How heavy are modern bikes in comparison?

J.T.

Dirt Disciple
Been out on my newly built RTS a couple times now, I knew it was lighter than my old '05 Ruckus that that seemed to be made of wrought iron. But I was suprised at just how light it is, especially for a full susser, at just 20lbs/9kg it's almost as light as my road bike.

My mates all ride modern Specialized, Giant, Cube, Scott... hardtails and full sussers and they're all miles heavier and cost more than what it cost to build mine. I read a couple bike reviews in magazines and the hardtails tested were all over 12kg and they cost more also.

JT
 
It could be argued that modern bikes have better (disc) brakes and longer travel suspension adding weight.

It could also be argued that they are also built to withstand tougher riding which adds weight

You can get sub 10kg modern FS bikes off the shelf, but they will cost several thousands of puonds

My modern FS weighs 25.4lb/11.5kg, my proper retro bike (KHS hardtail) weighs 24.6lb. My other modernised retro bikes weigh from 22lb to 27lb, all are hardtails though so no real comparison ;)
 
Same here. I just took delivery of my Bulls Copperhead 3. An 11.5kg (25.3lbs) hardtail for 1299 EUR (or £1143)

Before that I had a Cannondale F6. 13.5kg (29.7lbs), hardtail and it was 699 EUR (£615) when I bought it new in 2007. That frame was clearly built for all-out strength, as the frame alone was considerably heavier than my 2004 Bulls' frame.

Generally speaking, I'd say that frames have gotten heavier shortly after 2000. However they're actually becoming lighter again. Unfortunately that is being compensated by the bigger forks (not just in travel, but also in diameter).

My 2004 and 2011 Bulls bikes are roughly built to the same specifications (if you ignore the difference between V-brakes and discs) and are only 100g (3.5 oz) apart. however when I drive them I clearly feel that the 2011 one has a lot more weight up front than the 2004 bike.
Personally I kinda like that. More weight in the fork means higher wheelies and much better cornering.

Unfortunately I can't make a comparison with the retro bikes most forum members drive. My Scott Mohaka and Arapahoe were low-end and both absolute pigs to drive (like any Scott really), so I never cared about the specifics. My Cannondale Killer V500 also was complete rubbish and my old Sbike 503 ... well ... you can't compare a rigid masterpice with a common retrobike really. With an Sbike weight doesn't matter (and when it comes to handling neither do the laws of physics).
 
A trip to my LBS recently revealed bikes that looked like all they were missing was an engine, as they seemed massive compared to my little rigid bike, all suspension and chunky frames with disc brakes, Treks I think they were.

Yesterday I watched one of these types of bike scale one of our hills, the rider out of the saddle honking all the way as the bike bounced up and down with each half circle stab on the pedal, as that is what it looked like, the rider was using downward thrusts only to propel the thing. Well, he must have given up and was walking when I passed him riding the same hill spinning in low gear sitting in the saddle on a fifteen year old rigid bike.

I don't believe it is a fitness thing either, as I know I am not fit, and probably twice the other rider's age.
 
Yea, some of the bikes nowadays do look like motorcycles.

However I've driven both old and modern bikes, and really think that what you described was more due to a lack of driver skill (or setup skill) than bad design.
 
I remember ... Mountain Binking magazine (i think it was) back in late 92 or early 93, built up an RTS at 17 pounds, just to see if they could... I remember it was light, but it also bounced of every rock on the trail so they thought it was crap and negated the FS-ness of it...

I still wanted one though...
 
Back
Top