Carbon mountain bikes, weight
Discussion
I've recently been looking at new trail mountain bikes to replace an aging Whyte T130. Looking specifically at carbon frames but the majority seem heavier than the aluminium bike I already own. Looked at a canyon spectral which is about 15.5kgs from the website where as mine is less than 15. Are there any decent carbon framed bikes that don't break the bank and come in lighter? Budget around £3500.
Or,am I overthinking it? Would a carbon 29er feel quicker and more agile than my current 27.5 bike?
Or,am I overthinking it? Would a carbon 29er feel quicker and more agile than my current 27.5 bike?
29ers don't feel lighter or more agile imo - they are faster once rolling (but not as quick to get to speed) and roll over stuff a bit better - "flattening the trail" more.
27.5 feels more fun to me but I haven't tested exact bike back to back with different sizes.
If you want lightweight and agile XC bike is where it's at or "downcountry" if you want a bit more capability.
27.5 feels more fun to me but I haven't tested exact bike back to back with different sizes.
If you want lightweight and agile XC bike is where it's at or "downcountry" if you want a bit more capability.
I was looking at this - carbon v alu enduro (or even trail) - to build longevity into the carbon frame the manufacturers overbuild them. So why even look at carbon then?
We are told its because carbon is stiff (so is aluminium) and its fancy - it's carbon so its premium.
A massive triumph of marketing/perception.
My mtb is aluminium. I know if I dent it it won't write it off and I KNOW I'll drop it/come off at somepoint.
We are told its because carbon is stiff (so is aluminium) and its fancy - it's carbon so its premium.
A massive triumph of marketing/perception.
My mtb is aluminium. I know if I dent it it won't write it off and I KNOW I'll drop it/come off at somepoint.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
I was looking at this - carbon v alu enduro (or even trail) - to build longevity into the carbon frame the manufacturers overbuild them. So why even look at carbon then?
We are told its because carbon is stiff (so is aluminium) and its fancy - it's carbon so its premium.
A massive triumph of marketing/perception.
My mtb is aluminium. I know if I dent it it won't write it off and I KNOW I'll drop it/come off at somepoint.
If you dent an aluminium frame, it is written off. Especially a lightweight frame. The crash that dents your aluminium frame will leave a scratch on a carbon frame. If you forget to helicopter tape where your brake hoses touch the aluminium frame you can write it off just with the hose fretting against the frame. We are told its because carbon is stiff (so is aluminium) and its fancy - it's carbon so its premium.
A massive triumph of marketing/perception.
My mtb is aluminium. I know if I dent it it won't write it off and I KNOW I'll drop it/come off at somepoint.
Carbon frames are either made to be light, then they're lighter than your aluminium frame, or they're made to be strong and stiff for smashing down stuff, the smashing down stuff ones are more popular, so when you look at what's for sale it looks like there's no weight saving. But what they're selling at the same weight is stronger, stiffer and more crash resistance than the aluminium equivalent.
OP, the industry moved on from being weight obsessed as the weight of riders increased as it became more middle-aged. You can still get super light stuff, but most people are happy to have a bit more weight for more versatility and more smashing through stuff ability. The other thing you're likely seeing is that prices have gone so utterly mental in the last few years that your £3.5k budget doesn't but anything like as much as you are expecting, there'll be a bit of extra weight in the bike specs too I reckon.
Don't get too hung up on the weight of the bike as a whole, I've found that largely meaningless when it comes to mountain bikes, especially full sus's.
Unsprung mass is what you need to keep light, the rest of the bike is a pay off between dragging it up the hill vs stability going down. I prefer a planted bike on the downhills so i'm willing to drag a heavier bike up to have fun going down.
I'm currently trying to transform my Cotic RocketMax into an absolute all-round beast of a bike by running as light a wheel-set and tyre combo as I dare to keep unsprung weight as low as poss whilst the rest of the bike is still a steel fully with a coil shock. My logic is that a chubby bike with a light AF wheelset will be a riot on the downhills as well as being agile AF elsewhere and getting to the top is just a case of getting fitter...
Unsprung mass is what you need to keep light, the rest of the bike is a pay off between dragging it up the hill vs stability going down. I prefer a planted bike on the downhills so i'm willing to drag a heavier bike up to have fun going down.
I'm currently trying to transform my Cotic RocketMax into an absolute all-round beast of a bike by running as light a wheel-set and tyre combo as I dare to keep unsprung weight as low as poss whilst the rest of the bike is still a steel fully with a coil shock. My logic is that a chubby bike with a light AF wheelset will be a riot on the downhills as well as being agile AF elsewhere and getting to the top is just a case of getting fitter...
Edited by bobbo89 on Thursday 7th March 19:54
paulrockliffe said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
I was looking at this - carbon v alu enduro (or even trail) - to build longevity into the carbon frame the manufacturers overbuild them. So why even look at carbon then?
We are told its because carbon is stiff (so is aluminium) and its fancy - it's carbon so its premium.
A massive triumph of marketing/perception.
My mtb is aluminium. I know if I dent it it won't write it off and I KNOW I'll drop it/come off at somepoint.
If you dent an aluminium frame, it is written off. Especially a lightweight frame. The crash that dents your aluminium frame will leave a scratch on a carbon frame. If you forget to helicopter tape where your brake hoses touch the aluminium frame you can write it off just with the hose fretting against the frame. We are told its because carbon is stiff (so is aluminium) and its fancy - it's carbon so its premium.
A massive triumph of marketing/perception.
My mtb is aluminium. I know if I dent it it won't write it off and I KNOW I'll drop it/come off at somepoint.
Carbon frames are either made to be light, then they're lighter than your aluminium frame, or they're made to be strong and stiff for smashing down stuff, the smashing down stuff ones are more popular, so when you look at what's for sale it looks like there's no weight saving. But what they're selling at the same weight is stronger, stiffer and more crash resistance than the aluminium equivalent.
OP, the industry moved on from being weight obsessed as the weight of riders increased as it became more middle-aged. You can still get super light stuff, but most people are happy to have a bit more weight for more versatility and more smashing through stuff ability. The other thing you're likely seeing is that prices have gone so utterly mental in the last few years that your £3.5k budget doesn't but anything like as much as you are expecting, there'll be a bit of extra weight in the bike specs too I reckon.
A dent ontop or underneath a alu or steel frame = high risk. A scar or scratch on the sides = nothing. Loading on frames is upwards/downwards.
I've had a carbon enduro hardtail frame probably a decade back and I'd have ridden it anyway but if I'd have come off? No.
When a carbon mtb bike weighs the same as the exact same alu version then I can't see why people pay more.
All in my opinion of course
MTBs definitely seem to have got heavier in general, I guess with steeper rougher riding and bigger features becoming more common (with the popularity of bikeparks etc), and how widely bad experiences are spread across the internet, they have to build bikes burlier to handle it without breaking.
Using my own bikes as an example:
I had a 2018 alloy Giant Trance 29 1, from memory it was around 12.5-12.8kg.
My current 2020 model carbon Giant Reign 29 1 is 14.2kg.
(both weights including pedals, bottle cage, tyre sealant etc)
Most of the difference is explained by the Trance being 130f/115r travel with Fox 34 and DPS, the Reign being 160f/146r with Fox 36 & X2 - much beefier suspension and frame built accordingly.
A new Trance 29 is around 13.5kg for carbon or 15kg for alloy, significantly heavier than the 2018 model but also by all accounts stiffer and stronger.
A new Reign is around 15kg for carbon, not sure about the alloy version. But burlier again with 170/160 travel.
Funny enough my alloy trail hardtail weighs the same 14.2kg as my Reign, but it was less than a third of the cost. The advantage of no rear suspension!
I'm yet to see any bike where the carbon and aluminium versions weigh the same in equivalent spec, but the difference isn't always as much as you might think.
I'd say bike weight is much less critical to most recreational MTBing than XC racer or roadie types think anyway!
Using my own bikes as an example:
I had a 2018 alloy Giant Trance 29 1, from memory it was around 12.5-12.8kg.
My current 2020 model carbon Giant Reign 29 1 is 14.2kg.
(both weights including pedals, bottle cage, tyre sealant etc)
Most of the difference is explained by the Trance being 130f/115r travel with Fox 34 and DPS, the Reign being 160f/146r with Fox 36 & X2 - much beefier suspension and frame built accordingly.
A new Trance 29 is around 13.5kg for carbon or 15kg for alloy, significantly heavier than the 2018 model but also by all accounts stiffer and stronger.
A new Reign is around 15kg for carbon, not sure about the alloy version. But burlier again with 170/160 travel.
Funny enough my alloy trail hardtail weighs the same 14.2kg as my Reign, but it was less than a third of the cost. The advantage of no rear suspension!
I'm yet to see any bike where the carbon and aluminium versions weigh the same in equivalent spec, but the difference isn't always as much as you might think.
I'd say bike weight is much less critical to most recreational MTBing than XC racer or roadie types think anyway!
Edited by GravelBen on Friday 8th March 02:47
Hugo Stiglitz said:
When a carbon mtb bike weighs the same as the exact same alu version then I can't see why people pay more.
But it doesn't weigh the same, at least not for any bikes I've looked at.Most people thinking it weighs the same are comparing new model vs old model, but the new alloy versions have got heavier too.
Whether the difference is significant enough to justify the cost depends on the individual case, though it is also hard to find good component spec on an alloy frame now as most manufacturers pitch the carbon frames as 'premium' and spec the alloy frames as budget versions with cheaper parts.
I'm on the other side of things now where I have a fancy carbon trail/enduro bike, I like the feel of playful short travel bikes and get tempted to n+1 something downcountry-ish, but then a reasonably priced 130/120mm bike now is heavier than what I already have.
I’ve got a t130 27.5 and a Santa Cruz carbon chameleon, 29.
Neither have carbon wheels in fact they have the same wheels and Hope hubs.
The T130 feels like a truck if I’ve been on the Chameleon a lot - 13kg
Chameleon comes in at 11kg, less if there was no dropper!
My 2003 FS Marin Rift zone weighs less than both!
Neither have carbon wheels in fact they have the same wheels and Hope hubs.
The T130 feels like a truck if I’ve been on the Chameleon a lot - 13kg
Chameleon comes in at 11kg, less if there was no dropper!
My 2003 FS Marin Rift zone weighs less than both!
Edited by Simes205 on Friday 8th March 06:56
paulrockliffe said:
...
Carbon frames are either made to be light, then they're lighter than your aluminium frame, or they're made to be strong and stiff for smashing down stuff, the smashing down stuff ones are more popular, so when you look at what's for sale it looks like there's no weight saving. But what they're selling at the same weight is stronger, stiffer and more crash resistance than the aluminium equivalent.
.....
Or they're made to be cheap.Carbon frames are either made to be light, then they're lighter than your aluminium frame, or they're made to be strong and stiff for smashing down stuff, the smashing down stuff ones are more popular, so when you look at what's for sale it looks like there's no weight saving. But what they're selling at the same weight is stronger, stiffer and more crash resistance than the aluminium equivalent.
.....
You can have 2 out of 3
Light
Strong
Cheap
Update to my original post. I picked up a hardly used second hand Canyon Neuron at the weekend. Website says the carbon one I have should be just over 14kgs but it feels a lot lighter than my old Whyte. I did 15 miles on it yesterday and it felt great, although I will be swapping the Schwalbe tyres for some Maxxis when I get a chance
Bikes have got heavier for two main reasons, the move to large wheels and because the frames are now longer, lower and slacker. All of these changes require more material! A slacker head tube requires more gussets to preventing the head tube being ripped off the first time you land to flat. Just like cars getting bigger bikes have also got more travel meaning they have quite literally had to reinvent the wheel and come up with another category of down country to fill the gap between an xc bike and trail bike. It’s not a problem though as realistic you could down size the type of bike you are use to (eg go from an enduro bike to a trail bike) and still have something more capable
mattvanders said:
Bikes have got heavier for two main reasons, the move to large wheels and because the frames are now longer, lower and slacker. All of these changes require more material! A slacker head tube requires more gussets to preventing the head tube being ripped off the first time you land to flat. Just like cars getting bigger bikes have also got more travel meaning they have quite literally had to reinvent the wheel and come up with another category of down country to fill the gap between an xc bike and trail bike. It’s not a problem though as realistic you could down size the type of bike you are use to (eg go from an enduro bike to a trail bike) and still have something more capable
Yep - people are riding red bull hard-line on enduro bikes now.I wouldn't say you could go from a trail to a XC bike as the riding position still puts you pretty far forward and it's a more twitchy ride than older trail bikes (excepting the new spark which could fit into the downcountry category now?)
Rented a Whyte 140 at forest of dean this summer and it felt overkill for the red trails and painfully slow and heavy pedalling it, didn't really need to pick lines as it just rolled over anything I pointed it at and that's classed as a trail bike.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff