shoota 

We shall.
Because a 15lbs bike + 3lbs of water is still three pounds less than an 18lbs bike + 3lbs of water.
Because if my fat butt needs to lose 5lbs then I choose to do it on a 15lbs bike, not an 18lbs bike.
Because this is my hobby, I love it, and if I want to count grams then I'll do it, because I enjoy it.
Because if someone else doesn't care about weight then that's just fine, I ​really actually don't mind at all.

marqueemoon

7800.

Lighter. Plentiful and cheap on the gently used/NOS market. Good match aesthetically with the rest of the group now and will still look great later.

Campag4life

Its OK to do it all you want. Its still dumb is the point. Yes, get rid of that boat anchor called octalink. Not because it is fractionally heavier which it may well be but rather because its crap. But to pick say a Sram Red crank over DA because its 10 grams lighter is dumb and will always be dumb...when there are much larger issues to consider from cost, to BB style, to serviceability to BB replacement cost, to chain ring stiffness etc. The water bottle analogy which goes over your head is relevant because of comparison of scale. The simple fact is 10 grams difference in weight is whether you brought your chapstick on your ride. Dumb. Btw, I ride with 2 water bottles and weight is important. But I wouldn't choose a Sram groupset either because its the lightest. I want the groupset I prefer from a functional standpoint because the slight gram difference in weight isn't nearly as relevant as riding with a groupset that isn't my favorite for other reasons. Same for a seatpost, saddle and frameset. It even applies to wheels. I prefer a slightly heavier, more sturdy and cheaper wheelset for training. For racing, the entire balance of priorities is different. But even 50 grams is pretty negligible.

shoota 

Ok.

rpenmanparker 

Buying by weight is dumb if it is contrary to the buyer's own sense of quality, competence, aesthetics, etc. Check out what I said in my last post about considering weight after establishing that other attributes are acceptable or desirable. Not everyone who picks lighter components thinks they are making compromises on competence, aesthetics, and in some cases even cost. Once you have determined (for yourself) that SRAM or other brand is as good a choice as another for every other reason that matters to you, it is perfectly sensible to break the tie by weight. I would never recommend choosing by weight over clear deficiencies in other important areas.

For example, I could have a 140 g saddle, and it would be one from a very highly respected brand and model. I'm sure I could find one that fits. But my established favorite (my ass's favorite) is the Terry Falcon Y at 227 g. The lighter saddle would get my Ti bike below 14 lb, a great weenie milestone and bragging point. But so what? A favorite saddle is a favorite saddle, so I stay with the Terry. Not so with my cassettes. As far as I am concerned, there is no cassette as desirable as the SRAM Red. The elegance of the nearly one piece CNC construction just really speaks to me. And the performance is excellent. So I have no qualms about availing myself of the weight savings even on my Rival equipped steel frame. I am paying more but for the whole package, which I think is a good deal, not just the industry leading low weight.

I've said it before; I'll say it again: Different strokes for different folks.

You may think that 50 g is pretty negligible, but it is the sum of lots of +/- 50 gram choices that make a 17 lb bike into a 13 lb bike. If you can do that without giving up what you value in any of the component choices, what's the harm?

shoota 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Campag4life

He said it pretty well unfortunately until the last sentence which is flat wrong and really why you are misdirected.
The sum of everything being +50 grams heavier does NOT change a 17 lb bike into a 13 lb bike. Bad math. Add 50g's to aggragate of bike parts is a 1 lb net difference, not 3 lb difference. Also, statistically you may choose the lightest component incidentally i.e. aggregate statistical average of parts will balance. There are top riders in the Pro Peloton with bikes 2 lbs over the weight min. because of the component content they have choosen. They race for living and you and I don't.

rpenmanparker 

Yeah, I knew you would get me on 36 X 50 = 4 X 450 = 4 lb. You're right, it was an exaggeration, but only if you think of the process as instantaneous. I would bet that most reductions have been in the 50 g range, but over and over again. Frames that yield 17 lb bikes didn't get 1.5 lb lighter all at once. I don't know what the average increment has been, but 50 g is a nice round number to throw out. Just availing oneself of 50 g reductions isn't going to do it in one fell swoop. But over the years lots of 50 g reductions (not exactly, but some larger, some smaller), some from the same bike part over and over again have led to where we are now. And I was trying to emphasize that if you don't start taking away weight from the things that you can, you never get started reducing the weight of the whole bike. 50 g where you can get it is important, because there are a lot of places you can't get anything to drop. And for sure larger total reductions have been needed over the years to get the 17 lb standard down to 13, but many of those totals were comprised of several smaller increments.

As for racers doing things differently, that's right. I don't race, so I don't have to worry about it. I have never felt that racing was the epitome of road bicycling (any more than auto racing has to do with most folks driving a car or horse racing has to do with how most folks ride a horse). I consider it a curious outlier. So the pro racers make their choices and I make mine each for the different needs and expectations we have. I can only hope they are as happy with what they are doing as I am with what I am doing.

jmX

Specialized cranksets are 525g for 50/34 with carbon spider (aka, the s-works version), or 565g with 53/39 and aluminum spider (non-s-works). I just bought some off ebay for $270. Of course it'll say Specialized or S-Works on them, which might not go well on another brands frame.

I've got 3 of them and they've always worked great for me.

If you didn't care about weight it's probably hard to beat a duraace crankset.

shoota 

You're taking this way too seriously. It's fun for us, no one ever mentioned racing or the pro peloton or sacrificing performance for the sole sake of weight. We're just having fun with our hobby. Sheesh man lighten up.

rpenmanparker 

That includes rings? What is the BB type they are compatible with?

jmX

They are BB30 compatible. The weights are with the rings I specified, yes. I think my 52/36 one (with AL spider) is 560g.

The BB bearings are not included in the weights. My frame came with ceramic bearings and I'd already pressed them into the frame before I weighed them. I cant imagine they were over 40g.

Here's a pic of my bike with the 560g cranks I got for $270 off ebay:

shoota 

Looks great! If I had a Specialized bike and BB30 I'd go for it too.

achoo

Also has the advantage that a Shimano Hollowtech II bottom bracket is a Shimano Hollowtech II bottom bracket.

Unlike the crazy army of FSA bottom brackets where each is just a little bit different.

Although if you're going to get a crankset from that era, I vote for a Campy 10-speed Record alloy crankset.

shoota 

Why?

achoo

shoota 

Ok cool.