usually at the contact points between the CF and metal fittings. Al can be brittle, but it's also hugely strong. A far more common reason for component/frame failure is due to duff manufacturing or bad design - both of which is unlikely in ultra-light frames or components 'cos they're generally better-made.

Cutting the weight of a bike is always advantageous - it makes the bike agile, easier to maneuvre, and means you're expending less effort carrying excess weight on the climbs. Obviously, if you've got a 21lb bike with 2kgs of mud stuck to it, it'll be heavier but it'll still be a damned-sight lighter than a 28lb bike with 2kgs of mud stuck to it!!!

Of course it's a law of diminishing returns - the cost of getting a bike from 28lbs to 25lbs is probably a 5th of the cost of getting a 25lb bike down to 22lbs. But it depends on how serious you are at riding, how much cash you've got, and how much you care about the weight.

For most beginners, one of the biggest handicaps is a lack of fitness, combined with a 35lb+ bike which takes twice the effort to lug up the hill. Anything less than 28lb is probably excessive and down to personal preference, but getting the weight down to sub-30lbs can make a huge difference to somebody's stamina and ability, particularly if they're just starting out. So, UB, with all respect, you're talking out of your padded shorts.

unclebuck

Personal experience mainly.

Carbon Fibre was a fashion thing. It was tried in the early 90’s but soon dropped as is was way to prone to damage and subsequent failure. Titanium is fine but ridiculously expensive for average riders like you and me. Aluminium is the best compromise for frames, but you wouldn’t know that as you have only ever ridden steel. It’s fine to talk in theory about lightweights, but in practice the expense and maintenance costs of ultra light machinery makes it impractacle.

I suppose if mountain biking to you is torturous mindless uphill slogging then a lighter bike will help. But if you want to enjoy the experience, and like more technical single track riding then I would be more than happy to sacrifice a few pounds in favour of speed and comfort.

UB

MarkO

Personal experience? Really? How many bikes have you owned then? And how many different materials were they made of? And how many failed?

CF wasn't a fashion thing! Lots of the top XC teams ride CF bikes (and top road bikes are almost without exception CF). Out of the 5 people I regularly ride with, 3 of them have got CF frames.

For you, maybe. Not for me. There's a very good chance my next frame will be Ti.

Really? Have I? Ah, thanks for letting me know, but actually, you're wrong. I've tried Ti and Al bikes. Ti's very light, but has a fair bit of flex. Al's super-light, but a bit too rigid for me, particularly as I won't be buying a full-sus bike next time round.

I'm not talking theory - I'm talking practice. I've ridden heavy bikes, and light bikes, and I know which I like. Can't say more than that, really. And what extra maintenance costs are incurred with lightweight bikes?
LOL Any serious MTB rider will spend a fair bit of climbing. Unless you ride on the flat (which is mind-numbingly boring) Precisely 50% of every ride anyone does will be spent climbing. It's a fact of MTB life. If you're happy spinning along flat tow-paths and fire-tracks, then that's up to you, but personally I'd find that totally dull and uninteresting.
Who said that having a light bike means you can't have speed & comfort?!? A lighter bike usually equates to a faster bike, and there's no reason that a light bike should be any less comfortable than a heavier one. For example, CF frames have a fair bit more flex in them than steel frames, making for a slightly less rigid (and therefore more comfortable) ride....

MattPiece

"I suppose if mountain biking to you is torturous mindless uphill slogging then a lighter bike will help."

LOL too! Spot the Dutch MTBer that doesn't like hills!

MarkO

What I can't understand is that if you don't climb any hills, you don't get to do any DH. And if you don't do any DH, what's the point of MTBing?

ChrisB

In which case, spot the DHer using the bike lift to get to the top...

unclebuck

Yes. Not my bikes, but other peoples. I have seen ultra-lightweight forks fold, downtubes snap, CF seat stems break, etc. over the years, causing lots of tears.

“Teams” is the key word here. Teams are financed so that if (when) their fancy mega-light kit fails it can be instantly replaced. It’s the cycling equivalent of F1 or MotoGP. Not for the likes of the average mountainbiker.


Suit yourself. But I think you're taking it all a bit too seriously IMO. I've known people spend thousands on fancy composite frames, but they have never kept them for long as they turned out to be too much of a liability.

Oh yes I forgot, you're a bit of a ludite when it comes to modern technology. Suspension is cool, you are missing out.

None. But Very lightweight bikes of the sort you are talking about I would say require considerably more money spending on them to keep them in top nick. Just like anything else that is highly tuned.

Agreed, but by the same token 50% is spent going downhill. In those circumstances a rigid framed machine will always lose out. Especially a lightweight twitchy one. It's swings and roundabouts.

Faster up a hill (usually as you say). But not down one, or on the flat. Why ride a bendy, expensive, frame to get comfort when you can have a suspension frame that has been purpose designed to absorb shocks? Ok it's a bit heavier but a lot more fun IMO.

Anyway, must get on....

UB.

MarkO

Can't say I've heard many stories of people snapping downtubes or folding forks (particularly suspension forks). CF seat stems, perhaps, but then I know at least one person who's snapped a steel seatpost (almost skewering his nads! ), so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Ah, right. So buying a lightweight frame is going OTT? Presumably you'll be posting elsewhere that people are 'taking it a bit too seriously' when they get CF strut braces, or lightweight alloy bonnets on their scoobs? No, I'm not. As I've said before, I've ridden ful-sus bikes, and they're okay, but I just don't like them. For the money & the extra weight, I'd rather stick to a HT, but each to their own.I really don't understand this. Can you please explain to me, in laymans terms, exactly what extra work a titanium or CF frame needs doing to it over and above the normal maintenance you'd carry out on a steel frame? Depends on the rider. I frequently overtake people on all sorts of bikes on DHs, but that's 'cos I'm better than them, not 'cos the bike's better. Likewise, the guys I ride with frequently kick my @rse on the downhills, despite having CF-framed bikes. But it's 'cos they're far better than me - and have lightweight bikes.
Why not have a stiff, expensive frame that's been purpose designed to absorb shocks, and is lightweight?

Out of interest, UB, if heavier bikes are so much better, why is it that all the top XC and DH riders have ultra-light bikes, and why do bike companies spend so much money developing lightweight frames and components? If what you said was true, everyone would go out and buy a 45lb bike from Halfords.

What you're saying just makes no sense at all. Backed up by your comments about climbing, etc., I really don't think you have a clue what you're on about!

unclebuck

As I said, because they are sponsored and have the best of everything. I would too if it was free.

And suspension systems, which are a waste of time according to you.?

Yea, well 6.2K recorded off road miles says I do. And no, that’s not riding on tow paths as you suggested. Nor was it all riding on Forestry tracks. IIRC you moved to where you are now only recently and hadn’t touched your bike in years before that. I appreciate your excitement at being a born again biker, But it doesn’t mean you know everything about it as you seem to think.

At the end of the day whatever solution you choose is up to each individual’s personal tastes. You don’t like current technology – fine, but I do. You don’t seem to be able to handle someone having different views to you. Sure, I could spend more than £1500 on a bike but I am happy with what I have. It is easily good enough for my abilities and riding requirements. Remember, I covered over 5K miles on a rigid frame before went full sus. Personally, I know the diffences and I would not go back. My choice, end of.

UB.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

OK, now we've got that over and done with:, do either of you know where I can get an alloy MTB women's frame, cheap??
Alcazar

And if either of you wanna talk smashed up bikes, come back to me and ask me about my 17 year old and his Orange trials bike: the damn thing is ALWAYS in dock!!!
Alcazar:

MarkO

I have never said that?!? All I've said is that I don't like or want full-sus. Where did I ever say they were a waste of time?!?

I'm also not claiming to know anything more than you. But I'm not daft enough to try and claim that having a heavier bike is better than a lightweight bike, given the choice. Fact is, it really depends on how much cash you've got.....and since neither of us have got or want to spend the cash we'd need for a mega-lightweight bike, the discussion's irrelevant anyway.

Hurman

Save some money. Starve your lass and get her riding the bike every night to go and get her tea and yours for that matter. End result, fit bird and no money spent.

If you still want to go for a light frame buy MBR or MBUk magazine. I can recommend either Merlin or Terrain. Both do mail order and both sell ally frames. I bought a trials frame from Merlin for 90 quid and it gets some real stick.

Just make sure all the cheap bits from your lasses scaffold frame fit. Issues such as head tube diameters, seat post diameters are all things to think about.

andrew6321

To answer the question....look in the back of Cycling Weekly. Loads of the shops in there advertising frames, or frames/forks. From memory, Butler Cycles in Croydon, Ribble Cycles in (can't remember where) or Deeside Cycles in Lancs all sell alu frame kits.

As for the weight v performance issue, I only have one thing to say....'eat less, train more'.

Sidestepping that 4th choc-chip muffin will be far more beneficial to your riding than spending £120 on a Ti seat pin...

Luke

"Titanium is fine but ridiculously expensive for average riders like you and me"


But thank god not me!!! £2K's worth of merlin frame and thats just for niping out for a pint of milk.....

MarkO

Show-off.

What I want to know is who UB was referring to when he said "average riders like you & me"? I mean, he couldn't possibly be referring to me as 'average'.