Is it possible to build a light, capable, mid-travel bike any more?

Case in point, Mrs Roxtar's new Switchblade:

Attachment 496855

Attachment 496857

I expected this build to be easily in the sub 30lb range. Not XC light components, but light-ish by mid-travel standards.
The build:
Pivots are known to be in the lighter range and her frame is an XS.
Mezzer Pro is lighter than either 36 or Lyric.
I9 Enduro Carbons. Not the lightest but still pretty light.
Full XTR drivetrain and brakes.
RaceFace ERA Carbon cranks.
Carbon bars
Factory Transfer - 150mm
Front tire is Hellkat Pro ACT. Not XC but in the 900gm neighborhood.
Rear is exo DHF (kindof heavy but she wanted chunkier than I normally spec)

This was meant to be a light-ish version of a goldilocks bike.
The results?

Attachment 496878

Attachment 496879

WTF?
Not even close.
And that's an XS.

I've got a large Smuggler that's 29# with XT pedals, fairly capable build (I've certainly taken it on some super rowdy trails already) that I have setup as 150f/140r:

Large carbon Smuggler frame
CC Inline Air shock
RS Lyrik Ultimate fork
Industry Nine Trail S 1/1 carbon wheels (1650g)
Specialized Butcher Grid Trail T9 front, Eliminator Grid Trail T7 rear
SRAM Code Silver Stealth brakes, 203 rotor front and 180mm rear
OneUp V2 dropper 210mm
SRAM X01 drivetrain w/ 170mm carbon cranks
I-9 50mm A35 stem
TrailOne carbon handlebar, 780mm width

Hmm. My xl Sentinel, with DHR evo brakes, 220 rotors, 1250g tires, 210 dropper, etc is only 1lb 7oz heavier than that.

Pivots aren't actually *that* light. Not saying they're tanks or anything, but their frames aren't featherweights.

But to your point, yeah, bikes are heavy these days.

I think compared to bikes from ~8 years ago, it's due to:
Somewhat heavier frame construction for durability purposes. Older frames were lighter (and broke more). Newer frames are also just bigger. Wheelbase numbers have gone up ~100mm. That's a bunch more material in the frame.

Piggyback shocks on everything that's not short travel. Older bikes were much more likely to be spec'd without a piggyback.

29" wheels with relatively heavy tires. 29ers are obviously heavier than 27.5 or 26, but even 29er toes have gotten heavier. A modern 29" exo dhf weighs more than one from 8 years ago. A lot of that is improvements in tubeless tech.

Longer dropper posts. They're heavy.

Bigger brakes and rotors being standard. 8 years ago you'd still see 160mm rotors spec'd sometimes, and you'd definitely see lots of 2 pot brakes. Guides were common and codes only came on dh bikes. Now codes are about the weakest brake anyone runs.

Bikes being heavy is just death by a thousand cuts. It's 100 grams here, 100 grams there, and pretty soon a lightweight build is 31-32 lbs. But the bikes work a lot better than they used to.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Sharon's Pivot Shadowcat size Medium 29.8lbs - 2022 version. XT build. Alloy wheels. 150mm travel

My Stumpjumper in a large with carbon wheels and cranks, 850 gram tires, Deluxe Ultimate and a Pike 140mm is 28lbs. Yes its possible, and it is really versatile type of bike to have.

So a 140/160 bike is considered mid-travel these days? Fuck, am I out of the loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Full Trucker

So a 140/160 bike is considered mid-travel these days? Fuck, am I out of the loop.

---

I'd say it's pretty accurate... XC bikes these days are typically 110-120'ish, then "mid travel" (IMO) is 130-150mm, then long travel rigs are 160-180mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Full Trucker

So a 140/160 bike is considered mid-travel these days? Fuck, am I out of the loop.

---

People want more travel for their own reasons. My mid- travel Rocky Mountain Thunderbolt is 130 front, 120 rear, is 2018 vintage and maintained so it rides well. It's got "obsolete" geometry and wheel sizes. Yet somehow I and it survives black trails in the Sea to Sky area and is still a fun bike. Plus it's a 26.5lb build.

Out of the loop isn't necessarily a bad thing

I should also add that the medium Swtichblade I had this spring was a bit over 32 lbs. Plastic wheels, XT/XTR, etc. So 31-ish lbs sounds about right for an XS with a slightly nicer build.

My large Sentinel is in the same ballpark as Marshal's. Right about at 32 lbs with a 1200g tire on the back, but lots of plastic parts. I'd venture a guess that the Sentinel frame is maybe 150-200g lighter than the Switchblade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeeLau

Out of the loop isn't necessarily a bad thing

---

Drinking the kool-aid is not mandatory. As long as your bike has two round wheels, I think you're technically doin' it right.

I was riding lift serve yesterday with a friend that just got a Switchblade, and he was getting rowdy on that thing.
It's a light enduro bike, or a heavy trail bike.
At the same time 'down country' bikes have gotten a lot more capable, and weight wise they fit in nicely between XC and trail bikes.
My top fuel is a couple pounds more then my last XC bike and is 100x better on the down, and 95% as good on the up.

It seems like bikes have staid the same weight for a while, but gotten a ton "better" by a number of metrics. Think about what a 31lb bike was 15 years ago or so. Did it even have a dropper at that weight? Probably not. It was probably aluminum. Shorter travel, flimsier suspension, crappier brakes, etc.
Maybe bike companies will stop focusing on making the reach longer and longer and focus on same performance, but lighter. Maybe that'll be the next big thing (after ebikes). A dropper post that isn't a brick would be nice. Never actually weighed by bikes but they are far from light. I should check maybe.
Ps, where the weight is makes a big difference. A lot of it is in the frame and shock. Still a fair amount in the tires, and even wheels. Some of that is a lot more noticable than in the seat post.

Every time I start to worry about how much my bike weighs I reflect on the few extra pounds I’m carrying around my midsection.

And I’ve been impressed lately how much better bikes ride and climb generally, even when they also weigh more. It’s a little like cars getting bigger, faster, and more efficient.

Anyways, nothing to really contribute, ya weenies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

Bikes being heavy is just death by a thousand cuts. It's 100 grams here, 100 grams there, and pretty soon a lightweight build is 31-32 lbs. But the bikes work a lot better than they used to.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

Agreed. There's a few times you mentioned "not the lightest...."
Anything with a 1,900g wheelset is going to be chunky. Add in flat pedals, tire inserts, etc. and you have more weight than you realize.

However, I dont think a bike in this category should really be focused on weight - it should be focused on ride quality and based on choices that's how it's spec'd.
If weight was a primary factor, you'd be better off with a Trail 429, etc. that is more appropriate with 1,500g trail wheels, a Fox 34, etc. Suddenly you're 3 pounds lighter.

that might be a good question if one was trying to buy it off the floor or now the internet

If you intend to build a bike from scratch and have the $$$$$ can't you just build whatever you want ?

Building a bike does nothing for me, I always buy the bike as delivered but YMMV

The new Transition Spur 120/120 travel with 29in tires weighs 27ish lbs. This is a CF frame full SRAM AXS $7800.
I just bought the Med Spur, CF GX Eagle build and with sealant, WB cage and 2.4 heavy as hell tires, ready to ride it is just shy of 29. Different tires and wheels with lighten it a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mustonen

Every time I start to worry about how much my bike weighs I reflect on the few extra pounds I’m carrying around my midsection.

---

You're not fat, you're mid-travel.

^^^ lol

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

Somewhat heavier frame construction for durability purposes. Older frames were lighter (and broke more). Newer frames are also just bigger. Wheelbase numbers have gone up ~100mm. That's a bunch more material in the frame.

---

+ more complicated frame design; suspension linkages, tube in tube routing, sandwich storage, etc…

RE: Durability - Manufacturers can bump up their layup (and frame weight) and essentially eliminate warranty claims…. IE Santa Cruz.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

If I’m going light on a bike part, it’ll be the wheels. There’s a noticeable difference when you put light wheels and faster rolling tires on a bike…. Of course, I’m not a big guy and don’t tend to beat the shit out of my bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Full Trucker

You're not fat, you're mid-travel.

---

So, it’s more about girth than it is about travel length.

thats what she said

When I bought my xl Orbea Occam M10 3 years ago it was 29.5lb. Then I added a water bottle, blue toof speaker, double down casing tires. I think I'm sitting about 32 lb now. Not bad for 140mm travel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beaver

When I bought my xl Orbea Occam M10 3 years ago it was 29.5lb. Then I added a water bottle, blue toof speaker, double down casing tires. I think I'm sitting about 32 lb now. Not bad for 140mm travel.

---

Please don't say you blast your music on rides.
Bitch slap dependent on the answer.