Weight, modern MTB's compared ?

[silverclaws]

I am looking at modern bikes that are around here and noticing full suspension, aluminium, disc brakes and other technological weirdness, they look chunky and massive compared to my bike, so I was wondering at about what sort of weight are they, how do they compare to older bikes.

Weight, mine is about thirty pounds at the moment, in cart horse mode, the usual mode as I commute on it, but manufacturers spec. suggested about 28 lbs and my older bike, 26lbs.

With the advances over the last twenty years, are modern bikes that much lighter, better to ride ?

 

[the great roberto]

Another old chestnut.

With this being a retrobike bike a lot will tell you that the last 20 years has delivered little advances.
But fashions change.Even my daughters bike has a front sus fork and disk brakes, albeit cable ones. And that's what the public think they want.
And yes most hydraulic disk brakes do out perform V's or canti's even in the dry. A sus fork is better than a rigid. And all of this costs weight.
My mates m5 stumpy hardtail is 23lbs in weight and cost him £1500.On the face of it nothing fancy,but it uses all the lightest componants.
Anyone can turn a 23lb bike into a 27lb without realising.Tyres, tubs,bar,stem changes.Cassette, mechs.

To go go from 27lbs to 23lbs takes real effort, especially if you are starting with a 5lb frame.

I've riden some retro sub 24lb bikes and they always felt fragile. His stumpy feels solid and alive.But then it cost £1500

 

[Senri]

Well, beter is partly a matter of opinion, but they are certainly lighter. Even with all the extras as full suspension etc, they are often stiffer were they should be and a bit better fully will be below 22lbs.

My physics are still far from reaching the point of feeling the difference, I ride the local trail in the same time on a 23 lbs fully as on my old 33lbs stiff Puch!!

 

[kaiser]

Alot are lighter and stronger and alot are alot stronger and nearly as light. Some are quite heavy though but very strong, conversely some are very very light but not too strong. More extremes you see.

 

[marin man]

My full sus weighs less than 25lbs is a retro bike from 1997 and rides fast and feels solid,but my brothers modern full sus yeti weighs 34lbs and rides like a heavy old carthorse and handles like a dog

 

[dbmtb]

My full sus weighs less than 25lbs is a retro bike from 1997 and rides fast and feels solid,

:evil: But has KCNC brakes made of cheese and won't stop on anything other than a promenade or towpath....

Basically - my take is that MTBs are now much more function-specific where as bikes from the last century were more jack-of-all-trades.

A modern XC bike will be lighter, comfier and more efficient than an XC bike of similar price from 15 years ago.

A modern DH bike will take abuse that would have written a bike off 15 years ago - but not many riders are able to give their bikes such abuse, and live.

 

[marin man]

There is nothing wrong with my brakes,They actually work fine maybe what ever you tried were not set up right

 

[tintin40]

Modern bikes the frames are lighter and stronger.

My 93 Klein was an excellent x country bike and weighed 20lb

My Trimbles ride the same now as the one i had back in 93 just some of the parts are new.

Suser bikes i don't like so don't ride.
I ride vintage because its what i like the best. It's what i had when i was 20+ and their are no new Trimbles.
To me a mtb should look like a bike and not a moto x bike with out an engine.

I look at the mtbers now and just laugh at with their 6'' of travel, disc brakes etc that's not cycling off road. Feeling the different types of ground under your wheels. Learning to ride over rough ground and not ride over every thing because the 6'' of travel mean you can. Buy a moto x bike for that and you will have more than 6'' of travel.

I only cycle now because i can ride vintage mtbs thanks to this site and ebay. Other wise back to my other now redundant hobbies.

Oh and moderns all look the same to me.

 

[brocklanders023]

Most modern bikes that are not silly money seem heavier then retro ones from what I've seen.

I read an old MBUK full suss test the other day that discounted one bike as it was far too heavy at 29lbs. A three grand all round modern full suss can easily weigh that (+ more) and not be considered a lump. :?

 

[kaiser]

Most modern bikes that are not silly money seem heavier then retro ones from what I've seen.

I read an old MBUK full suss test the other day that discounted one bike as it was far too heavy at 29lbs. A three grand all round modern full suss can easily weigh that (+ more) and not be considered a lump. :?

yeah but.. if you expect the bike to go up as well as down 3K will get you a full susser that weighs as much as your (light) retro hardtail. Or 3K will get you a bike that will go down things you previously thought need crampons! Its about diversity, you can get whatever you want!