View Single Post
Old 06-03-16 | 08:49 AM
  #45  
corrado33
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 4,094
Likes: 1
From: Bozeman

Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2

I'm sorry, but this is stupid. The "ultra light" rack weighs 275 grams. A typical, good quality (I'm using the Salsa Alternator Standard Rear Rack as a comparison) aluminum rack weighs 765 grams. That's a difference of 490 grams, or about 1 pound. Load the pannier up with 15 pounds of stuff and that's only a 6% difference in weight. That's next to nothing, and shrinks to virtually nothing when you think about pannier, rider, and bike weight as well. You could get that by drinking a bit out of your water bottle before you started off. You could save even more if you went to the bathroom before you left. I bet most people couldn't even pick the heavier loaded bike (by 1 lb) in a blind comparison test.

This product is a way to get money out of people with lots of money and no sense. Race bikes are not meant to have weight mounted on a rack. That's part of the reason why there are no eyelets. For the price of this rack you could buy an entire other bike on bikesdirect and not have to spoil your precious carbon fiber bike.

Anybody who uses racks for serious commuting or touring will NOT want a carbon fiber rack, and anybody who likes to ride their bike quickly will not want a rack on their bike, period. Again, a product for people with more money than sense.
corrado33 is offline  
Reply