# The bike weight thread



## awf170 (Aug 28, 2008)

Just sort of curious of what everyone's bike weighs in at.

My bike (Iron Horse MKIII Comp) is 31.5 pounds.  It would probably be under 30 pounds with lighter tires (currently a 2.5 in the front and 2.35 in the back).  IMO, beefier tires are worth the weight though. 


You?


----------



## o3jeff (Aug 28, 2008)

My Rush 5 is 29 and the loaner they gave me, 09 Cannondale Rise 1 is low 20's


----------



## JD (Aug 28, 2008)

30ish.  I agree about fat rubber.


----------



## Greg (Aug 28, 2008)

Based on the uber-accurate digital bathroom scale method, my Trek Fuel EX 7 is a bit under 29 lbs. There's some mud on it now which is undoubtedly weighing it down. :razz:. The bike is stock.


----------



## bvibert (Aug 28, 2008)

I haven't got an effing clue, it's a lot light than my fat ass, I know that.


----------



## gorgonzola (Aug 28, 2008)

30 +/- i 'll weigh it this weekend


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 29, 2008)

Wow I didn't realize bikes weighed that much..my last bike was a neon orange marin back in college which I bought used for $150..no shocks but it was a mountain bike,,,


----------



## BigJay (Aug 29, 2008)

My bike is 28lbs. It's considered lightweight for an all-mountain 5,5in travel bike with 20mm thru-axle... A few weight weenies say that a few changes could bring it down to 27lbs... but do i really want all that carbon!

I run 2,25-2,35 UST tires on crossmax wheels and the weight difference between the stock FR wheel and regular tire is amazing... There is a 1,5kg difference (3lbs) in the wheels alone... Made the bike a whole lot faster... But JD doesn't need that... slowing him down is a good thing!


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 29, 2008)

Trek 4900 HT = 28.7 lbs
Trek Liquid25 FS = 38 lbs
Klein Attitude SS = 22lbs


----------



## Philpug (Aug 29, 2008)

Trekchick said:


> Trek 4900 HT = 28.7 lbs
> Trek Liquid25 FS = 38 lbs
> Klein Attitude SS = 22lbs


38? damn, you sure?


22, need to get that lighter,


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 29, 2008)

I thought the liquid was around 31, but chet put it on his scale and said it was 38.

I should check it again.

I have some stuff coming that will lighten the Attitude up a bit.  I'll let you know the results.


----------



## andyzee (Aug 29, 2008)

My Trek 5200 comes in at about 18 pounds.


----------



## MR. evil (Aug 29, 2008)

Trekchick said:


> I thought the liquid was around 31, but chet put it on his scale and said it was 38.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I really doubt it is 38lbs, your scale may be off a bit. My bike is now basically a heavy duty 6" AM / FR bike and it is only 34lbs. With some lighter wheels and tires I should be able to get it closer to 31lbs. But that will be as light as I can go with out effecting stregnth and performace. I could easily have under 30lbs if I swaped out my adjustable seat post for the stock one and replaced my DHX coil for an air shock. But there is no way either of those things are coming off my bike. The adjustable seat post makes riding the gnarly stuff so much more fun, and the DHX coil is so much better and reliable than any air shock.
> ...


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 29, 2008)

Trekchick said:


> Trek 4900 HT = 28.7 lbs
> Trek Liquid25 FS = 38 lbs
> Klein Attitude SS = 22lbs





I [Hart] Skiing said:


> 38? damn, you sure?
> 
> 
> 22, need to get that lighter,





Trekchick said:


> I thought the liquid was around 31, but chet put it on his scale and said it was 38.
> 
> I should check it again.
> 
> I have some stuff coming that will lighten the Attitude up a bit.  I'll let you know the results.



I weighed the Liquid on my scale.  Chets must be off, because I come in at 34 lbs on the liquid.
That had me curious about the Attitude since it was weighed on their scale.
The Klein is 21 lbs, after I put the computer and light kit on it.
I'll take the light off when I weigh in for the Official weight


----------



## BigJay (Aug 29, 2008)

Yeah, your liquid shoudl be lighter... I had an Intense M1 DH bike that weight 38.5lbs... and that's 4-5 years ago! It had full XTR, Dorado and UST tires... Sweeeeeet stuff.... I dream of owning such a nice bike again... but then again, i had only one or 2 bikes back then... now i got 5... but all togheter not worth much more then the M1! lol!


----------



## awf170 (Aug 29, 2008)

MR. evil said:


> Trekchick said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the liquid was around 31, but chet put it on his scale and said it was 38.
> ...


----------



## Greg (Aug 29, 2008)

I don't have a whole lot to compare it to, but my bike seems pretty well balanced. I can get it to really accelerate if I want it to, but it isn't skittish, nor does it want to pull up much on climbs. It's a pretty secure and stable ride which is great for me given I'm new to this.

However, I rode Jeff's low 20's loaner and that thing is amazing at acceleration. You can drop it into a higher gear than normal and it just flies. I only rode it for about 60 seconds though on some flat and non technical terrain. I don't know how it rides on some of the sketchy stuff or when climbing.


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 29, 2008)

As a quiver pick:
SS for tight twisties and rippin
FS for down hills and rugged trail where wash outs and roots are prominent.
HT for those in between times when you're not sure what the day is going to offer.


----------



## Greg (Aug 29, 2008)

Trekchick said:


> As a quiver pick:
> SS for tight twisties and rippin
> FS for down hills and rugged trail where wash outs and roots are prominent.
> HT for those in between times when you're not sure what the day is going to offer.



You haven't ridden out here, have you? Our rides are usually a mix, and my bike seems to do it all pretty well.


----------



## awf170 (Aug 29, 2008)

Trekchick said:


> As a quiver pick:
> SS for tight twisties and rippin
> FS for down hills and rugged trail where wash outs and roots are prominent.
> HT for those in between times when you're not sure what the day is going to offer.




Maybe I'm just not a good gear whore... but I would rather combine the cost of those 3 bikes and have one 32ish pound FS bike with 6 inches of travel.  But then again I don't ever ride stuff that isn't technical so I can't really compare.


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 29, 2008)

Greg said:


> You haven't ridden out here, have you? Our rides are usually a mix, and my bike seems to do it all pretty well.


No, I haven't ridden out there, and I understand what you're talking about.
When we ride pathways, I can have fun on any one of my bikes, but, some parts could be better on the FS and some on the SS, yet they all do it pretty well.  Ya know?


----------



## Greg (Aug 29, 2008)

Trekchick said:


> No, I haven't ridden out there, and I understand what you're talking about.
> When we ride pathways, I can have fun on any one of my bikes, but, some parts could be better on the FS and some on the SS, yet they all do it pretty well.  Ya know?



I hear ya. Kinda like a specialty ski like a bump ski, right? Still, I'm kinda a one ski/now bike quiver guy. It took me 14 years of skiing before I decided to buy a specialty ski. Also remember, I'm a pathetic MTB newb (I don't really count my short stint in the mid 90's anymore). I'm still building the skill set and probably couldn't fully appreciate a diverse bike quiver yet. Plus you just want to validate your gear whoring tendencies....


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 29, 2008)

Greg said:


> Plus you just want to validate your gear whoring tendencies....


Dang!  You figured me out!!


----------



## o3jeff (Aug 30, 2008)

Greg said:


> However, I rode Jeff's low 20's loaner and that thing is amazing at acceleration. You can drop it into a higher gear than normal and it just flies. I only rode it for about 60 seconds though on some flat and non technical terrain. I don't know how it rides on some of the sketchy stuff or when climbing.



Now that we figured out the suspension it climbs pretty good, only thing is the front of the bike likes to come up if you aren't leaning a bit forward. Only other thing I noticed on it is on a fast downhill that has some small rocks/bumps is that the rear likes to flex, almost gives you the feeling the rear tire is loose.


----------



## MR. evil (Aug 30, 2008)

awf170 said:


> MR. evil said:
> 
> 
> > 6 inches of travel now?  I thought that frame was only built for 5 inches?
> ...


----------



## MR. evil (Aug 30, 2008)

o3jeff said:


> Now that we figured out the suspension it climbs pretty good, only thing is the front of the bike likes to come up if you aren't leaning a bit forward. Only other thing I noticed on it is on a fast downhill that has some small rocks/bumps is that the rear likes to flex, almost gives you the feeling the rear tire is loose.



That bike just feels too light to take any real abuse IMO. When I took it for a spin last weekend I could feel the rear swing arm flexing while hitting some rocks on the side of the road, and the front end felt really twitchy to me. I don't care what your LBS told you, there is no way a bike with that much carbon can take 8' drops.


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 30, 2008)

MR. evil said:


> That bike just feels too light to take any real abuse IMO. When I took it for a spin last weekend I could feel the rear swing arm flexing while hitting some rocks on the side of the road, and the front end felt really twitchy to me. I don't care what your LBS told you, there is no way a bike with that much carbon can take 8' drops.


That would be fine for me because I don't plan on taking any 8' Drops


----------



## marcski (Aug 30, 2008)

Not quite sure the exact weights.  I'm riding a Kona Dawg Dee-Lux FS with 5" front and back.  I have some beefier sun rims, because I was blowing spokes like a kid blows bubbles with his gum.  I also ride Kenda Nevegal 2.35"s and LOVE them.  They are great on the slick rock, which we have a lot of down here in Westchester County.  Gregg, I feel that this bike is very well-balanced and can do a lot of things very well.  It climbs great and has enough travel for the techy downhills. 

My road ride is a Giant TCR which probably comes in at 19 and change right now.    I am planning on upgrading my wheels which should shed at least a pound.  I love this bike.  I feel that by far its the best bike out there for the money!


----------



## Philpug (Aug 30, 2008)

I am running the 2.35 Kenda's too. Nice rubber.


----------



## eatskisleep (Sep 1, 2008)

I think my hardtail is around 45lbs or so.


----------



## MR. evil (Sep 1, 2008)

eatskisleep said:


> I think my hardtail is around 45lbs or so.



:-o


----------



## SundayRiver Yeti (Sep 2, 2008)

My Yeti AS-X is 42lbs, and my Tomac 204 Magnum is 48.5lbs.


----------



## Gremf (Sep 7, 2008)

awf170 said:


> My bike (Iron Horse MKIII Comp) is 31.5 pounds.



When did you get your MKIII?  I got mine last year and love it!

My 'Horse weighs in around 30 lbs give or take.  I am running 2.35 Maxxis upfront and a 2.1 in the back.  I heard there were some issues with running 2.35s in the rear - any troubles?

My 29er, Qball, is around 30 lbs, too.

My 69er, Fetish Fixation, which I ride rigid and off road fixie, is 25 or 26 lbs.


----------



## awf170 (Sep 7, 2008)

Gremf said:


> When did you get your MKIII?  I got mine last year and love it!
> 
> My 'Horse weighs in around 30 lbs give or take.  I am running 2.35 Maxxis upfront and a 2.1 in the back.  I heard there were some issues with running 2.35s in the rear - any troubles?




I got mine about a month and a half ago.  I really like it, but don't really have much to compare it to since I just started riding this season.  Though I'll probably be upgrading to a beefier bike sometime next season because I'm not sure how much more of the beating a light AM bike like this can take.  Right now I'm actually running the rear shock at about 10% sag (verses the recommended 30%) since I constantly bottomed it out at anything higher.

The 2.35 high roller (the tire you probably have in the front) fits just fine in the back.  The 2.5 in the front is a wicked tight fit though.  If I corner really hard I can sometimes hear it rub against the fork.  If I actually trued my rim, I wouldn't be having this problem...


----------



## Gremf (Sep 7, 2008)

awf170 said:


> I got mine about a month and a half ago.  I really like it, but don't really have much to compare it to since I just started riding this season.  Though I'll probably be upgrading to a beefier bike sometime next season because I'm not sure how much more of the beating a light AM bike like this can take.  Right now I'm actually running the rear shock at about 10% sag (verses the recommended 30%) since I constantly bottomed it out at anything higher.



Yeah, it's not really an AM bike, more like a cross between AM and XC, what they are calling a Trail Bike.  I love mine because it allows me to do everything that I feel comfortable doing, and then some, while still light enough to climb like a goat.  My first AM was such a pig that I actually went SS and Rigid for about a year before coming back to FS.  Now, I ride the FS bike more than all my other bikes.


----------



## MR. evil (Sep 7, 2008)

awf170 said:


> I got mine about a month and a half ago.  I really like it, but don't really have much to compare it to since I just started riding this season.  Though I'll probably be upgrading to a beefier bike sometime next season because I'm not sure how much more of the beating a light AM bike like this can take.  Right now I'm actually running the rear shock at about 10% sag (verses the recommended 30%) since I constantly bottomed it out at anything higher.
> 
> ...



Austin,
That frame should be able to handle a good amount of abuse. Iron Hourse frames are really well built. You could make that bike more AM / FR worthy by upgrading to a new fork with a 20mm thru axle and ditch that air shock for a coil shock. I highly recomend a Fox DHX coil. 

Do you know what size you rear shock is? I am pretty sure the smallest a DXH (and most coils) comes in is 7.5 x 2.0


----------



## awf170 (Sep 7, 2008)

MR. evil said:


> Austin,
> That frame should be able to handle a good amount of abuse. Iron Hourse frames are really well built. You could make that bike more AM / FR worthy by upgrading to a new fork with a 20mm thru axle and ditch that air shock for a coil shock. I highly recomend a Fox DHX coil.
> 
> Do you know what size you rear shock is? I am pretty sure the smallest a DXH (and most coils) comes in is 7.5 x 2.0



Yeah, I was actually thinking the first thing I would do on this bike in get a new front shock if I didn't end up getting a whole new bike.  I was thinking about getting a 160mm shock with 115mm option for climbs.  160mm will make the bike wicked slacker, but that's  definitely not a bad thing in Lynn Woods.  I just hope that it will still climb decently when I'm at 160mm of travel since lots of the hills here are so short that stopping to lock the fork down would be a huge waste of time.  


And my rear shock is 7.5 x 2.0.  What exactly do those numbers mean?  Is there anyway I could fit something bigger in?


----------



## MR. evil (Sep 7, 2008)

awf170 said:


> Yeah, I was actually thinking the first thing I would do on this bike in get a new front shock if I didn't end up getting a whole new bike.  I was thinking about getting a 160mm shock with 115mm option for climbs.  160mm will make the bike wicked slacker, but that's  definitely not a bad thing in Lynn Woods.  I just hope that it will still climb decently when I'm at 160mm of travel since lots of the hills here are so short that stopping to lock the fork down would be a huge waste of time.
> 
> 
> And my rear shock is 7.5 x 2.0.  What exactly do those numbers mean?  Is there anyway I could fit something bigger in?



I wouldn't recomend getting a 160mm fork. I don't think you frame could handle it. Come on, aren't you an engineering student? Bike frames are designed to for handle a range of forks. I would guess that your could handle up to a 145mm. Anything over that and it would void your frame warrenty.


----------



## eatskisleep (Sep 7, 2008)

Better email Ironhorse to find out exactly what size fork would be covered under the warranty. 

As for the rear shock, it is 7.5 inches eye to eye (total lenght) and it has a 2 inch stroke. So if it has say 5 inches of travel, it would average going through one inch of its stroke for every 2.5 inches of travel. 2.5:1... So, this is called the leverage ratio. Although most leverage ratios are not constant and they actually vary through the course of travel, such as the Santa Cruz VP Free. Higher ratios will put more stress on the rear shock. As a basis for comparision, most downhill bikes have a 3:1 leverage ratio.


----------



## gorgonzola (Sep 10, 2008)

jamis xam1 weighs in at 32.5 on the digi bathroom scale - if i was a weight weenie i'd be more concerned with the extra lbs around my middle more than the bikes...


----------



## bvibert (Sep 11, 2008)

gorgonzola said:


> if i was a weight weenie i'd be more concerned with the extra lbs around my middle more than the bikes...



That's what I always tell people too..


----------



## skiboarder (Sep 11, 2008)

Mojo Ibis is 26 lbs.
Klein quantum is 20lbs.


----------



## awf170 (Sep 14, 2008)

MR. evil said:


> I wouldn't recomend getting a 160mm fork. I don't think you frame could handle it. Come on, aren't you an engineering student? Bike frames are designed to for handle a range of forks. I would guess that your could handle up to a 145mm. Anything over that and it would void your frame warrenty.




I still have hope for the the 160mm fork.  The 07' model actually came with a 140mm fork and it was the same exact fame.  So basically the frame was designed for a 140mm fork, but then they downgraded to a 130mm fork to get the bike under 30 pounds and to make it more XC worthy.  Also, there are a few people on MTBR with a 160mm fork on it and have no problems.

How much more stress could it actually put on the frame?  It will give the front wheel slightly more leverage (around 1.5 inches more) and slacken the headtube around 1.5 degrees.  I really don't think that could add more than 5% extra stress on the frame.  I mean I could try to do all the math out but I don't think I'm quite that nerdy, at least I hope not.

Also, I can't add a slightly bigger shock to the rear like you did, right?


----------



## MR. evil (Sep 14, 2008)

awf170 said:


> I still have hope for the the 160mm fork.  The 07' model actually came with a 140mm fork and it was the same exact fame.  So basically the frame was designed for a 140mm fork, but then they downgraded to a 130mm fork to get the bike under 30 pounds and to make it more XC worthy.  Also, there are a few people on MTBR with a 160mm fork on it and have no problems.
> 
> How much more stress could it actually put on the frame?  It will give the front wheel slightly more leverage (around 1.5 inches more) and slacken the headtube around 1.5 degrees.  I really don't think that could add more than 5% extra stress on the frame.  I mean I could try to do all the math out but I don't think I'm quite that nerdy, at least I hope not.
> 
> Also, I can't add a slightly bigger shock to the rear like you did, right?



I would be more worried about the stresses at the welds at the head tube. A drastic change like that to the frame geo could easily cuase those welds to fail. If you weren't riding a place like Lynn Woods several times a week I would think a 160mm fork wouldn't be a problem. But with all the drops you are doing there a 160mm fork could really wreck you frame. You also need to remember that you are already using your bike as a light free ride bike when it was really designed to be an XC trail bike. Doing 4 to 5 foot drops with that bike in itself might void the frame warrenty.


----------



## awf170 (Sep 14, 2008)

MR. evil said:


> I would be more worried about the stresses at the welds at the head tube. A drastic change like that to the frame geo could easily cuase those welds to fail. If you weren't riding a place like Lynn Woods several times a week I would think a 160mm fork wouldn't be a problem. But with all the drops you are doing there a 160mm fork could really wreck you frame. You also need to remember that you are already using your bike as a light free ride bike when it was really designed to be an XC trail bike. Doing 4 to 5 foot drops with that bike in itself might void the frame warrenty.



So that answers my question of what I'm going to do.

Beat the shit of this bike until the end of next summer or until something major fails.  Work an internship during the summer where I will hopefully be making $15ish an hour, and buy a beefy AM/ light freeride bike that weighs around 34-38 pounds that will still climb pretty well.


Also, I'm pretty sure the rollers in Lynn woods are doing more damage then the drops.  As long as I land 4-5 footers reasonably well I'm only blowing through about 70-80% of the shock.  Doing steep rollers with speed I'm constantly blowing through 90% of my travel and occasionally if I'm not getting back far enough I'm bottoming out my front shock.  Even trying to get up steep rollers and drops I'm going through about the same amount of travel as I am doing drops.


----------



## millerm277 (Sep 14, 2008)

2005 Cannondale F300 - Around 30lbs. Heaviest I've had it was close to 65 for a long trip.


----------



## rueler (Sep 20, 2008)

I've got two set-ups. My '04 Specialized Stumpjumper weighs in at 26 pounds due to some part swapping tinkering. My '07 Cannondale Prophet is right around 30 pounds. It recently got lighter when I swapped out the original rims for my Mavic Crossmax ST wheelset. It makes a huge difference.  A little extra weight isn't a big deal if you pedal enough during the ride season.


----------

