Pinkbike Poll: Does Bike Weight Matter?
We have a Skype meeting every day with the Pinkbike tech editors from around the globe. It normally starts off amicably, then descends into a battle about geometry, bike weight, gearboxes, and who would win racing scenarios even though we are all past it– basically arguing who would be the fastest loser over a lame course.
A recent weight battle during one of our meetings got me thinking about how important weight really is. Mountain bikers, and especially PB readers and commenters are very performance focused, but unfortunately, there are few things on a bike that can genuinely be proven to be better in one way or another, one of the few solid metrics we can fight over is weight. In fact, it is the only one: geometry, suspension setup, tire choice and all of the other variables are dependent upon opinion, riding style, trail choice, speed over fun or vice versa.
So, as I was being laughed at for riding a 36lb steel bike with downhill casing tires up road climbs, I realized that it seemed normal to me to ride a bike between 33-38lbs: downhill bikes or enduro/trail bikes built with droppers, big cassettes and my usual choice of DH rubber. Looking at my last few test bikes they have weighed in at 34.13lbs / 32.8lbs / 37.1lbs / 35.6lbs / 31.1lbs. The three bikes under 35.6lbs were not shod with downhill tires and would have gained a few more ounces if I changed their shoes.
![The Nicolai of Jack Reading leady to go.]()
XC riders are looking to save every gram, but Nino Schurter has won every major race over the last two years without the lightest bike on the circuit. Some downhill racers are even adding lead to their bikes to go faster, admittedly no race winners have been seen doing this, but these guys aren't doing it for attention.
After spending hours and hours riding eMTB's over the last year, I found it is like training in the gym, and it's free to boot; if you ride a 20lb hardtail as your only bike, it will feel normal on every ride. If you ride a 30lb full suspension bike for a few weeks, when you go back to your 20lb-er it will feel lighter and you will be able to move it around more easily. The same applies when going from a 50lb eMTB back to a coil sprung, heavy-tire shod, Pinion-driven, 37lb German tank, it feels light and 'flick-able,' and damn, I hate that F-word. The first time you ride the 50lb-er though, it feels horrible, after a few sessions strength increases and more importantly timing changes. I don't feel any discernible disadvantage riding the eMTB and can still endo around corners, ride technical sections and bunny hop - picking it up and over fences or fallen trees still sucks, though.
So to me, weight is never a deciding factor, unless it is when changing to something heavier and stronger. I also find that any time I have ever chosen a bike part to save weight, I usually break it, if somebody tells me how amazing their new lightweight component is, I will probably break it. Maybe I just need to ride better, or less, or on smoother trails. My safety limit for a bike seems to be over 33lbs.
Lastly, I ain't racing up any hills, or against any riders that haven't been stuffing croissants and espressos into their faces with me in a café pre-ride. My focus and enjoyment when riding comes from the feeling and performance riding technical and downhill trails.
A recent weight battle during one of our meetings got me thinking about how important weight really is. Mountain bikers, and especially PB readers and commenters are very performance focused, but unfortunately, there are few things on a bike that can genuinely be proven to be better in one way or another, one of the few solid metrics we can fight over is weight. In fact, it is the only one: geometry, suspension setup, tire choice and all of the other variables are dependent upon opinion, riding style, trail choice, speed over fun or vice versa.
So, as I was being laughed at for riding a 36lb steel bike with downhill casing tires up road climbs, I realized that it seemed normal to me to ride a bike between 33-38lbs: downhill bikes or enduro/trail bikes built with droppers, big cassettes and my usual choice of DH rubber. Looking at my last few test bikes they have weighed in at 34.13lbs / 32.8lbs / 37.1lbs / 35.6lbs / 31.1lbs. The three bikes under 35.6lbs were not shod with downhill tires and would have gained a few more ounces if I changed their shoes.
Jack Leading's downhill bike probably wasn't one of the lightest on the circuit, to begin with, and is easily the heaviest with the added lead ballast. Supposedly it's close to 50lbs, but Jack had his best season to date and finished 36th overall in the UCI World Cup.
XC riders are looking to save every gram, but Nino Schurter has won every major race over the last two years without the lightest bike on the circuit. Some downhill racers are even adding lead to their bikes to go faster, admittedly no race winners have been seen doing this, but these guys aren't doing it for attention.
After spending hours and hours riding eMTB's over the last year, I found it is like training in the gym, and it's free to boot; if you ride a 20lb hardtail as your only bike, it will feel normal on every ride. If you ride a 30lb full suspension bike for a few weeks, when you go back to your 20lb-er it will feel lighter and you will be able to move it around more easily. The same applies when going from a 50lb eMTB back to a coil sprung, heavy-tire shod, Pinion-driven, 37lb German tank, it feels light and 'flick-able,' and damn, I hate that F-word. The first time you ride the 50lb-er though, it feels horrible, after a few sessions strength increases and more importantly timing changes. I don't feel any discernible disadvantage riding the eMTB and can still endo around corners, ride technical sections and bunny hop - picking it up and over fences or fallen trees still sucks, though.
So to me, weight is never a deciding factor, unless it is when changing to something heavier and stronger. I also find that any time I have ever chosen a bike part to save weight, I usually break it, if somebody tells me how amazing their new lightweight component is, I will probably break it. Maybe I just need to ride better, or less, or on smoother trails. My safety limit for a bike seems to be over 33lbs.
Lastly, I ain't racing up any hills, or against any riders that haven't been stuffing croissants and espressos into their faces with me in a café pre-ride. My focus and enjoyment when riding comes from the feeling and performance riding technical and downhill trails.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
41956 views
41956 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
2nd - who the fk cares?
1st - literally everyone but you
2nd - literally everyone but you
We only use kilos when selling drugs.
kg -> lbs: double it and add 10%
Have at it Euro's
Bike Weight = lbs
Rider Weight = kg
Rider Height = imperial
Tyre Size = nominal imperial
Bar Diameter = metric (but based on imperial)
Bar Width = metric
Steerer Dia = imperial
Steerer Length = metric
HT ID = metric
Fork Travel = metric
F Axle Size = metric
Reach = metric
Wheelbase = metric or imperial
Other Dims = generally metric
CS = Always metric
Shock Length = Imperial but metric
Shock Bush = imperial
Pedal Thread = imperial
Crack Length = metric
Crank Axle = 28.99mm because. 01mm matters
Chain pitch = imperial
BB = metric
Angles = degrees but maybe we change to radians just because
Speed = mph (because its faster for the same number)
Distance = miles (same reason as spedd)
Height = metres (because they are bigger)
You pro metric people, its like you gave up your language for Esperanto and I think you're poorer for it. I especially feel bad for the Canadians and Brits because I can see they miss the old measures. Pounds, pints n quarts, and miles, is language of life.
Is not too late to change back!
I sold bikes for five years in the 90s and the weights were always in lbs
Orange Four: five inch travel
Orange Five: six inch travel
Marzocchi 66: seven inch travel
And we can deal with that perfectly fine, can't we? The only confusing thing for people to understand that in most cases, an 8" brake rotor is actually 8" in diameter, not 200mm.
'requires use of the International System of Units for measurement in U.S. Government programs, "except where impractical." '
www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/functions/standards/isu.html
First, though the scientific community may rely on metric, in US engineering, Imperial is still big (though certainly no longer universal). Even internationally, aviation is done in units of feet and nautical miles (while Airbus certainly doesn't design their planes to English units, air traffic is controlled to flight levels defined in feet and speeds defined in knots). US spaceflight was an offshoot of the aviation industry, so many of the preferences and practices used in aviation carried over into the space program.
The Apollo Guidance Computer was programmed in SI, but displayed and accepted data in English units. Mission reports, which documented the results of the mission from an engineer and scientific standpoint, used a mix of units, with the notable trend being engineering data (orbits, launch and landing reconstructions, performance of the various systems) being in English.
Shuttle used predominantly English units; SLS/Orion will be NASA's first human spaceflight program designed in metric. Outside of space, there's generally a mix of units, depending on the pedigree of the program. A lot of the aeronautics program collect and analyze data in English, but publish in metric. Newer programs skew towards metric.
Beer = imperial
Wheel size = who f***ing cares
PS it's just a bit of Trans Atlantic banter...
2+8= 10
0.99= 1
------------
= 11
11:11 = SRAM Magic
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nonsense Mr. Rogers!!!!
I love it tho and can see it now! The next Enduro-trend!
160mm bike - check
Convertible fool face helmet - check
Knee pads - check
Integrated tools all over yer damn bike - check
Weights taped to yer frame to prove yer not a “casual all-mountain rider” but a genuine bad-ass endurobro/gal who’s so damn fast and so damn serious they have to prove they don’t give a fk about weight and it’s win or crash trying - double fkn check!
Feel free to reply with innuendos.
But seriously, If it were as simple as the heavier bike feeling better, you could simply strap weight onto her trail bike to make her happy.
It's the geometry, travel and everything else about the DH bike that makes it feel more stable. A light DH bike is even better. If you get knocked out of shape, you can actually pull the bike back under you. This is really obvious when watching kids ride. With a higher bike to body weight ratio, they can't recover well when shit gets out of hand. The bike is too heavy to muscle it around.
There is no advantage in heavier bikes. Some people argue that they feel more stable, for example, in rockgardens, but you can achieve the same stability effect on a light bike simply bike entering the rockgarden faster. Here's the physics: p=m*v , p is linear momentum, m is mass, v is velocity.
Plus, on a light bike, you can manual, bunny-hop, endo, turn and corner easier. All of those allow you to go faster and/or smoother, so I dont understand why anyone wouldn't want the lightest bike possible.
Suspension allegedly performs better if there's a higher sprung to unsprung mass ratio (i.e. a heavier frame).
the best way of knowing
Also, from the beginning, they concluded that a surplus of 3 kg weight was negligible to adjust suspension spring rates, which I would tend to question considering the long WB and LR of the Pole for example.
In the end, the conclusion should be: "Except for Leon (by far, our best rider), this test proves that, with lighter bikes, we are riding with too much air pressure in our suspension (at least on a DH point of view)."
Now, it is a different story if the housing center of mass somehow hinders performance. Then yes, adding mass somewhere might help. Obvious case is for displacement sailboats, where you must add ballast to avoid capsizing (but look at hydrofoils!). And less obviously so in a downhill bike, where ballast will change the center of mass and might make the bike work better because it feels more ... balanced ...
But otherwise weight of the housing (the bike) is always bad for the engine (you). There is no way out of it: it takes more power to move if you and your bike are heavier.
The proper way to test if bike weight matters, is if you adjust tire and suspension pressure in such a way that they would behave the same on the light and heavy bike. And the weights that are added to the bike must be placed at the center of mass of the weight-less bike (a bike definitelly doesn't ride the same if the weights are placed under the BB or above highest point of the top-tube).
When I received the bike it had 1,x Kg more. I replaced a lot of parts to make it really light, e.g. carbon bars, tubeless, pike, newman stem, 1x10 drivetrain.
The lighter the bike became during that process, the more mixed were my feelings about that bike. Accelaration and uphill qualities were becoming insane! But jumping became more and more of a suicide mission, as I did not feel the center of gravity of the bike anymore. The bike felt somehow undefined and had 0 self stability when I was taking off a kicker. So I ended up putting back tubes into the wheels to add some weight to it and get a defined and low center of gravity.
So to me there is absolutely no reason to build a super light bike as it absolutely ruins downhill and jump handling.
When I received the bike it had 1,x Kg more. I replaced a lot of parts to make it really light, e.g. carbon bars, tubeless, pike, newman stem, 1x10 drivetrain.
The lighter the bike became during that process, the more mixed were my feelings about that bike. Accelaration and uphill qualities were becoming insane! But jumping became more and more of a suicide mission, as I did not feel the center of gravity of the bike anymore. The bike felt somehow undefined and had 0 self stability when I was taking off a kicker. So I ended up putting back tubes into the wheels to add some weight to it and get a defined and low center of gravity.
So to me there is absolutely no reason to build a super light bike as it absolutely ruins downhill and jump handling.
I though the exact same thing when I read that comment!
"Convertible fool face helmet - check"
Win!
Hmmm... seems about right.
BTW I used to run what I "thought" was a solid 160 F/R setup that was 26.9 lbs. Then I put on some stronger bars. After that I went to more durable tires. That caused me to start cracking my carbon rims. Those needed more protection so had to add some more stuff. Etc, etc, etc.... End game 31 lbs and I am going faster than ever both up and down.
Past that, it's either bollocks, or the kind of diminishing returns nonsense that includes titanium hardware on a bike ridden by a fat out of shape oaf.
Of that last statement, I bring everything but the Ti goods.
8 stone would've given a better ride
5-10lbs is not the difference maker that will all of a sudden make people able to scrub every jump in the park, blow up every berm, eat up the nastiest root sections at full speed, or average 30 plus kms trail rides all of a sudden. It is however a good sales pitch for those who are easily manipulated into thinking that their equipment is whats holding back performance from being on par with the best of the best...
On a bike you adjust the gears acordingly to how fast you're going. You're effort doesn't depend on bike weight.
At an x value of effort, you can either go at 20m/s on a 10kg bike, or go at 10m/s on a 20kg bike. (btw, It just an example, and the values aren't real)
If strength, durability, etc are all the same I would ride a freaking 10lb bike if I could. I remember going from a 34lb beast to a 28lb bike and I would drop another 6-10lbs easy if I could and not have a bike that would be constantly broken.
Cheap, Light, Durable... Pick two.
Given how many pinkbike users are endurbros who tend to shuttle, heavy stability outweighs (pun intended) light and twitchy rides.
Unless you can somehow jump higher holding a 24lbs weight than when holding a 6lbs weight XD
When I received the bike it had 1,x Kg more. I replaced a lot of parts to make it really light, e.g. carbon bars, tubeless, pike, newman stem, 1x10 drivetrain.
The lighter the bike became during that process, the more mixed were my feelings about that bike. Accelaration and uphill qualities were becoming insane! But jumping became more and more of a suicide mission, as I did not feel the center of gravity of the bike anymore. The bike felt somehow undefined and had 0 self stability when I was taking off a kicker. So I ended up putting back tubes into the wheels to add some weight to it and get a defined and low center of gravity.
So to me there is absolutely no reason to build a super light bike as it absolutely ruins downhill and jump handling.
"I can actually bunnyhop higher on a 25lb bike than I can static jump with a 10lb kettlebell"
Here's the figuring out:
1: A static jump holding a kettlebell doesn't use the exact same muscles as bunnyhoping.
2: When bunnyhoping you preload the suspension first, which works like a boost in strenght (because you're essentially storing energy)(But rear suspension isn't beneficial).
3: On a bike you can get up an obstacle of height x, even when moving the center of mass less than x.
1. I think we agree. Bunny hop and static jump are not the same. Regardless of you tongue in cheek comment that the bike is technically a weight. Obviously the bike is also a lever and machine that offers advantages.
2. I bunny hop highest on rigid bmx bikes. Suspension doesn’t really help my bunnyhop, and all record hops have been on rigid bikes.
3. Wut?
4. I maintain that there is such a thing as too light a bike. You’re only arguement against me involves static jumps with weights.
5. In conclusion, you are a jackass.
"2. I bunny hop highest on rigid bmx bikes. Suspension doesn’t really help my bunnyhop, and all record hops have been on rigid bikes." --- You missed the part where I said "Rear suspension isn't beneficial". On a large bike, front suspension helps when it comes to picking up the front wheel.
"3. Wut?" ---- www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvfce4bEZpg&t=1s
Go straigth to the end of the video. As you can see he didn't bunnyhop hard enough to elevate himself 1,5m in the air, but he still managed to get over the 1,5 meter rock.
This effect is even more exaggerated on bikes with very low standover height, such as bmx's or trials bikes, because they allow you to pull the bike really close to your body (like he does in the video, since that's an essencial part of this technique).
3. Ok. I understand what you are saying, but how is this information pertinent to either of our claims?
If we are going to only discuss bunnyhops, then I’ll go on record saying that weight is not near as important as geo and the ground you’re taking off from. Try hopping a 18lb TT bike. Then a 25lb DJ bike. Then try hopping in the downslope in sand. The weight is not near as important as these other factors. Just like angles can be too steep or too slack. Just like tires can be too narrow or too fat. Just like everything on the bike (in the world) too much one way or another isnt ideal. Too light a bike is a thing.
3. It is pertinent because you said "I can actually bunnyhop higher on a 25lb bike than I can static jump with a 10lb kettlebel."
Then I used several arguments to explain that phenomenon. One of of them was "On a bike you can get up an obstacle of height x, even when moving the center of mass less than x.".
When static jumping you can do the same because you can pull your legs up after trusting(not sure if that's the right word) your self up, enabling you to get up something that's is higher than the elevation that occured to your center of mass.
Then I showed you a video that proved this phenomenon is much greater on a bike than when static jumping, since you would not be able to get up that rock even when not holding any weights.
Thus explaining why you can jump higher on a 25lbs bike than holding 10lb kettlebells.
This debate isn't about how frame geometry or the physical properties of the ground affect bunnyhops. It is about how the weight of a bike affects it's handling.
One guy used bunnyhoping as an example for his argument and that's why we went on to discussing bunnyhops.
I'm pretty sure that makes sense. If someone is talking about weight, i'm not gonna be like "Ohhh! But the chainring size and hub standard... And also the geo and tire width... And the grip diameter and colorway... "
Comparing what we now know about angles and tire width doesn't prove that a light bike is worse than an heavy. False analogy fallacy is what that is called.
I have built my bike so that its strong and reliable so there isn't a massive amount of weight I can get off it without spending dentist money (which I don't have).
If I switched to a Ti frame (29HT) I could save a few pounds but it's a lot easier to eat better to lose the same weight.
Example. My old DS race bike was a hard tail and weighed in at 35lbs. My current bike build has 150/160 travel and will be plenty durable and should come in around 28-29lbs.
If it didn't matter Transition would have sold a LOT more Smugglers. That's been the best low travel bike around for a few years now and it doesn't sell as much as it should because it weighs 32-33 pounds. That bike should weigh more like 28. That is a big big difference and does matter.
Dedicated DH bikes or free ride bikes. Not as much. More important that it's trustworthy. Bas Van Steenbergen's Rampage Hyper was heavy as hell but when you're building a bike to huck off huge cliffs weight isn't your number 1 priority.
Edit: Just learned from the comment section that at least one of these is a chromo tandem.
When building another bike, I would need to stick with 40+ lbs bike, considering I don't buy into these new unnecessary, unreliable, expensive new standards to save a few grams.
My Genius LT comes in at 12.79KG (28.2lbs) and I love how it feels and my M9 is 18.5kg (40.8lbs) and I love how it feels as well.
Would I like my Genius to climb up a logging road like a 6KG cross bike? Yes, but I wouldn't like it snapping in half at speed sending me and its dead carcass into a tree causing irreparable damage to my ego and my wallet. Plus I would have to deal with my wife telling me to be more careful and stop riding bikes like i'm still 21.....and she doesn't forget anything so that's a conversation I will end up having for the next 50+ years or until I die doing something awesome
Whenever I hear Americans talk about weight I feel like I have been transported back to 1918.
Full Suss Trek Fuel XC 26er: 26lbs
Commuter/Adventure 700c/29er Rigid Steel Bike: 28lbs
Chromoly Rigid MTB Tandem 26er: 42lbs
They all feel pretty good for what they're designed for. None of them feel too heavy.
Above all, we need a safe space for those who get confused, offended, or triggered by non-MC Numbers and discussions. A place where everyone is included and coddled whether they are imperial, metric, or bi-numerical.
1 stone =14 lb or 6.36 kg
So a light Xc bike would be a good stone and a half ,
Enduro 2 stone , DH maybe 3 to 3 and a half stones !!
As for converting a US price to Canadian? Just double it
I guess it’s the same everywhere though (apart from Europe who seem to have metric pretty dialled?). Once my kids are my age now stone and ounces will have long gone.
An XC rider isn't going to win medals on a 30+lbs bike against other riders and a DH rider isn't going to make it down the mountain with a super light bike that won't be able to hold up to the harsher terrain.
It's all relative but overall weight will always matter when it comes to endurance & speed.
Bike was horrible to ride, really tweaky. bounced an skipped off every root an bump in the trail
For me an ideal weight of any non DH bike is sub 30.
Over 30 for DH
(and to be honest I don't even know).
Trail: 30~ give or take 3 lbs.
Endo: 32~ +-3lbs
DH: don't know I always took the long legged endures to the park.
Ebike: Don't care too much. I'll try my aunt's out for shits and giggles when she gets it. (She's the category everyone claims to be fine with: older, disabled foot, trying to lose weight but not ready for serious pedaling) She is a hair away from pulling the trigger on a haibike. I'm pretty excited for her. She taught me to skate half pipe, sold me my first mtb in the 90's, got me out of school to snowboard and ski. It was a bummer when she had to slow down so whenever someone tries to tell me ebikes should be banned I think they should just rim job a porcupine.
Sorry to get off topic.
Ok, I dont understand why all the test bikes are so heavy anyway.
My currend 180mm Travel rig weighs in at 33,x pounds. Large frame with DH yyres, big brakes, dropper post, 1x12 drive train and 2.2 lbs per tyre, not taking into account the procore which adds around a pound for two wheels. There is only two carbon components on the bike and that is the handlebar and the cranks. Aluminum frame, aluminum wheels. open bath cartridge up front, capable shock in the rear.
Since your test bikes are rarely "budget builds" - I dont get how they tend to be so heavy.
You can easily get to a modest weight today, not by speccing flimsy parts but just shying away from the parts made from billets of lead. (I mean, I got to 33,x pounds even with 2 lead parts, in this case brakes and grips). I could have easily taken it down to 32 pounds.
PS: not everybody use pounds!!!
Yes
The end.
/edit: To be clear: I don't think that bike weight doesn't matter I just don't care about the number.
Seems like all my bikes, regardless of if they're full sus. or not, always end up back at around 31 lbs regardless of cost or farkles.
So,
technology may be able to offer us an antigravity-feel superlight bike, especially if money is not an issue, but remember:
You WILL crash!
Personally I do select parts that will live as long as possible. My list of priorities is:
-Performance (how well this part, does what is supposed to do)
-Reliability (is it going to perform the same as long as I service it?)
-Durability (it competes with the above. Is it going to stay alive after some brushing, knocking and crashing? )
-Servicability (do I need to send it back to NASA for service? I prefer not)
-Weight (of course!)
-Looks (sure. It matters we all know that)
Disclaimer: I'm from EU so for me "all-rounder" means riding an average of a little bit harsher trails than is US, I believe.
I think I am going to have to do a riding tour of Europe to judge for myself.
Secondly, the second question totally misses the point. If strength and durability would not suffer of course you would like your bike to be lighter (unless you don't actually use your body strength to get it uphill). But something always suffers. It can be stiffness, strength or your wallet. Ideal bike weight is a compromise. If you take away the disadvantage there is nothing to compromise.
Ones built for speed need careful handling or you'll break something.
Ones built for comfort....go nuts! They suck that shit right up!
There is no advantage in heavier bikes. Some people argue that they feel more stable, for example, in rockgardens, but you can achieve the same stability effect on a light bike simply bike entering the rockgarden faster. Here's the physics: p=m*v , p is linear momentum, m is mass, v is velocity.
Plus, on a light bike, you can manual, bunny-hop, endo, turn and corner easier. All of those allow you to go faster and/or smoother, so I dont understand why anyone wouldn't want the lightest bike possible.
My enduro weighs 34lbs+, and while it works fine on gravity runs, it tends to kick my ass a bit climbing with it
Trek Session (26)- 17,2kg.
Giant Trance (27,5) - 13,3kg.
Cove Hummer Ti (26) - 10,8kg.
On One Inbred (rigid 29) - 10,7kg
Kona Four (FS 26) - 9,8kg
Scott CR1 (road) -6,9kg
Carbon fybre is pritty expensive, no?
Correct.
So take a typical carbon fybre handel bar and compare it to a typical aluminum handel bar.
You see?
Now, lets dig deeper.
Some people buy carbon seatposts. Why. Well, good question.
Now, lets dig deeper.
Many buy carbon because they feel they have too. Why. f*ck the industy. good point. a cheers.
Well, at the end of day, you do bit of this and bit that and you've got a bike that weighs a little bit more or maybe less than that one.
Who cares anywho. Not me.
so at the end of the day, ride what you got and just ride.
be seeing you, on the, trails.
And if you think your bike is too heavy your just weak.
My answer to both polls: I don't know.
It seemed ok, so why bother?
55+ pounds is the future!