I am replying to the last of the inane responses to my posting because that is the most convenient thing to do, but I think my comments will be relevant to them all. With few exceptions you are the smuggest, most pompous, arrogant cycling poseurs I have ever encountered. I have been building up bicycles and wheels since most of you guys were still browning your diapers (assuming that doesn't continue to the present, the betting line for which is perhaps -500). I didn't say I thought the bikes weigh 14.0 lb. I said they do weigh 14.0 lb. Three bike shop scales. Standard equipment, no bottles or cages and no computer or mounts, just like the ones reviewed by the GOOD magazines. Oh yeah, and with paint, tape and decals. You don't want to believe me, have it your way. I am the one riding the light bike, while you are the ones who are always right. Hmm, interesting trade off.

Weight isn't everything, but it is a thing. And it happens to be the thing I am posting about. If you don't care about weight, don't respond. What I am challenging you to do is tell me what is wrong with a Red/Zero Gravity/FSA equipped carbon or titanium bike that weighs 14.0 lb such that a major manufacturer wouldn't want to emulate it. I am not inviting you to tell me I am lying to you, or I don't know what I am talking about. Maybe instead of the worthless drivel you write back, you should be asking yourselves why I can do it, but you can't? Oh, you can't do that, you would have to be admitting I could be right. Well for one thing, 1,250 gram wheels are a pound lighter than 1,700 gram wheels. So all you guys who are riding wheels speced like boat anchors probably can't reach 14.0 lb. That's too bad. But you would be a closer with a less klunky set of 1,500 g wheels

As for racing weight minimums, that's not my concern. Plenty of the bikes I am comparing to do weigh less than the minimum of 14.99 lb that was quoted. Just not as much less as they could.

Hey, you don't want to ride a lighter bike, don't ride one. But what is it to you if I do?

If you care, here is the recipe for the carbon bike:

2007 Giant TCR Advanced M Frame (not SL) and fork. Frame weight is 1207 g, 227 g (0.5 lb) HEAVIER than an early review promised.
Red Groupo except for Zero Gravity (195 g) brake calipers and KMC lightest chain
Red inner and outer cables
Performance Pro Carbon seat post
Terry Falcon Y (227 g) saddle
FSA OS-99 stem
FSA SLK bar
Cane Creek IS-8 headset
American Classic Micro 58 and Road 205 hubs
Kinlin SR 200 rims - 20/24
Sapim C-XRay spokes
Ritchey rim tape
Continental GP 4000 tires 23mm
Performance Lunar Light tubes
Look Keo carbon 240g pedals

So what can you find fault with. Not the Giant frame, one of the best in the world from the most experienced factory on earth. Not the SRAM Red group. Not the FSA bar and stem, among the most popular in use. Not anything really except maybe the low spoke count, ultralight rims. Fair enough. But as I said these could be beefed up considerably for less than 200 g sacrifice. Still plenty of room to spare in a head to head with Trek or Specialized. And that is not even considering the reductions available with the newest and lightest frames that come in at 700-800 g.

Oh yeah, and I'm sure you could tell from a picture what the bike weighs.

Get a life. Or better yet, get a REAL bike. The good news is that you COULD afford it. If you take your head out of you butt, off course.

Robert