My 120mm stem weighs 100g and their 120mm stem weighs 90g. Mine uses and integrated aerobar setup and has an arguably stronger clamp (more bolt threads). So I think the extra 10g is not a bad comprimise.

Nice bike, but............. if you hit a pothole, would the bike shatter because it's so light? Seriously, how durable is a sub 15 lb bike?

I would not know since I normally look where I am riding and miss potholes.

"Seriously, how durable is a sub 15 lb bike" Well I can tell you that 4 out of my 8 bikes are under 13.5 lbs and they are all more than durable enough to be ridden hard.

SPAM ALERT

I have decided to sell the bike after an ankle injury that is keeping me from riding for a long while. So if you know anyone that is looking for a great light weight build, let me know.

How much? Size?

The frame is a 2007 brushed with the only thing that is original being the frame and headset. I only have 2 hours on the bike total after building it.

The frame size is a 54cm and I have sent you a PM in regards to the pricing.

I have $1750 total into this bike but I am not asking even half of that. Just the facts of life. The only thing that I am not selling with the bike is the saddle which I will replace with an SLR that I have. That should drop the weight to around 12.8

I am willing to sell the wheels seperately as they are the American Classic Hurricane Track wheelset which I paid almost the same price at the bike. The wheels come with a Dura-Ace 16t track cog and locking ring. I can throw on some older tires and tubes for free.

54cm? Darn that's too small for me at 6'3", 34" inseam. I could mayybbeee make a 56 work with the seatpost up....but anyways, nice build.

I would be interested in the frame, fork, and headset, if you want to part it out. PM me

Watch out for those potholes! :roflmao2:

Not trying to be an arse (although some might say otherwise) but why the sloped top tube? I can see if it were a smaller frame, but from the looks of it (size wise and apparent unlimited cash flow) you could have had your choice of just about any frame with a straight top tube? Preferance?

Sloping top tube is lighter and stiffer, all else being equal.

Really? Is there something that shows this to be fact? Again, not trying to be an arse, just need to know :thumb:

Virtually every road bike these days is sloping geometry. It's not too hard to see why - the tubes form a smaller triangle which increases stiffness and uses less material.

Heres something I found:

"IMO an angled top tube (also known as 'compact geometry') makes it easier for some companies to make fewer different sized frames and still meet a wide range of rider fits than they could with a traditional (horizontal) top tube.

This is a generalization though. Some companies make a lot of differnet compact geometry frames, some still make only three (small medium large) versus the traditional geometry frames that come in 1 or 2 cm increments.

As far as impact on handling, ride quality, stiffness? You're going to have to test ride and test ride alot to determine the answer to that one. There are a LOT of variables here aside from the sloping top tube....

frame material
frame construction
head tube angle
seat tube angle
wheels
tires
etc...

From an engineer's view point, sloping top tubes (compact geometry) makes the bike slightly more comfortable (more vertical compliance) - the rest is all marketing hype. Many compact frames make it hard to fit an oversize water bottle on the seat tube.

Basically, compact frames look "cooler", and are marketing hype. If given my choice, I would prefer a slightly angled top tube, less than the usual I see on most bikes.

Strictly geometrically speaking, the angle of the top tube alone makes zero difference. Zip. Picture yourself in your optimal riding position, with no bicycle under you. You have three points that need to be connected in some way: Butt, feet, and hands. Your feet make a circle around one point, which is the bottom bracket, and your hands are positioned on bars which are connected by one stem. So you have three components that need to be connected in some way: the saddle, the stem, and the bottom bracket. You have a fork that holds the front wheel, and the down tube basically makes a straight line from the bottom bracket to the fork crown. You position the rear wheel where you want it, and draw a straight line from the rear axle to the bottom bracket to get your chainstays.
You can make your seat tube come all the way up to your butt and have a short seat post, or you can make the seat tube short and have a long seatpost, but your butt is still in the same place. You need to have a head tube short enough to get the bars as low as you might want them. You can connect the top tube to the seat tube wherever you want, and the the fit of the bicycle will not change. If it's too high you'll bust your privates trying to get on and off the bike, but it won't matter when you're riding.
In terms of actual frame design, making a sloping top tube theoretically makes the frame stiffer in the direction of motion (front to back) and helps it accelerate a little better. But that's only one of many factors that affect its stiffness, so I wouldn't put too much stock in any generalizations about that.
One thing it does do is mean that if the top tube slopes down a lot from the top of the head tube, you have a lot more standover height (more important on mountain bikes than road bikes) and a lot more seatpost sticking out. A long seatpost that isn't stabilized by the top tube will have a lot more vertical compliance than a longer seat tube stabilized by the top tube, so if all else is equal, you get more damping effect from having more of the height between bottom bracket and saddle being occupied by seatpost rather than less seatpost and more seat tube. This matters because it means that if you're going to have that much seatpost sticking out and absorbing some road shock, you can make the whole frame a little stiffer without compromising comfort as much.
With all of the materials and different kinds of frame designs though, the angle of the top tube is just one small variable among many that can all have an effect on the stiffness, comfort, acceleration, and feel of a frame, so I wouldn't put too much stock in it. You're just going to have to test ride bikes and decide on the one you like the feel of anyway.
The sloping top tube design does have an advantage for manufacturers, though: Because you have so much more seatpost sticking out and therefore so much more room for seat height adjustment, they design the frames to have a fair amount of steerer sticking out and long angled stems. That allows for a lot of adjustment in the reach of a frame (by using different length stems and adjusting the stem height) so that fewer frame sizes can be adjusted to fit a wider range of riders. So the manufacturing costs are cheaper because they only have to produce the frames in, say, 4 cm size increments instead of 2 cm size increments.

The drawback for consumers is that lots of dumb bike shop sales people just size bikes by standover height; if the top tube can slope all these different ways, that doesn't really mean much for the size of the frame and it means that lots of people who don't know better get sold a bike that's the wrong size. Shops don't want to spend the time swapping out stems to adjust the bike to fit (or they make you buy a new stem in addition to the one that came on the bike), so if you're in between sizes you're out of luck.

The benefit to consumers is that because the manufacturers are figuring that you're going to need to swap out stems to make the bike fit, there are lots of good options out there for different length stems with different amounts of rise if you know to look for them.

But mostly, it's just the "in thing" nowadays. And the point about fitting water bottles is a good one. If you're racing in a crit it doesn't matter that much, but if you want to be able to go on a 4-hr ride without needing to stop and refill, being able to easily carry two 16-oz. bottles is important."

ASAholes seem to be harder to miss than potholes around here.:bang:

ASAholes, what are those?? :innocent:

I made the comment about the potholes, because I've never owned a sub 15 lb bike. It seems to me that there is a point of diminishing returns to losing weight, and the trade-off would be a loss of durability. However, I don't know so I asked you since you own just such a bike. My question was: "If you hit a pothole would the bike shatter"? I never implied you don't watch where you're going, or that you ride in potholes. I simply asked a rhetoric question. Yet your response to me was sarcastic.

I'm entitled to make jokes at your expense, when you walk around with a chip on your shoulder!