Why not lighter?
06-05-12, 08:54 PM
#76
Senior Member
Interesting that you say that. Tell me what you mean. I have to feel that there is a sensitivity in this forum to a certain style of language that goes unnoticed elsewhere like in normal conversation, emailing, and even other subject (non-cycling) forums. What exactly is that? What are the peculiar triggers that set folks off on a tirade of accusations (e.g. trolling), inuendo, sarcasm, yuk-yukking at an inside joke, etc. instead of eliciting simple and factual replies? It certainly seems to be ingrained in the culture of the forum. How did that happen? I am not suggesting the original post was perfection incarnate, but rather that it was not intended to offend. So why did it?
Post a photo of your bikes on a scale and there might be hope.
06-05-12, 09:04 PM
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Posts: 6,682
Bikes: 8 ss bikes, 1 5-speed touring bike
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
somebody could have posted one or two of these
as a gesture, just to lighten it up a bit...
Last edited by hueyhoolihan; 06-05-12 at 09:09 PM.
06-05-12, 09:26 PM
#78
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
Well, thanks for that explanation. I am fascinated by the forum's hang up (not everyone but in general) with post count. Nobody with less than 1,000 posts could possibly be telling the truth. And tone. You repeated that but didn't explain it. As for the polarizing topic, a difference of opinion is one thing but total investment of one's ego in his/her position is quite another. Wait a minute...Yeah, I think I hear my mother calling me in for supper. Gotta run, she hates it when I'm late. And she is having my favorite tonight, Brussel sprouts. But this has really been fun. No, I don't need to take the ball with me. You guys can play with it until I see you again. I will be away for a few days, but when I get back I hope we can do this again. I will try to have that photo you think is so important so you will know that I am not lying. As if!
06-05-12, 09:28 PM
#79
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
Thanks. I appreciate the supportive comments.
06-05-12, 09:37 PM
#80
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,468
Bikes: 2011 Cervelo S2, 2001Trek USPS 5200, 06 Cervelo P3 Alum, 1999 Schwinn Pro Stock BMX, 1987 Schwinn Traveler
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The OP is on the right track. I don't understand why the concept is so hard for some people to understand. A lighter bike takes less work to propel up a hill. This is a fact, it is simple physics, and it cannot be refuted. Welcome to the forum, but for future reference please include bottle cages in your bike weights.
06-05-12, 10:06 PM
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: MS
Posts: 198
Bikes: Trek 1200 Felt F3
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
OP,nothing awakens the wrath of a biker and inflames them with a desire of vengeance more effectually than affronts leveled at the weight of their bike or other objects of their vanity"brands" "colors".You simply brought up a deep rooted fear"are our bikes to heavy".I to have two heavy bikes that I've ridden for years and hold in very high regard,But I will admit that when I walk past my new mistress "a Felt F3,very very light bike" late at night ,I whisper,je t'aime mon velo cher,so very fast and beautiful
06-05-12, 10:06 PM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 855
Bikes: Surly Disc Trucker, Ribble Nero Corsa, Surly Karate Monkey, Surly Ice Cream Truck, Cannondale MT800, Evil Insurgent
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This is not to say that physics is not a well-developed science, that there is not overwhelming consensus on the physics theories that apply to a bicycle, etc. But the problem with any discussion of science is that those who purport to apply scientific theory, even those with knowledge of the underlying science, pretend as if the philosophy of science is meaningless, that the "rules" of what science is and isn't and what questions science can answer are "facts," etc.
The reality is that scientific modeling is imperfect and fails every day. The fact that a number of people, all of them experienced scientists, can come to different conclusions about a real-world bicycle shows that not all--if any--are considering all of the known variables regarding a bicycle.
And if nothing else, this demonstrates that on matter how "simple" the question, that modeling and FULLY explaining any scientific question is subject to the bounds of the imagination, knowledge, and skill of the person doing the modeling. To regard such as fact is intellectually dishonest at the very least, and, potentially, utterly against that which science, of any kind, purports to explain.
Keep in mind that this is not an insult, but merely a criticism of those who seek to assert that science explains far beyond what it seeks to justify, typically because those without sufficient knowledge of the bounds between science and fiction seldom question those who purport to have scientific conclusions. In this case, the truth couldn't be further from the case, and those who claim to be using "simple" physics draw differing conclusions because, in the real world, one of their models is closer to reality than the others.
Which competing conclusion is entitled to deference is yet unclear given the evidence presented here, at least to me. Either way, none are fact. Fact, as a term, describes observed phenomena in science, which no measurement of work can satisfy.
06-05-12, 10:13 PM
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: MS
Posts: 198
Bikes: Trek 1200 Felt F3
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This is where you're wrong. The application of a theory is still a theory, the amount of power required to move a bicycle (unless measured and OBSERVED!) is not a fact, is not "simple" unless you've measured it, and obviously CAN be refuted as pages of discussion and links to other discussions have alluded.
This is not to say that physics is not a well-developed science, that there is not overwhelming consensus on the physics theories that apply to a bicycle, etc. But the problem with any discussion of science is that those who purport to apply scientific theory, even those with knowledge of the underlying science, pretend as if the philosophy of science is meaningless, that the "rules" of what science is and isn't and what questions science can answer are "facts," etc.
The reality is that scientific modeling is imperfect and fails every day. The fact that a number of people, all of them experienced scientists, can come to different conclusions about a real-world bicycle shows that not all--if any--are considering all of the known variables regarding a bicycle.
And if nothing else, this demonstrates that on matter how "simple" the question, that modeling and FULLY explaining any scientific question is subject to the bounds of the imagination, knowledge, and skill of the person doing the modeling. To regard such as fact is intellectually dishonest at the very least, and, potentially, utterly against that which science, of any kind, purports to explain.
Keep in mind that this is not an insult, but merely a criticism of those who seek to assert that science explains far beyond what it seeks to justify, typically because those without sufficient knowledge of the bounds between science and fiction seldom question those who purport to have scientific conclusions. In this case, the truth couldn't be further from the case, and those who claim to be using "simple" physics draw differing conclusions because, in the real world, one of their models is closer to reality than the others.
Which competing conclusion is entitled to deference is yet unclear given the evidence presented here, at least to me. Either way, none are fact. Fact, as a term, describes observed phenomena in science, which no measurement of work can satisfy.
This is not to say that physics is not a well-developed science, that there is not overwhelming consensus on the physics theories that apply to a bicycle, etc. But the problem with any discussion of science is that those who purport to apply scientific theory, even those with knowledge of the underlying science, pretend as if the philosophy of science is meaningless, that the "rules" of what science is and isn't and what questions science can answer are "facts," etc.
The reality is that scientific modeling is imperfect and fails every day. The fact that a number of people, all of them experienced scientists, can come to different conclusions about a real-world bicycle shows that not all--if any--are considering all of the known variables regarding a bicycle.
And if nothing else, this demonstrates that on matter how "simple" the question, that modeling and FULLY explaining any scientific question is subject to the bounds of the imagination, knowledge, and skill of the person doing the modeling. To regard such as fact is intellectually dishonest at the very least, and, potentially, utterly against that which science, of any kind, purports to explain.
Keep in mind that this is not an insult, but merely a criticism of those who seek to assert that science explains far beyond what it seeks to justify, typically because those without sufficient knowledge of the bounds between science and fiction seldom question those who purport to have scientific conclusions. In this case, the truth couldn't be further from the case, and those who claim to be using "simple" physics draw differing conclusions because, in the real world, one of their models is closer to reality than the others.
Which competing conclusion is entitled to deference is yet unclear given the evidence presented here, at least to me. Either way, none are fact. Fact, as a term, describes observed phenomena in science, which no measurement of work can satisfy.
06-05-12, 10:15 PM
#84
This is where you're wrong. The application of a theory is still a theory, the amount of power required to move a bicycle (unless measured and OBSERVED!) is not a fact, is not "simple" unless you've measured it, and obviously CAN be refuted as pages of discussion and links to other discussions have alluded.
This is not to say that physics is not a well-developed science, that there is not overwhelming consensus on the physics theories that apply to a bicycle, etc. But the problem with any discussion of science is that those who purport to apply scientific theory, even those with knowledge of the underlying science, pretend as if the philosophy of science is meaningless, that the "rules" of what science is and isn't and what questions science can answer are "facts," etc.
The reality is that scientific modeling is imperfect and fails every day. The fact that a number of people, all of them experienced scientists, can come to different conclusions about a real-world bicycle shows that not all--if any--are considering all of the known variables regarding a bicycle.
And if nothing else, this demonstrates that on matter how "simple" the question, that modeling and FULLY explaining any scientific question is subject to the bounds of the imagination, knowledge, and skill of the person doing the modeling. To regard such as fact is intellectually dishonest at the very least, and, potentially, utterly against that which science, of any kind, purports to explain.
Keep in mind that this is not an insult, but merely a criticism of those who seek to assert that science explains far beyond what it seeks to justify, typically because those without sufficient knowledge of the bounds between science and fiction seldom question those who purport to have scientific conclusions. In this case, the truth couldn't be further from the case, and those who claim to be using "simple" physics draw differing conclusions because, in the real world, one of their models is closer to reality than the others.
Which competing conclusion is entitled to deference is yet unclear given the evidence presented here, at least to me. Either way, none are fact. Fact, as a term, describes observed phenomena in science, which no measurement of work can satisfy.
This is not to say that physics is not a well-developed science, that there is not overwhelming consensus on the physics theories that apply to a bicycle, etc. But the problem with any discussion of science is that those who purport to apply scientific theory, even those with knowledge of the underlying science, pretend as if the philosophy of science is meaningless, that the "rules" of what science is and isn't and what questions science can answer are "facts," etc.
The reality is that scientific modeling is imperfect and fails every day. The fact that a number of people, all of them experienced scientists, can come to different conclusions about a real-world bicycle shows that not all--if any--are considering all of the known variables regarding a bicycle.
And if nothing else, this demonstrates that on matter how "simple" the question, that modeling and FULLY explaining any scientific question is subject to the bounds of the imagination, knowledge, and skill of the person doing the modeling. To regard such as fact is intellectually dishonest at the very least, and, potentially, utterly against that which science, of any kind, purports to explain.
Keep in mind that this is not an insult, but merely a criticism of those who seek to assert that science explains far beyond what it seeks to justify, typically because those without sufficient knowledge of the bounds between science and fiction seldom question those who purport to have scientific conclusions. In this case, the truth couldn't be further from the case, and those who claim to be using "simple" physics draw differing conclusions because, in the real world, one of their models is closer to reality than the others.
Which competing conclusion is entitled to deference is yet unclear given the evidence presented here, at least to me. Either way, none are fact. Fact, as a term, describes observed phenomena in science, which no measurement of work can satisfy.
are you suggesting the there are times when a cyclist wastes energy when choosing to move an object/bike of lesser mass?
06-05-12, 10:33 PM
#86
Senior Member
06-05-12, 10:41 PM
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 442
Bikes: Turner Czar, Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This is where you're wrong. The application of a theory is still a theory, the amount of power required to move a bicycle (unless measured and OBSERVED!) is not a fact, is not "simple" unless you've measured it, and obviously CAN be refuted as pages of discussion and links to other discussions have alluded.
This is not to say that physics is not a well-developed science, that there is not overwhelming consensus on the physics theories that apply to a bicycle, etc. But the problem with any discussion of science is that those who purport to apply scientific theory, even those with knowledge of the underlying science, pretend as if the philosophy of science is meaningless, that the "rules" of what science is and isn't and what questions science can answer are "facts," etc.
The reality is that scientific modeling is imperfect and fails every day. The fact that a number of people, all of them experienced scientists, can come to different conclusions about a real-world bicycle shows that not all--if any--are considering all of the known variables regarding a bicycle.
And if nothing else, this demonstrates that on matter how "simple" the question, that modeling and FULLY explaining any scientific question is subject to the bounds of the imagination, knowledge, and skill of the person doing the modeling. To regard such as fact is intellectually dishonest at the very least, and, potentially, utterly against that which science, of any kind, purports to explain.
Keep in mind that this is not an insult, but merely a criticism of those who seek to assert that science explains far beyond what it seeks to justify, typically because those without sufficient knowledge of the bounds between science and fiction seldom question those who purport to have scientific conclusions. In this case, the truth couldn't be further from the case, and those who claim to be using "simple" physics draw differing conclusions because, in the real world, one of their models is closer to reality than the others.
Which competing conclusion is entitled to deference is yet unclear given the evidence presented here, at least to me. Either way, none are fact. Fact, as a term, describes observed phenomena in science, which no measurement of work can satisfy.
This is not to say that physics is not a well-developed science, that there is not overwhelming consensus on the physics theories that apply to a bicycle, etc. But the problem with any discussion of science is that those who purport to apply scientific theory, even those with knowledge of the underlying science, pretend as if the philosophy of science is meaningless, that the "rules" of what science is and isn't and what questions science can answer are "facts," etc.
The reality is that scientific modeling is imperfect and fails every day. The fact that a number of people, all of them experienced scientists, can come to different conclusions about a real-world bicycle shows that not all--if any--are considering all of the known variables regarding a bicycle.
And if nothing else, this demonstrates that on matter how "simple" the question, that modeling and FULLY explaining any scientific question is subject to the bounds of the imagination, knowledge, and skill of the person doing the modeling. To regard such as fact is intellectually dishonest at the very least, and, potentially, utterly against that which science, of any kind, purports to explain.
Keep in mind that this is not an insult, but merely a criticism of those who seek to assert that science explains far beyond what it seeks to justify, typically because those without sufficient knowledge of the bounds between science and fiction seldom question those who purport to have scientific conclusions. In this case, the truth couldn't be further from the case, and those who claim to be using "simple" physics draw differing conclusions because, in the real world, one of their models is closer to reality than the others.
Which competing conclusion is entitled to deference is yet unclear given the evidence presented here, at least to me. Either way, none are fact. Fact, as a term, describes observed phenomena in science, which no measurement of work can satisfy.
06-05-12, 10:46 PM
#88
Riding like its 1990
Anyhow, back on topic, there's also the issue of profit margin.
My $600 build is 18.5 lb and while that's not weight weenie, it is on par with most $2-3K bikes and gives up nothing to them.
Not that I begrudge someone going out and laying down the $ for a new bike but I can go out any time and build a comparable bike for less.
Of course, its used, so as far as "having a bike" is concerned, yes, its best for me to go used. As far as many are concerned, they insist on new and that's what they pay. No biggie.
My $600 build is 18.5 lb and while that's not weight weenie, it is on par with most $2-3K bikes and gives up nothing to them.
Not that I begrudge someone going out and laying down the $ for a new bike but I can go out any time and build a comparable bike for less.
Of course, its used, so as far as "having a bike" is concerned, yes, its best for me to go used. As far as many are concerned, they insist on new and that's what they pay. No biggie.
06-05-12, 10:56 PM
#89
Two-Wheeled Aficionado
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Wichita
Posts: 4,903
Bikes: Santa Cruz Blur TR, Cannondale Quick CX dropbar conversion & others
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
I can feel it when I have 2 full 20oz bottles versus none / empty. As to whether that actually makes a difference in my performance... I doubt it, and don't care. I need the water.
BTW for the OP, my post about betting on your replies was a joke. Notice how I didn't have an option for you to post a mix of introspective and inflammatory replies. Clearly I was wrong about you.
I still want to see the 14lb titanium bike on a scale.
BTW for the OP, my post about betting on your replies was a joke. Notice how I didn't have an option for you to post a mix of introspective and inflammatory replies. Clearly I was wrong about you.
I still want to see the 14lb titanium bike on a scale.
06-05-12, 11:27 PM
#91
Senior Member
Just to weigh in with a question...
In the equation of parts and weight, were items like nuts and bolts included? Air in the tires? Valve stem covers? Purposeful bottom bracket or fashionable chain stay protectors? Grease on the chain?
The debate and banter is entertaining if not intriguing, but it provoked thought about those small items in a total weight based on parts weights versus total assembled weight.
A-weight-ing the next chapter...
In the equation of parts and weight, were items like nuts and bolts included? Air in the tires? Valve stem covers? Purposeful bottom bracket or fashionable chain stay protectors? Grease on the chain?
The debate and banter is entertaining if not intriguing, but it provoked thought about those small items in a total weight based on parts weights versus total assembled weight.
A-weight-ing the next chapter...
06-06-12, 12:42 AM
#92
Mr. Dopolina
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,217
Bikes: KUUPAS, Simpson VR
Liked 117 Times
in
41 Posts
Comparing the cost of a bike cobbled together with USED parts (and NO warranties) to an inflated MSRP published in a rag like Bicycling for a NEW bike with FULL warranties is genius, genius I say.
To answer the OPs question: Manufacturers don't build the lightest bikes possible because that isn't the way bikes are spec'd. Here's a brief rundown:
The Product Manager (PM) has a fixed budget and a fixed number of bikes that need to be spec'd. They then go to various factories and grind on price until they have all the parts they need to build all the bikes they want to build. During that process if they can save a dollar one one part that means they have an extra dollar to use somewhere else. Sometimes what gets spec'd on a bike isn't a result of what someone feels is the best part for the job but a result of the horse trading that goes on.
I have seen PM quibble about 2 cents price difference on rim strips because 2 cents times several thousand rim strips would allow him to upgrade the stem on another model in the line-up.
Why are so many Shimano equipped bikes spec'd with FSA (or the like) cranks instead of Shimano? Because FSA (and the like) are cheaper. That means the PM can upgrade the RR der from Sora to 105 and call it a 105 bike.
Why do you think most new bikes have crappy rim strips and tubes and often very mediocre headsets and tape? It's because most consumers look at the frame and the RR der; You need the right names there. The money saved on stuff you can't see means it can be spent on stuff you can see.
In the end, the only way to go uber-light is to do it yourself.
Now you have your answer so pics or it didn't happen.
To answer the OPs question: Manufacturers don't build the lightest bikes possible because that isn't the way bikes are spec'd. Here's a brief rundown:
The Product Manager (PM) has a fixed budget and a fixed number of bikes that need to be spec'd. They then go to various factories and grind on price until they have all the parts they need to build all the bikes they want to build. During that process if they can save a dollar one one part that means they have an extra dollar to use somewhere else. Sometimes what gets spec'd on a bike isn't a result of what someone feels is the best part for the job but a result of the horse trading that goes on.
I have seen PM quibble about 2 cents price difference on rim strips because 2 cents times several thousand rim strips would allow him to upgrade the stem on another model in the line-up.
Why are so many Shimano equipped bikes spec'd with FSA (or the like) cranks instead of Shimano? Because FSA (and the like) are cheaper. That means the PM can upgrade the RR der from Sora to 105 and call it a 105 bike.
Why do you think most new bikes have crappy rim strips and tubes and often very mediocre headsets and tape? It's because most consumers look at the frame and the RR der; You need the right names there. The money saved on stuff you can't see means it can be spent on stuff you can see.
In the end, the only way to go uber-light is to do it yourself.
Now you have your answer so pics or it didn't happen.
Last edited by Bob Dopolina; 06-06-12 at 01:12 AM.
06-06-12, 12:53 AM
#93
Blissketeer
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I truly don't understand. I am showing you a bike formula that combines all the desired attributes, each in their proper proportion. The frame is known to be a quality ride. The group is known to be among the best. And on and on. The only possible weak spot is the ultra-light wheels, and I have mentioned what it would cost in weight to beef them up. The trade-offs you embrace so fervently are imaginary today. Ain't technology wonderful. Why would you not want it all? Reminds me of a song by Adele!
I guess this isn't the time to mention that my Ritchey Break Away steel only weighs 16.3 lb. No, I didn't think so.
Robert
I guess this isn't the time to mention that my Ritchey Break Away steel only weighs 16.3 lb. No, I didn't think so.
Robert
06-06-12, 03:36 AM
#94
out walking the earth
All said, I have the SL version of the op's bike. In a small. It isn't 14 pounds. And a lighter year. I kinda also have my doubts, so undocumented weights definitely lead to the initial feeling folks had that here was a guy trolling.
06-06-12, 04:08 AM
#95
Professional Fuss-Budget
No one buys a new Colnago frame hoping to pinch pennies.
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
One thing you seem to overlook is that I paid for all those manufacturers costs in every part that I bought.
And again, materials and components are only a small portion of a major manufacturer's costs.
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
But to shift gears a little, why all the snarky comments about my methodology like "Fleabay" and "leftovers"?
a little, why all the snarky comments about my methodology like "Fleabay" and "leftovers"?You asked why you could put together a light bike on the cheap, and the big companies charge more than what you put together in your garage, and I gave you a pretty good idea of the costs you aren't paying. Again: Research & design, development, legal, accounting, taxes, shipping, inventory, unsold bikes, marketing, PR, team sponsorships, labor and salaries, websites, warranty service, overhead and of course profits.
Say... how much do ultra-light framesets cost new these days?
Pinarello Dogma, 1845g (53cm), around $5000
Orbea Orca Gold, 1865g (53cm), around $3600
Wilier Zero.7, 675g (Medium), around $5500
Cervelo S5, ~1000g, $3000
Trek Madone 6.9 SSL, ~850g, $3900
Giant TCR Advanced SL0, 820g, $3200
$3000 barely gets you a new frameset. A SRAM Red 2012 groupset is around $2000 new. Slap on some halfway decent wheels, that's another $1000.
It seems clear the problem is twofold.
• You aren't considering the full costs involved in producing and selling the absurdly expensive über-bikes.
• Your frame of reference is distorted by your bargain hunting and willingness to work on your own bikes.
This is not to say there is something wrong with putting together a super-light bike for $3500. Only that it's unreasonable to expect mass manufacturers to match the price of a guy who has a 5 year old frameset and put his bike together by himself in his garage from parts off of eBay.
06-06-12, 05:05 AM
#96
Throw the stick!!!!
I remember my weight weenie days.....don't really miss them. 
__________________
I may be fat but I'm slow enough to make up for it.
06-06-12, 05:20 AM
#97
out walking the earth
I can also agree with the fact that looking at msrp on new bikes and leaving shipping costs off ones own scavenger hunt to be too biased to take seriously. I can buy a new giant for a significantly subsidized price. One that gives me a bike a day or two after I decide I want it. No shipping. No loss of my time scouring eBay or price point or bonk love. I simply ride the living **** out of my bikes which wins me races. Which is mostly what having high end gear is all supposed to be about anyway.
06-06-12, 05:27 AM
#98
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
The $12k Madones are custom team jobs with DA Di2; the Madone 6.5 is closer to $5k. Both are around 14 pounds. (DA Di2 alone adds ~$1600 over the cost of Red, mechanical DA or Ultegra Di2.) The TCR is $6500, and the frame weighs around 820g (not sure about total bike weight).
No one buys a new Colnago frame hoping to pinch pennies.
Not if you bought them used, and provenance not always clear when buy off of eBay. E.g. the parts could easily be older NOS parts rather than new.
And again, materials and components are only a small portion of a major manufacturer's costs.
Good grief, but you're sensitive.
You asked why you could put together a light bike on the cheap, and the big companies charge more than what you put together in your garage, and I gave you a pretty good idea of the costs you aren't paying. Again: Research & design, development, legal, accounting, taxes, shipping, inventory, unsold bikes, marketing, PR, team sponsorships, labor and salaries, websites, warranty service, overhead and of course profits.
Say... how much do ultra-light framesets cost new these days?
Pinarello Dogma, 1845g (53cm), around $5000
Orbea Orca Gold, 1865g (53cm), around $3600
Wilier Zero.7, 675g (Medium), around $5500
Cervelo S5, ~1000g, $3000
Trek Madone 6.9 SSL, ~850g, $3900
Giant TCR Advanced SL0, 820g, $3200
$3000 barely gets you a new frameset. A SRAM Red 2012 groupset is around $2000 new. Slap on some halfway decent wheels, that's another $1000.
It seems clear the problem is twofold.
• You aren't considering the full costs involved in producing and selling the absurdly expensive über-bikes.
• Your frame of reference is distorted by your bargain hunting and willingness to work on your own bikes.
This is not to say there is something wrong with putting together a super-light bike for $3500. Only that it's unreasonable to expect mass manufacturers to match the price of a guy who has a 5 year old frameset and put his bike together by himself in his garage from parts off of eBay.
No one buys a new Colnago frame hoping to pinch pennies.
Not if you bought them used, and provenance not always clear when buy off of eBay. E.g. the parts could easily be older NOS parts rather than new.
And again, materials and components are only a small portion of a major manufacturer's costs.
Good grief, but you're sensitive.
You asked why you could put together a light bike on the cheap, and the big companies charge more than what you put together in your garage, and I gave you a pretty good idea of the costs you aren't paying. Again: Research & design, development, legal, accounting, taxes, shipping, inventory, unsold bikes, marketing, PR, team sponsorships, labor and salaries, websites, warranty service, overhead and of course profits.
Say... how much do ultra-light framesets cost new these days?
Pinarello Dogma, 1845g (53cm), around $5000
Orbea Orca Gold, 1865g (53cm), around $3600
Wilier Zero.7, 675g (Medium), around $5500
Cervelo S5, ~1000g, $3000
Trek Madone 6.9 SSL, ~850g, $3900
Giant TCR Advanced SL0, 820g, $3200
$3000 barely gets you a new frameset. A SRAM Red 2012 groupset is around $2000 new. Slap on some halfway decent wheels, that's another $1000.
It seems clear the problem is twofold.
• You aren't considering the full costs involved in producing and selling the absurdly expensive über-bikes.
• Your frame of reference is distorted by your bargain hunting and willingness to work on your own bikes.
This is not to say there is something wrong with putting together a super-light bike for $3500. Only that it's unreasonable to expect mass manufacturers to match the price of a guy who has a 5 year old frameset and put his bike together by himself in his garage from parts off of eBay.
My parts pick is anything but esoteric, and my Giant frame was far heavier than "promised" in its reviews. If I could do it under these conditons, why couldn't they do even better with such resources and array of components at their disposal (and price to work with). So I wasn't asking about cheaper for the weight, but lighter for the money. I think that is an important semantic distinction, but maybe not.
In all seriousness I am away from the house for several days. Look for a photo/scale update when I return.
06-06-12, 05:27 AM
#99
2 Fat 2 Furious
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,996
Bikes: 2009 Specialized Rockhopper Comp Disc, 2009 Specialized Tricross Sport RIP
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
If you go from a 20 pound bike to a 15 pound bike then the same F gives a 33% increase in acceleration. Trouble is, especially for people like me (i.e. overweight Freds) by the time you've stuck a couple of pounds of toolbag and tools, 3-4 pounds of bottles and cages, and 200+ pounds of my fat ass on the bike the dynamic changes.
At a stroke your weight difference has changed from 5/20 = 25% to 5/250 = 2%. So there will still be a difference in acceleration based on the same force but whether you'd notice it or not is perhaps debatable.
__________________
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
"For a list of ways technology has failed to improve quality of life, press three"
06-06-12, 05:40 AM
#100
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
I can also agree with the fact that looking at msrp on new bikes and leaving shipping costs off ones own scavenger hunt to be too biased to take seriously. I can buy a new giant for a significantly subsidized price. One that gives me a bike a day or two after I decide I want it. No shipping. No loss of my time scouring eBay or price point or bonk love. I simply ride the living **** out of my bikes which wins me races. Which is mostly what having high end gear is all supposed to be about anyway.
