apollored

Here's a machine that will make even the most dedicated weight weenies drool – this complete road bike tips the scales at a truly staggering weight of 2.7kg (6lb).


https://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/a...st-bike-36902/

Johnny Rad

Crazy light.

It regularly gets press a couple times a year.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...unter+mai+spin

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...unter+mai+spin

WhyFi

That's effin' crazy.

THSdrummer

It's cool pushing the bounds. The complete wheelset weight is roughly around the weight of the front wheel I'm looking at having built... When I put it that way it makes me feel like I could splurge a bit more.

Going from my ~17 lb road bike to commuting on my 35 lb mountain bike, I feel so sluggish. I can't imagine switching off of this bike for a UCI legal bike, let alone a heavier mountain bike.

rpenmanparker 

What makes this bike nonsense it that it sacrifices functionality to achieve that weight. Sure it was well ride worthy, but did it work like you want a bike to? No modern shifting. How many cogs in the rear? No aerodynamic improvements. Wheel stiffness? And so on. Why not just build the lightest possible FG bike and brag on that. You could throw away one chain ring, the brakes and lever, etc. What is more to the point is how light can you build a bike that does what you need it to do? Frame, wheels, handlebar, stem and crank stiff enough for your style of riding. 10 or 11 speeds. Like that. My guess is that bottoms out around 10 pounds these days. Still plenty light.

Young Version

The whole point of this bike is that it's the lightest rideable bike in the world. I'm guessing the owner doesn't care that the wheels are flexy and it's not aerodynamic.

Building a 10lb bike is cool and all, but that's very clearly NOT what this guy had in mind.

WhyFi

My bolding. It's funny that you mention meeting individual needs yet the possibility that this checks all of the necessary boxes, for the owner, is inconceivable.

rpenmanparker 

Right, but my point is that it is not the lightest rideable bike in the world. It is the lightest rideable bike outfitted as he thought it should be. Starting with his parts and getting rid of the rear cluster, shifters, one chain ring, front derailleur, brakes and levers, and you have a much lighter and very rideable bike. All you have to do is rebuild the wheels around a (custom made) fixed gear rear hub and voila! How is that different from what he has done? He has taken away your brifter function. Do you think the brakes don't flex like crazy? And the crank? And the wheels? And the frame? My point is he has made the compromises necessary to get to the weight he has. What is magic about those compromises and that weight? You could knock off another what (?) maybe 1 lb or more and still have a rideable bike. What is important is how light can you make the bike that YOU would want to ride every day? Or that Cancellara would want to race? That is the way I see it, anyway.

Looigi

It'd be a lot lighter as a fixie.

gerundium

it's already been beaten:

https://carbonreparatie.nl/nl-nl/cust...chtefiets.aspx

Same sort of bike as a fixie. 2.36 kg.

Young Version

So...in order to make the bike more functional, he should turn it into a brakeless fixed gear?

I'm not sure what your issue is with this bike--simply stated, this is the product of a guy with a lot of money who wanted to build a really light bicycle. I assume he's happy with it, and it's an impressive feat of engineering. If you'd do it differently, go for it.

dbascent1986

...impressive emotional detachment to obsessive chain cleaning/lubrication...

justkeepedaling

Gunther rides this WAY more than any of you haters. I wouldn't be saying that this bike isn't "functional."

The point of this bike is to be the lightest ROAD bike with fully usable gears (double front chainrings and gears in back).

I don't know where the fixie bull**** came from.

FixedDriveJess

The front wheel on my bike is considered a "very light wheel" and it weighs more than this wheelset.

alexaschwanden

Impressive.

rpenmanparker 

It is not inconceivable at all. You make a very good point. But consider two things. First if this bike were just about the owner's needs, it wouldn't be a news story. No, this bike is being promoted as a world shaking accomplishment. Second, are folks testing this accomplishment against their own needs. I'm just saying the whole thing is somewhat disingenuous. Even with the highest technolgy materials this bike cannot possibly provide the functionality, ride quality and durability that is minimally acceptable to a broad swath of cyclists on the 41 today. And I am just pointing out that depending upon exactly what you are willing to give up, this bike could be as much as 1-2 lb lighter and still be "rideable". Finally I am saying that you should not think your dream bike (in all respects of design and function) could weigh this litte, if you just had the $45,000. Too many compromises.

Robert

WhyFi

a) ORLY? Did you take a poll of the 41? I don't recall participating.

b) how could you possibly speculate about the ride quality? Does knowing about plastic molding and vestigial gate material really give you an understanding of how carbon fiber materials and techniques only seen in F1 racing will perform in this application?

c) it's got 20,000 km on it and you're going to bag on durability? I think that that's a sufficient amount of time to allow for durability issues to surface.

rpenmanparker 

I would just submit that you should not object to my opinion if you yourself don't disagree. So let's see. Right now I will give you a 200 g credit for your indexed shifting at the brake levers. Will you take it? You have to start using downtube, friction shifters to get the weight credit. Are you willing? Do you think most folks on the 41 are willing? I don't, and that is basically what I was saying. So am I wrong or not?

As for the ride quality, just take a look at the frame. Round fairly skinny tubes. No shaping. No taper. No bends. Do you really think the F1 material is so magical that it can obviate all the design advances of the last 20 years and still provide the comfort and stiffness that so many folks on the 41 demand? You question my authority on this topic. Fair enough. But what about you? Your common sense is simply concluding something different than mine is. No need to get personal.

As far as durability is concerned, I'll give in on that one. I truly can't say about that. You're right.

WhyFi

False dichotomy. You're taking the most significant ergonomic difference and boiling it down to 200g whereas I'm looking at the entire package. Were that my bike, would I deal with any differences and proudly call it mine? You bet your protractor.

Mother Nature has taken eons and has arrived at round hollow bones to provide light and strong frames for bodies - not for a minute do I doubt that it's possible to provide exceptional ride quality using nothing but round tubes, 'specially when we're talking about custom, one-off frame where lay-up can be meticulously dictated.

rpenmanparker 

I'm perplexed. Is that a yes or a no? I'm taking one of the many differences and boiling it down to the number of grams that can be saved. and asking is it worth it to you. You either accept the trade off or you don't. That is the interesting thing. And the whole lightening process is made up of one of these trade offs after another. If you can't get someone to take one change, and evolution (or in this case devolution) is stepwise, how will you ever get a commercial bike even close to this supposed ideal?

That's BS. I couldn't care less about all that ride quality stuff. I never had a bike that didn't ride fine for me. I wouldn't know the difference. But just read what goes on here. It is either the ultimate (stiffness and comfort and shifting and ...), or it just doesn't count. Now either this guy has found the fountain of perfect light bike building or suddenly none of that matters anymore. I call BS on all of that. It can't be both ways. This bike is just a curiosity. If you haven't ridden it, don't be so sure how wonderful it is.

What is funny though is how transparently your disapproval of me is coloring the opinions you are posting here. Witness the protractor comment. What's the matter dude? Does a little book learning put you off? I made some outlandish comments on the Bianchi10 wheel testing thread, no doubt. That was my mistake, and I am trying to get past that. I really think you should too.

Ferrous Bueller

I don't want to get in the middle of this pointless fight, but felt the need to respond to this point.
Few bones are particularly round, and none are completely. The femur is the longest bone in our bodies (and quite important to we cyclists) and is not very round at all. There is also no point at which it's not tapering or widening. Cylinders are lovely shapes, but imperfect for dealing with complex stresses, forces, and connections.

Silvercivic27

That bike would be crushed under my manbreasts.

WhyFi

You're perplexed? I'm perplexed with how much you don't get it. Wow.

Wait, so you're arguing against yourself now? Okay, I'll just change one word of your closing and then I'll sit out the next round and let you argue against yourself - "If you haven't ridden it, don't be so sure how horrible it is."

Haha - yes, book learnin' puts me off. No, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with your demeanor. What is funny is that there seem to be more than a few other posters that have a lower opinion of you than I do. But no - though you're the common factor, it couldn't possibly be you - book learnin' must put them off, too. Ha.

clausen

Some people need to get out riding more. There taking this way to seriously.


I'm not talking about the owner of the light bike.

2manybikes

I just want to ride it around the block. Just once.






Wonder where that is stored at night.