Old 11-04-12, 12:59 PM
  #21  
LeeG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 81 Times in 64 Posts
Originally Posted by rabidfox

I don't think I'm experienced enough to say what better is, but what I want is a lighter frame still capable of full touring loads. I've never toured ultralight and if I were going to go ultralight I'd take a bar and saddle bag approach with the Colnago. However, I'm also interested in having something capable of several-week-at-a-time wilderness camping (just for fun).

By full touring load, I mean the ability to take a 2-person tent for bad weather in stealth camping, a camp stove, food, water, and the usual suspects should I desire to go so very non-ultralight.
Quite a conundrum. You want a lighter road frame that isn't designed for carrying pannier size loads, fenders or fatter tires so you can carry pannier size loads and do it on small diameter tires, in the wilderness.

$.02 confine the Colnago to road riding and ultralight touring w/o panniers or 10lbs of tent and cooking kit.

The difference between a road frame and a touring frame might be 1 1/2 lbs which will be erased with any gear added to the bike.

Go ahead and build up the Colnago but experiment more with the 520. Assuming the Colnago wheels are lighter try them on the 520.
LeeG is offline