How heavy are modern bikes in comparison?

[Neil]

Ha! the thing that surprises me most about this thread is that even in '97 an MTB mag was £2.95

Would have been at least 2 quid in 87.

What the hell do they cost these days?

I find it difficult to muster the enthusiasm. I'm not entirely sure when it first seemed clearly apparent to me, but my interest in magazines (for several interests / hobbies) waned when interest in, or focus on, the subject became secondary to supporting the industry of obsolescence.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Currently weight alwasy has a trade off with strength.

I refer you to your earlier quote...

Kind of like that 'saying' - 'Pick 2; strength, cheap, light'

Lightweight kit doesn't have to be less strong, generally when its more expensive.

I think Cyfa made the point already.

No, they said weight always has a trade off with strength, forgetting the cost part of the equation, despite alluding to it earlier.

Cyfa said you can have light and cheap or strong and cheap.

That is 100% correct.

He did not say you cannot have expensive and light and strong.

He made the point there is always a trade off between strength and weight.

That is also 100% correct, regardless of the material we are talking about.

Your 18lb carbon composite road bike could be made stronger if you were happy to trade off another six pounds.

Your Ti frame could be made even more resilient given another 20% material in the right places.

Regardless of what price level we are talking about things get stronger the more of whatever material you add in the right way.

If we establish an 'ideal' strength for a component, and then have only the material and design to achieve that strength to pay for, then we are no longer dealing with the weight/strength trade off.

No more evident is this trade off than in the aeronautical industry.

Weight is king, and every consideration is related to it. Cost is secondary to a very large extent.

I guess we both read Cyfa's post in different ways, hope you see how I took it.

 

[Russell]

hope you see how I took it.

Why? When you clearly make no attempt to see how I took it?

 

[highlandsflyer]

Ha! the thing that surprises me most about this thread is that even in '97 an MTB mag was £2.95

Would have been at least 2 quid in 87.

What the hell do they cost these days?

I find it difficult to muster the enthusiasm. I'm not entirely sure when it first seemed clearly apparent to me, but my interest in magazines (for several interests / hobbies) waned when interest in, or focus on, the subject became secondary to supporting the industry of obsolescence.

Bang on.

I don't really have any mags post internet, usable internet.

However, they are a quick way to check up on ye olde days.

Weights are indeed mentioned, but many of the reviews and articles don't feature them.

There are no articles where it is mentioned that the testers conducted weight measurements of their own, rather than just quoting manufacturer's claims.

I am sure I saw those types of comparisons in road bike mags of the era, but it seems I recall correctly people were not as detailed in their desires back in the day, whenever that is.

The mantra was more like, "Never mind the weight, ******** uses it so I need to have one!"

The whole scene and tech moved so fast back in the day that magazines were never on the cutting edge, unless we are talking Horticulture Monthly.

 

[hydorah]

Ha! the thing that surprises me most about this thread is that even in '97 an MTB mag was £2.95

Would have been at least 2 quid in 87.

What the hell do they cost these days?

I find it difficult to muster the enthusiasm. I'm not entirely sure when it first seemed clearly apparent to me, but my interest in magazines (for several interests / hobbies) waned when interest in, or focus on, the subject became secondary to supporting the industry of obsolescence.

haha nicely put, next time I'm in Smiths I'll have to take a look

I never buy magazines for my hobbies, never really have done consistently

They always seemed a bit overpriced and under-informative especially with ad to article ratio...

Thank God/Al Gore for the Internet

 

[hydorah]

Bloody hell that's weird

I just googled and MBR is only £3.95 now

I expected it to be north of a fiver

Certainly not buying it though, it'll be 95% propaganda about that 'modern bike' rubbish

 

[highlandsflyer]

hope you see how I took it.

Why? When you clearly make no attempt to see how I took it?

You made it clear how you took it. Wrongly in my view.

 

[Russell]

Well, as long as we all understand your view, thats the important thing.

 

[Rampage]

I don't really have any mags post internet, usable internet.

However, they are a quick way to check up on ye olde days.

Weights are indeed mentioned, but many of the reviews and articles don't feature them.

There are no articles where it is mentioned that the testers conducted weight measurements of their own, rather than just quoting manufacturer's claims.

I am sure I saw those types of comparisons in road bike mags of the era, but it seems I recall correctly people were not as detailed in their desires back in the day, whenever that is.

The mantra was more like, "Never mind the weight, ******** uses it so I need to have one!"

The whole scene and tech moved so fast back in the day that magazines were never on the cutting edge, unless we are talking Horticulture Monthly.

Maybe I got the year wrong. But MBUK/MBi definitely weighed bikes and components on their own scales. That's was how things were done back then, BITD

 

[highlandsflyer]

Well, as long as we all understand your view, thats the important thing.

Seems to me Cyfa was correct, and you were not. Not a question of perspective, more a question of specifics.