Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About
It is currently Fri May 06, 2016 10:05 pm
Recently the board software has been updated and there are some known bugs/failures:
- Avatars are currently not being displayed ✔ FIXED
- Tapatalk connection is currently broken ✔ FIXED

If you find more errors please post it here: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=139062


All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:56 am
Posts: 360
Okay so with a riding hiatus upon me I've become a little focussed on lightening up my C60.

And this process has got me thinking along the lines of which Colnago builds featured on this forum have been particularly lightweight. I think lightweight and Colnago are not synonymous. The frame/fork weights don't lend themselves to spectacularly light builds. So I am not expecting extraordinary numbers. Another issue for a light weight Colnago in my opinion is the need to use Campag. And wheel choice is constrained by the fact that certain wheels just look like the boss and so there is a penalty in not using them. So Bora's, LW's are big for example. AX Tub 24 mm's with extralite would crush all others for weight at 835 g, but the looks not so good according to actual owners. And it is possible that your average Colnago owner is heavier than a bird too (although maybe I am just talking about myself now).

Anyway I've compiled a list of two notables. I'm relatively new to the forum though and so perhaps others can suggest other less recent builds on other models too.

Highlights for me would have to be (in no particular order):
Bely "Pinkie and the Brain" which features LW's, THM (Crank and Brakes), AX Stem and some other good stuff to achieve ~ 6.34 kg as per this post here.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=131444&hilit=pinkie+and+the+brain

I have lifted a photo and of course credit goes to Bely

Image

The only other build that comes to mind in this weight class would be CloudStorm with an outstanding RSWH C60.

Build can be found here (great great photos). Again I have included a photo and credit goes to CloudStorm. Weight is 6.33 kg and it seems alot of weight could be lost with more specialised low weight gear.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=132532&hilit=c60+and+ventoux

Image

Am I missing any sub 6 kg builds I wonder? Some serious dough needs to be spent I'd wager and perhaps some compromises in the robustness of the bike vis a vis big mileage.

_________________
EPS - 55 - 6.19 kg


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 2902
@mrgray: you are clearly a man of means who seems to like buying stuff for sport and cycling seems to have caught your fancy these days. That's great. But you are right, Colnago and ultralight weight are not really synonymous. Over the years I've come to really appreciate Colnago's build quality, clean lines and attention to details, on the whole at least. But if you really want to build an ultralight project bike then you might consider starting from scratch, with a different frame entirely. Super lightweight projects are largely a rich man's sport these days, as opposed to years ago when the means to achieve lightness was with drills and files and and all kinds of personal ingenuity. Probably much more fulfilling back then, but the truth now is that it's very difficult to further "tune" the lightest products being manufactured and still retain a margin of safety. Thus, a big pocketbook is your most useful tool today. I think that's kind of sad, but it's the way it is. Personally I praise a build that works as whole for an individual rider much more than one that was clearly put together with the lightest part available in each class. Each part doesn't have to be the lightest but functionally it should be the best one available for the criteria the owner has for that specific part, be it strength, looks, feel or whatever. I dunno, just a thought. I'm sure it'll be fun whichever path you go down.

_________________
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:20 pm
Posts: 529
Location: Tokyo
@mrgray,

Welcome to the forum.
Colnago(s) are never light to begin with.
If weight is your main concern, here are some parts that you will need to consider swapping over from the "regular" components.
1. Brake calipers (SR DP weighs 307 gr)
2. Crankset (SR Ti weighs approx 197 + 387 gr)
3. Seatpost (Stock Colnago seatpost weighs approx 224 gr)
4. Bars/stem/saddle ?

If your goal is to have a sub 6kg C60 (pedals included), you'll definitely need a sub 1kg tubular wheelset to begin with + weightweenie components replacing the stock parts above.

Cheers


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:31 pm
Posts: 103
Good thread, will follow with interest.

I'm currently thinking of building up a C60 and would want to keep the weight to around 6.6 kg if possible.

I haven't bought the wheel set yet but they will more than likely be Bora Ultra 35 Tubs at 1170 g
or another option is the Spada Breva Carbon 33 tubs which come in at 970g a pair and cheaper than the Boras

I haven't decided on the rest of the build yet but would be limited with budget. Would therefore somewhere around 6.6kg be achievable without spending lots of the rest of it?
cheers


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:09 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Aix en Provence
I find it pointless to try to reach a specific weight. A C60 can be built light enough. As the frame fork are probably around 500g more than a WW frame and fork the final result will be around 500g more everything else being equal. That's about it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:54 pm
Posts: 69
Location: New England
Agreed. And one has to take into account rider size too. I'm 192 cm and probably apx a few kg shy of 90 kg, so I for one am not aiming to build a sub-6.8 ride. That said, I won't derail the thread and I'm interested to see what people build (and what the frame size is)... I have a feeling we won't see too many 61 trads or 58 slopings. But never say never: prove me wrong :)


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 2902
I was able to get my 61 traditional c59 to 6.8kg, but not without compromises. For instance I used LOOK Ti blade pedals, very light, but went back to trusty Dura-ace within 100 miles. I had carbon bars initially. I've swapped them to alloy because I prefer the style, shape and a little more stiffness, or so it seems. I use Fizik gel under my bar tape. I have a SRM campy crank which adds a bit of weight over the stock SR crank. I use 25mm tubulars vs 22/23mm. Saddles are a no compromise thing. I use 50mm rims instead of shallow. All these things add a bit of weight over the lightest options available. But your biggest limiter will be the frame/fork. I think, though do not know for sure, that the C60 is no lighter than the C59 and may in fact be a smidge heavier. So, a good solid really aggressively rideable build for someone your size would be hard to achieve under 6.8kg in my opinion without making some compromises here and there. But will be interesting to watch.
Damn! I just remembered. I've gotta cut my seatpost down, I'm sure in my traditional frame it extends half way down the seat tube. Ha. Where's the hacksaw?

_________________
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:31 pm
Posts: 103
ha ha.. I will probably be on a 48 so brining it down all the time :)


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:26 pm
Posts: 128
LionelB wrote:
I find it pointless to try to reach a specific weight. A C60 can be built light enough. As the frame fork are probably around 500g more than a WW frame and fork the final result will be around 500g more everything else being equal. That's about it.


troof

Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:32 pm
Posts: 20
I refitted my Colnago EPS (57cm traditional) with light weight parts and it came to 6.7kg. Parts included a THM Clavicula compact crankset, Praxis chainrings, THM ceramic bearing bottom bracket, titanium Speedplay pedals, Deda Superlight seat post, bars and stem. I built the wheels with Chris King hubs, ENVE tubular rims (non-aero) with Pillar Superlight spokes. Additional alloy small parts from Parts of Passion. I am currently building my C60 with more traditional parts. Swapping the parts from the EPS to the C60 would likely yield a bike that weighed 6.5kg. Colnagos are not the first choice for a lightweight build. The fine handling, ride comfort and quality of construction lend themselves to building a bike you will be happy with for many years. Let us know what you decide to build.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 8:48 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:11 pm
Posts: 2872
Location: People's Republic of Boulder
I agree with OP its difficult to get below 6 with a Colnago. But whats the point when you have a solid stable foundation of a Colnago, why mess it up with sub par components?

Calnago wrote:
I was able to get my 61 traditional c59 to 6.8kg, but not without compromises. For instance I used LOOK Ti blade pedals, very light, but went back to trusty Dura-ace within 100 miles. I had carbon bars initially. I've swapped them to alloy because I prefer the style, shape and a little more stiffness, or so it seems. Saddles are a no compromise thing.


+1 the key is compromising durability and fit for the sake of gram chasing.

I am in the same boat as Colnago. I had my C59 down to 6.25 but its wasn't solid anymore. Some WW parts are trustworthy, some are not.

Not:
-Time Xpresso 12 pedals back to DA 9000 pedals +82 grams but they work every time forever
-MCFK bars to Deda Superleggera +22 grams but I can handle the shape of the drops
-Extralite stem to Time Stem +43 grams but I can handle wicked descents with cross winds and 40mm wheels
-I-link mini cables - just use Di2 and be happy with every shift forever.

Trustworthy:
Great places to save hundreds of grams of weight on a Colnago:
Expander plug -> MCFK or extralite saves 37 grams off stock.
Seatpost -> MCFK no compromise -100 grams off stock
Seatpost clamp -> MCFK -17 grams off stock.
Brakes -> EE brakes no compromise on steep long descents (with DA lever, some compromise with Campagnolo levers) -112 grams saved
Cranks -> THM, lightning or Super Record Ti can save a lot of grams with no compromise
Wheels -> any descent carbon tubular will save a lot weight over alloy clinchers. Pimp them out with Ti freehubs, SRAM Red cassette, no decals, superlight hubs etc.

_________________
-Deacon Doctor Colorado Slim


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:56 am
Posts: 360
Hi,
some great information and perhaps some confirmation that it is not a path many Colnago owners wish to go down. I couldn't agree more that a focus needs to be kept on the bikes reliability and safety. I guess that is the challenge, even if just the hypothetical one, of achieving a sub 6 kg C60. For example at my weight I wouldn't like to have wheels that weren't quite stiff. But when looking to achieve a sub 6 kg bike even a Meilenstein becomes a bit heavy! (which obviously highlights how ridiculous the project is perhaps, but then again, it is weight weenies).

i appreciate the input on parts and especially your detailed list coloclimber.

One thing I knew nothing about was the expander plug. Perhaps one of the fun things with looking at how a bike's weight might be reduced is that I am learning alot as I go. Also I am getting to enjoy taking it apart and putting it back together again. Doing so is a mixed bag, I mean I may screw up. But on the other hand it lets me be far more involved in my own bike.

In this vein it has been interesting to read that many are of the opinion that in theory the expander plug can be removed entirely once it has done its job of preloading the bearings. Any thoughts on this? My observation of the long plug in the C60 fork is that it looks like it has been designed to reinforce the clamping area of the steerer tube. What is to stop one removing the expander plug and top cap entirely once they have done their job, besides a fear of moisture and other detritus perhaps getting into the drained tube?

_________________
EPS - 55 - 6.19 kg


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:01 pm
Posts: 636
Location: Downtown Los Angeles, CA
My Ti build (1300g frame) is sub 6kg, but I wasn't limited to a Campag groupset. The C60 is supposed to be 1050g and whatever for the fork, so even if it's a wash with my Litespeed frame and Enve 1.0 fork, it's still doable, but as the OP pointed out, will it still be proper?

I think I'd have to replace:

RZR's with Obermayers: -60g, +$2,500
SRAM Red Shifters to Super Record: +60g
SRAM Red RD to SR: +30g
Quarq PM to Clavicula: -267g

So, if I didn't need a powermeter, I could build a "proper" C60 and it would be roughly 5.7kg based on my Ti build.

_________________
Litespeed Siena: 6.21kg (retired)

Litespeed Xicon: 5.76kg (retired)

Cervelo R5ca: 5.09kg


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:56 am
Posts: 360
Ryanh. Where are the photos and what sort of components ended up on it as in bars, stem etc. I agree the pm really makes the sub 6 kg a challenge. Not that any specific weight is some threshold here. Anyway, would really like to see your bike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
EPS - 55 - 6.19 kg


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:01 pm
Posts: 636
Location: Downtown Los Angeles, CA
It's in my signature, but here it is (if you weren't referring to my Litespeed, then I'll remove this):

Image

I've been looking for a C40 lately, and figured I could build it to a similar weight as my Litespeed.

_________________
Litespeed Siena: 6.21kg (retired)

Litespeed Xicon: 5.76kg (retired)

Cervelo R5ca: 5.09kg


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. light weight wonders?

in Road

Memphis

10

1084

Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:23 pm

zev View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Light weight 25.4mm post with setback

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

logy

19

509

Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:22 pm

prendrefeu View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. NEW AERO v LIGHT WEIGHT Bike or combine the 2?

[ Go to page: 1 2 3 ]

in Road

ardennes777

36

4272

Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:09 pm

CBRE View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Any light weight square [ ] shape stems ?

in Road

KarlC

6

825

Thu Aug 06, 2015 5:55 am

mvacolnago View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Light weight fast rolling hubs

in Road

oreoboreo

6

697

Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:00 pm

oreoboreo View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], bumpkin, cdtf, clarkson, Google [Bot], Ritxis, wingguy, Yahoo [Bot] and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited