Thoughts On Weight From A Fever Addled Brain

Weight- It's a big deal, a hotly contested subject, and gets folks all in a dither. I've read many opinions on weight, from a total dismissal of the subject to folks who are so into getting the lightest bike they will sweat the finest details to achieve their goals. I've seen folks spend exorbitant amounts of money to prove a point, then sell the bike almost immediately afterward.

My take is that the truth is somewhere in the midst of all that debate. Having the lightest bike is not good, and neither is having a really heavy bike that is hindering your enjoyment of the ride. Like anything requiring balance in life, it is not easy to find the place where weight, (or lack thereof), is at a place which neither hinders you nor causes concern for parts breaking, loss of handling performance, or a credit card drained to the limit.

One of the best examples of this was back in 2008 when I was doing a lot of riding on my OS Bikes Blackbuck. Now the Blackbuck isn't the lightest steel frame on the planet, but it isn't a porker either. Pretty good, I'd say. Right in the ball park for a eccentric bottom bracket equipped 29"er.

I used that basic platform for testing all sorts of rigid and suspension forks on one bike. So- the wheels, components, and set up had to remain the same, (or as nearly the same as possible), for the duration of the test. The wheels I used were the stock set off a Raleigh XXIX+G and were not light. Nope. They were in excess of 2000 grams for the set, as I recall, but those Joy Tech hubs just rolled super smoothly. Plus, the WTB rims were stout and stayed stable all throughout that year.

The following year I was finished with the fork testing, so I removed those "old, heavy wheels", and put on some different, high dollar, lighter wheels. You know what? I didn't go any faster, nor did I like them better than those cheesy Raleigh wheels. But I do remember liking the feel of that bike very much back then. No matter that it weighed more than many other "blingy" single speeds out there.

So what was the deal? I think it had a lot to do with every component I set the bike up with for that year after the fork test. They all worked in concert and put me in a position to really get the most out of the Blackbuck. You know, I should build it back as close I can the way it was then! But the point is, I didn't need lighter weight. At least I don't think so.

But then again, I've had a low grade fever and wicked head cold the past few days, so I might be crazier than usual!

Thoughts On Weight From A Fever Addled Brain

Weight- It's a big deal, a hotly contested subject, and gets folks all in a dither. I've read many opinions on weight, from a total dismissal of the subject to folks who are so into getting the lightest bike they will sweat the finest details to achieve their goals. I've seen folks spend exorbitant amounts of money to prove a point, then sell the bike almost immediately afterward.

My take is that the truth is somewhere in the midst of all that debate. Having the lightest bike is not good, and neither is having a really heavy bike that is hindering your enjoyment of the ride. Like anything requiring balance in life, it is not easy to find the place where weight, (or lack thereof), is at a place which neither hinders you nor causes concern for parts breaking, loss of handling performance, or a credit card drained to the limit.

One of the best examples of this was back in 2008 when I was doing a lot of riding on my OS Bikes Blackbuck. Now the Blackbuck isn't the lightest steel frame on the planet, but it isn't a porker either. Pretty good, I'd say. Right in the ball park for a eccentric bottom bracket equipped 29"er.

I used that basic platform for testing all sorts of rigid and suspension forks on one bike. So- the wheels, components, and set up had to remain the same, (or as nearly the same as possible), for the duration of the test. The wheels I used were the stock set off a Raleigh XXIX+G and were not light. Nope. They were in excess of 2000 grams for the set, as I recall, but those Joy Tech hubs just rolled super smoothly. Plus, the WTB rims were stout and stayed stable all throughout that year.

The following year I was finished with the fork testing, so I removed those "old, heavy wheels", and put on some different, high dollar, lighter wheels. You know what? I didn't go any faster, nor did I like them better than those cheesy Raleigh wheels. But I do remember liking the feel of that bike very much back then. No matter that it weighed more than many other "blingy" single speeds out there.

So what was the deal? I think it had a lot to do with every component I set the bike up with for that year after the fork test. They all worked in concert and put me in a position to really get the most out of the Blackbuck. You know, I should build it back as close I can the way it was then! But the point is, I didn't need lighter weight. At least I don't think so.

But then again, I've had a low grade fever and wicked head cold the past few days, so I might be crazier than usual!

On A Few Things....

I have a few things to comment on today that are not really full post, feature length rants, so I am giving you three short ones today......

29"er Weight-Weenies: When I was up at Frostbike interviewing Jeff Frane of All City, I made a comment about how 29"er freaks were too weight conscious. That the way some of the aficionados of 29 inch wheels talked, the road wheels some roadies lust after would be considered "too heavy" for use on their mountain bikes. I said that this apparent neglect of reality was "stupid" on the part of these 29"er folks.

This woke up Hurl Everstone's ears, and he was obviously quite surprised to hear someone like me say this. He even asked if he could quote me on it, as if someday he'd need to call me on that. Well, I said "go ahead", because it really is pretty stupid when you face facts.

Check out this link to a set of lust-worthy Zipp 404's. Yeah, all carbon-fibery-slickery-fast, and you would think- pretty light, right? Well, try 1658 grams on for size. Oh.....and we haven't added quick releases to that weight. Want a Power Tap? Make that 1893gms then. Okay, let's say that any company you want to name came out with a XC racing wheel set for 29"ers that weighed 1660 grams. What do you think they would say about those? And keep in mind, the cost of a grand plus some change for the set. Well, I'll tell you that the "masses of 29"er freaks would be crying foul till the cows came home.

Something is just wonky about that.

And I haven't even gotten into rider weight limits, how the wheels may not be "every day trail wheels", and tubelessness. And it isn't just wheels either. This goes for tires, forks, and frames as well. Sometimes I think the term "reality check" should be part of the lexicon of 29"er riders out there. Just sayin'.......

What It Is, And What It Ain't: It seems that a couple of the editors at Bike Radar are trying to convince the unsuspecting public that 29" wheeled drop bar mountain bikes are really "monster-cross" bikes.They got their wires all crossed up over there!

<===This? Monster-cross......

By their definition, anything with wide, high volume tires and drop bars is a "monster-cross" bike. Well, if you read the article and the ensuing commentary, you'd think that all monster-cross bikes had 29"er wheels. Well, they don't, and I'm not sure that what they are talking about over there isn't really just a "mountain bike" with drop bars. That's what it would have been called 25 years ago, just a drop barred mountain bike, ya know?

<===This one? Drop Barred Mountain Bike.....see the difference? 

We went over this a couple years ago now on Twenty Nine Inches in a piece I wrote about monster-cross bikes where a fellow that is pretty steeped in drop bar mountain bike history, and an industry veteran, made this very wise statement:

“When I think monstercross, I think of a bike with clearance for 700×45C tires, drop bars, and cyclocross geometry. Change one of the first two items and it becomes something else. Change the tires to 2.1 and it’s just a mountain bike with drop bars. Change the bars to flat and it’s a hybrid"

That makes a whole lot of sense to my mind, and keeps the "monster-cross" tag in a place where it makes the most sense. That being the middle ground between true, straight-up cyclo-cross rigs, and 29"ers. Or, as Wes Williams would say, "28"ers". Not this non-sense Bike Radar is trying to fill our minds with, that's for sure.  Let's quit trying to "re-invent" the wheel, as it were, okay guys? 

The Snow Dog Update:  I know some of you out there are wondering why I haven't been posting about rides on my Salsa Cycles Mukluk. Well, as some of you might remember, I had a Phil Wood rear hub on that bike that failed....twice, in less than a month. It was serviced by Phil Wood the first time it went back, and 12 days ago I sent it back in again.

Well, needless to say, I am extremely disappointed in that fact, and as of this point, I have no idea when or how this situation will be resolved. There are some things I would like to describe about this story for you all, but to be fair, I am going to wait this out until it gets resolved and then the whole story can be told.

So, for now, the whole bike is basically useless until I can move off this impasse I am sitting in the middle of at the moment. More when I have something I can share......

On A Few Things....

I have a few things to comment on today that are not really full post, feature length rants, so I am giving you three short ones today......

29"er Weight-Weenies: When I was up at Frostbike interviewing Jeff Frane of All City, I made a comment about how 29"er freaks were too weight conscious. That the way some of the aficionados of 29 inch wheels talked, the road wheels some roadies lust after would be considered "too heavy" for use on their mountain bikes. I said that this apparent neglect of reality was "stupid" on the part of these 29"er folks.

This woke up Hurl Everstone's ears, and he was obviously quite surprised to hear someone like me say this. He even asked if he could quote me on it, as if someday he'd need to call me on that. Well, I said "go ahead", because it really is pretty stupid when you face facts.

Check out this link to a set of lust-worthy Zipp 404's. Yeah, all carbon-fibery-slickery-fast, and you would think- pretty light, right? Well, try 1658 grams on for size. Oh.....and we haven't added quick releases to that weight. Want a Power Tap? Make that 1893gms then. Okay, let's say that any company you want to name came out with a XC racing wheel set for 29"ers that weighed 1660 grams. What do you think they would say about those? And keep in mind, the cost of a grand plus some change for the set. Well, I'll tell you that the "masses of 29"er freaks would be crying foul till the cows came home.

Something is just wonky about that.

And I haven't even gotten into rider weight limits, how the wheels may not be "every day trail wheels", and tubelessness. And it isn't just wheels either. This goes for tires, forks, and frames as well. Sometimes I think the term "reality check" should be part of the lexicon of 29"er riders out there. Just sayin'.......

What It Is, And What It Ain't: It seems that a couple of the editors at Bike Radar are trying to convince the unsuspecting public that 29" wheeled drop bar mountain bikes are really "monster-cross" bikes.They got their wires all crossed up over there!

<===This? Monster-cross......

By their definition, anything with wide, high volume tires and drop bars is a "monster-cross" bike. Well, if you read the article and the ensuing commentary, you'd think that all monster-cross bikes had 29"er wheels. Well, they don't, and I'm not sure that what they are talking about over there isn't really just a "mountain bike" with drop bars. That's what it would have been called 25 years ago, just a drop barred mountain bike, ya know?

<===This one? Drop Barred Mountain Bike.....see the difference? 

We went over this a couple years ago now on Twenty Nine Inches in a piece I wrote about monster-cross bikes where a fellow that is pretty steeped in drop bar mountain bike history, and an industry veteran, made this very wise statement:

“When I think monstercross, I think of a bike with clearance for 700×45C tires, drop bars, and cyclocross geometry. Change one of the first two items and it becomes something else. Change the tires to 2.1 and it’s just a mountain bike with drop bars. Change the bars to flat and it’s a hybrid"

That makes a whole lot of sense to my mind, and keeps the "monster-cross" tag in a place where it makes the most sense. That being the middle ground between true, straight-up cyclo-cross rigs, and 29"ers. Or, as Wes Williams would say, "28"ers". Not this non-sense Bike Radar is trying to fill our minds with, that's for sure.  Let's quit trying to "re-invent" the wheel, as it were, okay guys? 

The Snow Dog Update:  I know some of you out there are wondering why I haven't been posting about rides on my Salsa Cycles Mukluk. Well, as some of you might remember, I had a Phil Wood rear hub on that bike that failed....twice, in less than a month. It was serviced by Phil Wood the first time it went back, and 12 days ago I sent it back in again.

Well, needless to say, I am extremely disappointed in that fact, and as of this point, I have no idea when or how this situation will be resolved. There are some things I would like to describe about this story for you all, but to be fair, I am going to wait this out until it gets resolved and then the whole story can be told.

So, for now, the whole bike is basically useless until I can move off this impasse I am sitting in the middle of at the moment. More when I have something I can share......