Homebrew01

I assume you're using Alibaba as an example of fakes, right ?

StanSeven

I didn't bother with the VR-1 but played around with the C-60. With EPS and Enve wheels, the complete bike weight is a little over 16lbs. For a $13,000 bike, that's porky.

NathanC

Only an idiot would buy a Colnago if they wanted to go weight weenie.

CliffordK

Assuming the weight above, 1730 grams was for the frame, fork, seatpost, and headset. That comes out to 3.8 lbs which isn't bad as part of a 15 to 16 lb bike build. Most of the overall weight of the bike is in the rest of the components.

You might be able to find a COMPLETE frameset a few ounces lighter, but don't expect to find one 3.8 lbs lighter.

Personally I like the idea of weighing all proprietary frame parts together. Not very many people ride their bike without the fork... unless it is a unicycle (or is that just the fork?).

It might make sense to separate the fork with a standard round-tube frame that could support any fork (and may even have options of steel, aluminum, or CF), but not when the fork/frame are a matched set.

rpenmanparker 

I disagree for one reason. Weight numbers have value when they are comparative, when they are indicative of the same item being weighed. Doing it one way for one kind of frame and another way for another kind can only lead to the exact type of confusion that OP was suffering from when he started this thread. No, bare frames without fork are the obvious standard way to compare frame weights. Yes you need a fork to ride a bike, but that is a different question. Besides the differences in full length high-end fork weights these days are only maybe 50 g. But the differences in frame weights can be a lb or more. Not only that but you can be pretty sure that if you have an 800 g frame it will come with about a 300-350 g fork, not 500 g. That is just not done. So to compare every possible frame, those that come with matched forks and those that don't, the best bet is just compare the weights of the frames, no fork, no seat post, no head set, etc.

CliffordK

When I buy a frame, I expect a fork to come with it (although a few older style ones get the two separated), but even back in the 60's, Colnago was selling the frame and fork as a set. I also expect the paint to be included in the weight.

You could argue not to add in the seat post and headset (or perhaps list them separately).

I suppose when I look at the overall weight of a bicycle, I don't care about water bottle cages, but I would like it to have pedals and a seat as part of the weight because it is hard to ride without them.

Yeah, ok, some might weigh a 49cm frame... rather than every size.

Ideally when a manufacture has a table of dimensions, they would also include a typical weight for each configuration, and perhaps have the frame/fork/other proprietary components/complete build weights.

rpenmanparker 

Many, many frames come without forks. That is why Ritchey, ENVE and others do such a booming fork business. My point is that you will of course use a fork with your frame, but that is not the most efficacious way to compare frame weights. All frames to be weighed should be ready to be sold, i.e. of course they should be painted if that is how they will be sold. But just as I said above, OP thought the Colnago was porky because he didn't know what was included in the weight. Even after knowing that he did not know the weights of the individual parts in order to get the frame-only weight worked out so he could compare it to other frames under consideration.


By the way, I have the same argument (of sorts) with folks all the time about complete bike weights. I feel that we should read about, talk about, and compare bike weights without pedals, bottle cages and computer fittings, in what I call "showroom condition". That way one can tell exactly how much one bike would weigh more or less than another when tricked out with your personal stuff that would be the same no matter what bike you put it on. How can Trek know what pedals you are going to use, what computer, what you have in your tool kit, what bottle cages. No way to know all that. So the best way to compare bikes for buying and selling is in the condition that they are sold in, not the way you ride them. Folks seem to think the weight numbers are for bragging and quoting an artificially low number without those add-ons is cheating. But I am interested in bike weights to know which one is heavier and which one is lighter the way I would ride it. How can I know that about your bike if you confound the number with weight of parts that I don't use?

See the similarity of these two issues? In both cases I am opting for the system of weighing that provides the most comparable information for the greatest number of examples.