rpenmanparker 

I have two bikes, one carbon and one titanium, both weighing in at 14.0 lb. Both were built up by me with a combination of used and new, LBS and ebay parts for about $3200 - $3500 each. I see best of the best bikes in Bicycling Magazin costing $10,000-12,000 and weighing from a little more to plenty more. Nothing on my bike except the wheels is crazy light. Wheels are 1250 g for the pair. Even giving up 250 grams or so for more substantial wheels, I would be right in there. Lately I have seen the top Willier and Canondale frames at 780g and 695g, respectively. That is about 500-600 g lighter than my frame. Then with the lightest FSA crank and BB30 bottom bracket, that is another 160 g that could be saved or about 1.5 lb. So if I could easily have a 13.0 lb bike with pretty substantial wheels or 12.5 lb with the wheels I prefer. So my question is why can I do it, and the big boys don't? I'm talking Red groupo except for crank and brake calipers which are zero gravity. Continental Grand Prix 400 tires. Terry Falcon Y saddle. Performance Pro Carbon post. FSA lightweight carbon bar and stem. 240 g Look Keo pedals. And a 1,200g + frame with 350 g fork. Like I said, nothing crazy. I will give you back the 60g for brakes and still come in arond 13.0 lb. So why are the premium manufacturers charging $11,000 and wasting 1.5 lb. I just don't get it.

Robert

AMFJ

it's not all about weight

ColinL

you have weighed your bikes on a decent scale and got 14.0 pounds, or you added up all the parts and came up with 14.0 pounds?

saintsfaninks26

"For all road, cyclo-cross and track events there is a minimum weight requirement of 6.8
kg (14.99 lb). Ultra light road bikes and many track bikes may weigh less than the
minimum weight. These are not allowed without adding additional weight to the bicycle
to achieve the minimum weight. Water bottles, tool bags, pumps and such items that can
simply be removed from the bike are not counted in the minimum required weight."

Your bikes are illegal. Bike manufacturers are not going to make bikes that are not legal for competition when most of their clientele that is willing to pay $11,000 for a bike is probably going to compete in something.

datlas 

Lighter is not always better.

My bike is amazingly good and weighs approx 17 pounds.

p.s. Bicycling Magazine? That's an effing joke. You lose a lot of cred in here by referring to that rag. You sure you are not trolling??

merlinextraligh

That's categorically not true. Vast majority of high end bikes are sold to people who are either not going to race them, or do race them in events not subject to UCI rules.


Tons of Cat 2,3,4,and 5's race bikes below the UCI weight limit.

And a number of bikes, including the EVO, are sold that weigh below the weight limit.

Bike manufacturers continue to make lighter and lighter bikes because people will buy them.

StanSeven

It takes an awful lot to get a complete bike (such as pedals and cages) down to 14.0 lbs. As already asked, did you weigh your bike on an accurate scale? If so, how about showing a pic? I can see a complete CF getting down close to 14 but not a Ti.

I've got 56cm bikes built with DA, Zipp (clinchers), pedals (SPD-SL) and other normal parts and the CF weighs 16.2 and the Ti (which is a very light Ti frame) at 18.2 lbs

rjones28 

https://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...uestion_222524

merlinextraligh

This. 1250 gram frame typically doesn't build up to 14.0 pounds.

Also the OP is not comparing apples to apples when he's talking brand new bike full retail, and a bike cobbled together from used parts, and carefully sourced deals.

And just as the scale may be a little light, the accounting may be light on odds and ends, and things like shipping.

jmX

Yup, weigh your bike and get back to us.

My DuraAce S-works cost me $3350 and weighed in around 14.4lbs. MSRP was $8000'ish, but that doesn't mean deals can't be had - just as you may not have paid full MSRP for the parts you bought to build your bike.

HokuLoa

I could make a very light, very cheap, but very inefficient and breakable bike. Weight is not always the goal or the reason for the price.

LowCel 

My Red equipped Colnago CX1 weighs 16 pounds. Pretty impressive that you managed to get two "budget" builds down to 14.0 pounds without even trying. I weighed mine on a Feedback Sports bike scale for what it's worth.

My former race bike built with Campy Record, Zipp 404 tubulars, and a very light Fuji SL1 (C10 carbon) frameset weighed 14.2 pounds and I spent a small fortune on it.

JoelS

I recently built up a bike that spec'd at just over 13 pounds. Actual weight was 14.7. I probably forgot some stuff in the spec, and spec weights are often low.

ColinL

exactly.


here's the betting lines on what the OP does next:

weighing his bikes on a credible scale, taking pics and posting them = -300
replying and admitting his bikes aren't near 14.0 pounds = -550
coming back and assuring us they are 14.0 pounds, but no evidence of such = +400
never replying again = even

datlas 

I'm in!!

IthaDan 

Light, cheap, durable. Pick two.

OP, why don't you go into business building these bikes and selling them for $5k? You're making a grand per bike, while still undercutting named manufacturers by more than half.

Now think about warrantying them- well, that's going to take some money saved up, now isn't it?
How are you going to distribute them? I'll venture that takes money.
You going to sell them yourself, or franchise in a dealer network? Takes money to hire sales reps.
What about getting the word out, sponsorship, advertising, or manufacturer incentives? Yup, you guessed it, more money!
Now think about the scope of your brand, will you remain a boutique maker or will you create a line of models? R&D costs money, and the lower end has an even worse [sometimes breaking even or worse] margin than the halo bikes.
What about sourcing the latest and greatest? Going to take prestige (created through marketing money) or straight cash in the form of large orders to parts suppliers to get noticed. Plus, ebay and LBS deals come in lots of at most ten- trying to create a consistent product from an inconsistent input stream seems like a fool's errand.

There are a ton more, but I'm getting depressed about finally thinking through the logistics of my dream career, and you get the point anyway.

rpenmanparker 

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

ColinL

damn, I could've made some good money on that. I knew you were going to assure us of the weight but not provide any evidence beyond more words. I give the rant 3.5 out of 5... I downrank it for a lack of swearing and it was a bit repetitive.

HokuLoa

Or, you could take seriously the serious answers and accept that "weight ain't everything." You did ask "why not lighter?" The simple answer is that weight is only one component of the whole bike equation and is often a trade off for other desired characteristics. Many of which are far more valuable and therefore command a higher price.

IthaDan 

I will never understand the mentality that asks a question only to fight off and dismiss the answers.

rpenmanparker 

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

rpenmanparker 

Itha, you are dreaming if you think those are answers to my question.

Robert

rpenmanparker 

All good points, except that I don't want to go into business making and selling bikes. I am just wondering why the people who do won't give us the full benefit of the technologies that are available for the high prices they charge. I am just saying if I can do it with indiviually purchased components ( all of which include the costs you listed by the way), think what they could do with their resources and buying power.

Robert

AMFJ

Not everyone can ride a medium frame--so some frames are just heavier.
Not everyone cares to ride such lightweight wheels---they prefer more durable--so heavier
Not everyone wants a carbon bar and stem--they prefer not to risk what goes with that--so heavier
Not everyone wants light weight tubes--because they prefer better puncture resistence--so heavier

Etc. etc. etc.

You built your bikes with light first. Others built their bikes for what they want. If all things are equal you go lighter. If things are not equal--you pick out which is important to you and you go that route.


Manufacturers don't do what you did because as soon as the 300lb person starts breaking spokes, getting flats, has a handlebar break after a crash, etc. etc., they get drug through the mud for having an "unreliable" bike.

AlphaDogg

Your question has been answered. Let me sum it up for you: weight isn't everything and there is a UCI-enforced minimum weight requirement. It's also about marketing. If a company can market a bike as "the most aerodynamic" or "the stiffest", that distracts from the weight and allows them to keep the price up.