What I am Doing wrong?

dh gangster · Mar 22, 2008

I'd say the cranks. You could get some gravity lights or a set of middleburns to put you under 40.

Pockets-o-Grey · Mar 22, 2008

come on man this isnt a game to see how light you can get your bike... your bike is pimped to the max and will ride great as is... i understand just wanting to see that 39pound mark but really who cares once its covered in mud anywyas. Cut the seat post down like a 10mm and trim the top of your bashgaurd and you'll be sub 40

daisycutter · Mar 22, 2008

I see four areas you could lose more weight

(Pedals: Shimano PD M646) these are heavy pedals cook brothers are lighter

(Chainguide: E13 LG1 36t) go with the taco

Brakes: Magura Gustav Levers / Louise FR Calipers 210 F & 190 R
(Gustav's are great but heavy)

(Cranks: Truvativ, Hollzfeller 36T with Howitzer) xt are lighter

(Rims: Mavic EX 823) great rims but not that light when the nipples deals are added to the wheel build.

I think your build is great and in your place I would not get concerned about the sub 40 lbs #

DirtyMike · Mar 22, 2008

Seriously, you can get lighter cranks, you can get Lighter pedals, but why, your right at 40 lbs, thats awesome. Most of your weight on the cranks is teh BB itself, that thing is a tank!!!!! But very strong. Its also center mass weight so its not going to effect your ride, i say go for it just as is and Enjoy

FrontRangeDH · Mar 22, 2008

I think the problem is you are weighing it on an accurate scale. Its a super solid build that is light and tough. The cranks are relatively light, but those BBs are pretty heavy

DirtyMike · Mar 22, 2008

FrontRangeDH said:
I think the problem is you are weighing it on an accurate scale. Its a super solid build that is light and tough. The cranks are relatively light, but those BBs are pretty heavy

Understatement. I run the same, I was worried about it at first. But after running them, they are super solid!!!!

ire · Mar 22, 2008

I say take a big poo right before the race and you will have lost about a pound, problem solved :biggrin: Nice bike, BTW

dropmachine · Mar 22, 2008

Perhaps all the extra weight is coming from the enourmous amounts of sand in your vagina?

Its a 40 pound bike. Go ride it.

Discostu · Mar 22, 2008

If those are the timberwolf dh (the only model wtb has on their site) its the tires. WTB quotes them at 1685 grams each. Maxxis Minion 2.5's are about 1250 grams each. Swap the tires and thats close to 2 lbs lost.

Other than that I don't see anything too heavy. If you like the way it rides, then stop worrying about it.

AngryMetalsmith · Mar 23, 2008

Try weighing it w/o air in the tires.:biggrin:

William42 · Mar 23, 2008

use helium instead.

muddy beast · Mar 23, 2008

William42 said:
use helium instead.

Hah, you think helium would work? I think your onto something...why hasn't it become the new trend next to carbonfiber?

or maybe... :imstupid:

dhmike · Mar 23, 2008

i had the same problem with my socom trying to get it below 40 and got my socom at 39.2 by changing tires and seat post.

richy_a2r · Mar 23, 2008

pillete said:
wrong?

Frame: Small Intense Socom (Custom Decals on their way)
Fork: Marzocchi 888 WC ATA with direct stem
Shock: Fox DHX 5.0 with TI spring
Handlebar: Answer Pro Taper low rise
Seatpost: Thompson Elite
Saddle: Selle Italia SLR (198 grams)
Pedals: Shimano PD M646
Shifters: SRAM X.9 Trigger
Chainguide: E13 LG1 36t
Rear Derailleur: SRAM X.9
Brakes: Magura Gustav Levers / Louise FR Calipers 210 F & 190 R
Cassette: Shimano DuraAce 11-26, 9 speed
Cranks: Truvativ, Hollzfeller 36T with Howitzer
Rims: Mavic EX 823
Hubs: Industry Nine
Spokes: Industry Nine
Tires: 2.5 WTB Timberwolf Foldable (Tubeless)
Grips: Odi/Oury lock ons

yup. those are heavyweights.

ridiculous · Mar 23, 2008

muddy beast said:
Hah, you think helium would work? I think your onto something...why hasn't it become the new trend next to carbonfiber?

or maybe...

Because its not advantageous at all. Much smaller molecule.

sbstianfreeride · Mar 23, 2008

at what travel setting do you have the fork? the distance between the lowers and lower crown looks really short.

William42 · Mar 23, 2008

ridiculous said:
Because its not advantageous at all. Much smaller molecule.

i want some proof of this. have YOU ever tried using helium in your tires? :monkeydance:

oops, sorry to derail...yah, tires, brakes, and cranks are all pretty heavy, and the fork isn't the lightest thing in the world either.

karpi · Mar 23, 2008

I'd say go for boxxers, change the brakes and get lighter rims, should be fine with that

karpi · Mar 23, 2008

ups sorry, get some formula brakes, those will do !

stinky6 · Mar 24, 2008

ridiculous said:
Because its not advantageous at all. Much smaller molecule.

Thats why balloons filled with helium sink because there heavier than oxygen. Helium is smaller, but lighter. Just like Ti is heavier than Aluminum, but because of the way it crystallizes it ends up being lighter. In theory helium is a good idea, but doesn't pan out, why I don't know. Probably migrates faster than oxygen.

surfinguru · Mar 24, 2008

ire said:
I say take a big poo right before the race and you will have lost about a pound, problem solved :biggrin: Nice bike, BTW

No way man, go for the colonic cleansing - that's gotta be good for like 5 pounds at least.

Haha, seriously though, most things have been pointed out already. Something to think about as well are tires. Go 2.5 up front and 2.35 in the back.

Bottom line is you've got a sweet bike with a SOLID build. Get out there and ride it!

spocomptonrider · Mar 24, 2008

stinky6 said:
Thats why balloons filled with helium sink because there heavier than oxygen. Helium is smaller, but lighter. Just like Ti is heavier than Aluminum, but because of the way it crystallizes it ends up being lighter. In theory helium is a good idea, but doesn't pan out, why I don't know. Probably migrates faster than oxygen.

There is a mythbusters episode where they fill a football with helium and one with o2 and see which flies further. Regular o2 won, and the weight difference was miniscule.
Also, my Socom is at 39.99lbs... not joking I will get a picture, that said, its light enough and some fat could be trimmed but it rides fantastic, I don't think the weight-dollars ratio is really worth it at this point (to get her lighter) IMO.

ridiculous · Mar 24, 2008

William42 said:
i want some proof of this. have YOU ever tried using helium in your tires?

oops, sorry to derail...yah, tires, brakes, and cranks are all pretty heavy, and the fork isn't the lightest thing in the world either.

This question arises all the time, yes helium is lighter theoretically, pure helium is lighter. PV =nRT its quite simple high school chemistry. Because im lazy im going to reference the numbers from mtbr saying at 35 psi you are probably saving about 14 g/tire. Assuming you keep volume, pressure, and temperature the same.

stinky6 said:
Thats why balloons filled with helium sink because there heavier than oxygen. Helium is smaller, but lighter. Just like Ti is heavier than Aluminum, but because of the way it crystallizes it ends up being lighter. In theory helium is a good idea, but doesn't pan out, why I don't know. Probably migrates faster than oxygen.

Ok first off it is lighter, I completely agree however, the molecule of helium is much smaller than that of air. Its so small that the aerospace industry uses it to detect leaks in vessels. You may get a solid day of riding in at pressure, if that. Ever clean up from a birthday party the day after, not so much helium in those balloons anymore. I would venture a guess that an inner tube or worse case scnario a tubeless setup would act the same.

Ok now im going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume actually try and get pure helium which is retarded expensive. That is the only way you'll get the theoretical 14g/tire weight savings. Assuming you weren't, you would go get balloon grade, off the shelf helium in the party tank thing. Which is a helium-nitrogen mix so right out of the gate you've just blown away all 14 g of your weight savings.

PV=nRT, in a nutshell there's a reason why blimps are enormous. It doesn't take very much to over come the weight of a 1g latex balloon.

seth505 · Mar 24, 2008

something is not right...return it and get your money back! !

ridiculous · Mar 24, 2008

BTW your ride is sick! how does it ride?

DirtyMike · Mar 24, 2008

For the guys talking about Using Helium, Man thats just funny, and very not cost/weight effective.

So with that said, not worrying about lightness, being that its litterally miniscual<sp>, if you really want something good for inflating your tires, Use Nitrogen. Its cheap, works great, easy to get, and on the lab level takes longer to migrate out of the tube/tire. Alot of automotive guys are geting there shops setup so they can fill tires with nitrogen instead of plain compressed air.

And with that extra said, is it worth it? Hell I dont know. Best benefit I can think of if you were to use Nitrogen is that you can take a bottle with you in your car and use it at the coarse to quickly fill tires, tubed and tubeless.

If anyone doesnt know wher to get Nitrogen, welding supply. Rent the bottle, hook up a hose to the regulator, plug in an air chuck and go

- seb · Mar 24, 2008

Right, I'm a bit rusty, but I'm gonna have a stab at this.

Typical cross-sectional area of a tyre & rim is about 1.2" x 1.5" x pi I reckon, so 5.65 inches square. Typical central diameter of tyre is about 24" maybe, so a very rough figure for volume of a tyre is 24 x 5.65 = 135.6cu. 135.6*2.54*2.54*2.54 = 2222cc. 2222cc = 0.0022m3, or 2.2 litres to put it another way.

OK, we all tend to run about 30psi, which is basically 2 atmospheres. Although it's not, it's actually 3 atmospheres I think? If your tyre had 0psi in it then the pressure of the earth's atmostphere would crumple it against the rim, but it doesn't, so when we say a tyre has 0psi in it, strictly speaking we mean 14.5 really.

OK, so 3atmospheres of 2.2 litres = 6.6litres at 1atmosphere.

IIRC 1 mole of gas takes 22.4 litres at room temp, so 6.6 litres is 0.29mol.

A mole of gas weighs in grams whatever it's molecular weight is. Air's molar mass is 29g (had to look that up admittedly

). Nitrogen occurs as N2 which has a mass of of 14g.

0.29mol of air = 8.41g. 0.29mol of N2 = 4.06g.

So, by inflating with nitrogen, you could, by my estimations, save about 8g. Feel free to correct me, I'm sure I'm completely wrong haha

(To be honest I think buying a Boxxer would be easier and save you a lot more

)

- seb · Mar 24, 2008

Ah, but I suppose in terms of weight that you lift it is only the relative pressure that matters because you're displacing normal atmosphere when you lift the bike. So reduce my figures by 1/3rd. Unless you're talking about the absolute mass of the bike, in which case you need to keep that extra atmosphere

Jm_ · Mar 24, 2008

You built it with DH parts. What did you expect?

a 45lb DH bike with a 3lb lighter frame makes a 42lb bike.

William42 · Mar 24, 2008

woops.... didn't mean to spur this on, i was kidding about the helium.

obviously hydrogen would work way better

ridiculous · Mar 24, 2008

- seb said:
Right, I'm a bit rusty, but I'm gonna have a stab at this.

Typical cross-sectional area of a tyre & rim is about 1.2" x 1.5" x pi I reckon, so 5.65 inches square. Typical central diameter of tyre is about 24" maybe, so a very rough figure for volume of a tyre is 24 x 5.65 = 135.6cu. 135.6*2.54*2.54*2.54 = 2222cc. 2222cc = 0.0022m3, or 2.2 litres to put it another way.

OK, we all tend to run about 30psi, which is basically 2 atmospheres. Although it's not, it's actually 3 atmospheres I think? If your tyre had 0psi in it then the pressure of the earth's atmostphere would crumple it against the rim, but it doesn't, so when we say a tyre has 0psi in it, strictly speaking we mean 14.5 really.

OK, so 3atmospheres of 2.2 litres = 6.6litres at 1atmosphere.

IIRC 1 mole of gas takes 22.4 litres at room temp, so 6.6 litres is 0.29mol.

A mole of gas weighs in grams whatever it's molecular weight is. Air's molar mass is 29g (had to look that up admittedly ). Nitrogen occurs as N2 which has a mass of of 14g.

0.29mol of air = 8.41g. 0.29mol of N2 = 4.06g.

So, by inflating with nitrogen, you could, by my estimations, save about 8g. Feel free to correct me, I'm sure I'm completely wrong haha

(To be honest I think buying a Boxxer would be easier and save you a lot more )

Everything here is cool except for the molecular weight of your N2 molecule. When you multiplied out your atm. mass by your moles you didnt account for the 2 atms that make up for your N2 molecule.
N = 14 N2= 28

.29 Mol of N2 * 28 = 8.12 g
0.29mol of air = 8.41g. 0.29mol of N2 = 8.12g.

The physical properties of nitrogen are whats desirable in this case. it has a very high resistance to temperature change in tires and is inert. Nitrogen diffuses thru the walls of the tire 25-30% slower than air reducing pressure loss between checks. Its also cheap, clean and dry, you could probaly get your tires filled at costco for free.

ridiculous · Mar 24, 2008

William42 said:
woops.... didn't mean to spur this on, i was kidding about the helium.

obviously hydrogen would work way better

now youve added flammability to the mix, same logic as above applies though.

DirtyMike · Mar 24, 2008

ridiculous said:
Everything here is cool except for the molecular weight of your N2 molecule. When you multiplied out your atm. mass by your moles you didnt account for the 2 atms that make up for your N2 molecule.
N = 14 N2= 28

.29 Mol of N2 * 28 = 8.12 g
0.29mol of air = 8.41g. 0.29mol of N2 = 8.12g.

The physical properties of nitrogen are whats desirable in this case. it has a very high resistance to temperature change in tires and is inert. Nitrogen diffuses thru the walls of the tire 25-30% slower than air reducing pressure loss between checks. Its also cheap, clean and dry, you could probaly get your tires filled at costco for free.

There it is, but you can get a 5lb cylinder at a welding shop for cheap, no need to go to costco, and you can take it with you.

- seb · Mar 24, 2008

ridiculous said:
Everything here is cool except for the molecular weight of your N2 molecule. When you multiplied out your atm. mass by your moles you didnt account for the 2 atms that make up for your N2 molecule.
N = 14 N2= 28

Dammit! I kinda did, I knew I wanted N2, but I had it in my head that N is 7, because that's its atomic number. Obviously though that number is only half of the atomic weight, doh!

- seb · Mar 24, 2008

DirtyMike said:
There it is, but you can get a 5lb cylinder at a welding shop for cheap, no need to go to costco, and you can take it with you.

I couldn't give a stuff about nitrogen versus air in my tyres, but would that cylinder you're talking about have decent enough airflow/pressure to inflate my tubeless? ;-)

DirtyMike · Mar 24, 2008

- seb said:
I couldn't give a stuff about nitrogen versus air in my tyres, but would that cylinder you're talking about have decent enough airflow/pressure to inflate my tubeless? ;-)

Absolutly, Dry Nitrogen stores at about 2500 psi. Regulate it to whatever you wanted

Lollapalooza · Mar 24, 2008

- seb said:
Dammit! I kinda did, I knew I wanted N2, but I had it in my head that N is 7, because that's its atomic number. Obviously though that number is only half of the atomic weight, doh!

That only works if they're are the same number as protons/electrons and neutrons. As for filling your tires with N2, it might be something to try.

What I am Doing wrong?

Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Fluffer

Monkey

Turbo Fluffer

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Business is good, thanks for asking

fork ways

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

fork ways

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

sportin' the CROCS

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Fluffer

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

sled dog's bollocks

fork ways

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Fluffer

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Fluffer

Monkey