Please answer the poll, and state why.
Also state what is allowed to do to save some weight in your opinion.



Could be a good idea, but i like to call it a functional bike. This is a bike with all the "normal" functions on it. Such as: Shifers (Ergopower, STI or one downtube. Like Lance) A fully slick working cable routing. Normal, not drilled, rims. Tires that match the use. (Not putting velodrome tires on a roadbike) And there is many more to discuss.

Lets GO

_________________
'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'

Follow me on twitter. I try to be interesting
On Facebook!

for me, it should be built with at least:

-one sti (right hand side...other could be downtube)
-2brakes (imagine a car with only front brakes... )
-road tires (like 165 or 195tufo, lieghter ones are for indoor use only...)
-no drillings in brakes, rims and other relevant (::security::) parts.
-it shouls be a ridable standard size like 54...

tobias.

_________________
nothing.

Function can suffer under weight.
A bike needs: 2 chainrings, at least 7sp drive-train, 2brakes

At what reasons can function suffer under weight?

This is to easy: To make the bike lighter!

But what are your reasons, and which function do you wan't to lose

_________________
'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'

Follow me on twitter. I try to be interesting
On Facebook!

1) Tubulars: more risk of flats
2) wheels: stifness
3) forks, stems, handlebars and seatposts: safety
4)carbon chainrings: no good at all
5)durability (ISIS BB, alu cogs,...)
6)brakes: stopping power
7)pedals: you have to like them

I answered "yes" which I think is the obvious answer, since the question is "can" it suffer. I may not have to suffer if you are wise about it.

For me specifically, my brakes are the cane creeks but their stopping is poor compared to records. Nevertheless, they're fine for most of my riding. In the case of the stem, my syntace is stiffer AND lighter then previous stem.. also true for my bars (ec90), frame (Giant TCR0) and wheels (rolfprima elan). All lighter and an improvement in function.

Carbon chainrings: junk IMO. Aluminum cassettes: junk. Drilling holes in parts or wheels: stupid, no.. VERY STUPID!

So... it's also possible that you could ask "Can function improve with less weight" and I'd have said "yes" to that too.

Why should it suffer?

Many parts these days are light AND functional, look at Ultra 10 Record Ergo levers for example. These days it's possible to build a very light bike with more gears and better ride qualities than it ever was. The old 16.5lbs Vitus 979 that riders would use in the 80's for mountain stages (followed by the TVT/Look carbon) are not in the same class as todays modern lightweights, and we can have the choice of more gears as well with better shifting and more availability.

I like my index gears, and having 10 cogs in the back, I can do that and build a 12lbs bike...that is functional for my requirements.

_________________
Ride lightly!

Thats obvious, the lighter the bike will be, the better the ride characteristics. But there is a certain border.



Sorry for me being a bit unclear. i meant when going sub 5 kilo the bikes tend to get as stiff as a wet noodle and loose their function.

I meant to say: how far are you willing to go to "enlighten" your bike and how about losening stiffnes and functionality?

_________________
'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'

Follow me on twitter. I try to be interesting
On Facebook!

I see what you mean now.

Add to the "junk" list: the whipperman Titanium chain. What a waste! I'm not sure I can say a Ti cassette because it may be worth the weight tradeoff. I've never owned an all Ti cassette but I suspect you can only get about 3500km out of them. Maybe Conti Grandprix supersonics.. although good for racing, not practical outside of that.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to ask.

The bike should be stiff enough, comfortable to ride, and be able to take the stress and strain of riding without problems no matter what I throw at it, at least, that's my view. I use Al cassettes (on some wheels) and sub 200gm tires, but not all the time, and I expect them to last less time than (heavier) steel cassettes, that's my choice, others may differ.

_________________
Ride lightly!

i agree with ye olde bald one on this topic. you can have a superlight bike, and have it take day to day use, provided durable and light parts are used. while i don't necessarily agree with alloy cassettes for everyday use, they can be used for special events. for the doubters, see the posting of my bike spec here in the forum from a few days ago. it is an example of superlight weight, durability and reliability.

ye olde balde one, you and i may be the only guys who remember rominger's bike setups from the '93 vuelta. i loved the drilled out 631 cranks, and 840 derailleur didn't he use 7 bikes in total for that race? if i recall correctly, the year after? in another race, he broke an early carbon post while riding one of the early c40s, and spent a few moments with no post / saddle on his bike...

I'm still not entirely clear on this...
Does the original survey question mean:
"Is it possible that function can suffer due to weight savings?"
or does it mean:
"Is it acceptable that function can suffer due to weight savings?"
Are you saying how much loss in stiffness/functionality would one accept?
I guess the true WW answer would be: NONE!
(Or at least very marginal/not impacting performance....)
Isn't that the whole point? To be able to arrive at lighter designs that perform as well or better than the predecessors?

The post is interesting though, because it seems with the rash of innovations/technologies/and marketing we are in a "sorting-out" period where lots of producers are trying to innovate, which is super, but also a fair number of components seem to be coming onto market and then being retreived or redesigned (usually going back heavier for strength; i.e. AC/FRM BB's, etc.). The strong will survive, in all senses.

I agree with Ye Olde, the benchmark should be stiffness and performance as before, whereas long-term durability in some components might be a chosen, and accepted, compromise. Different than risk....

_________________
"Gimondi è un eroe umano, che viene sconfitto ma che continua la sua corsa fino a tornare a vincere." - Enrico Ruggeri

Yes seven bikes. His Mechanics nickname was/is "The Scales"

I saw Toni riding near Nice after his retirement one time (I think it was 2001), on his Bititan from '95 with half the paint missing and l/h downtube lever...still with purple bolts!

_________________
Ride lightly!

Thank you, I couln't have said it better myself!



Yes it is, but there are 600+ members at the board, opinions may be different!



Yes, thats my opinion too. When Someone tries to make an ultralight bike you always see that they pick a very small frame (54). And build the bike with the lightest parts. Carbon rings, al cogs, one downtube lever, SL chain, ultra light brakes, etc, etc. But what if i that that Giant proto for instance, (won't work i'm almost 2 mtr. ) and take it for a spin. I think that when i put some power on the pedals i got parts flying around my head. And after that i will sit on the ground. In stead of the saddle. Surrounded by beautiful Al. and carbon parts. (btw the giant proto has Al. bolts in its stem. You got to be suicidal ) Or what happens when i fly down a mountain with 80 km/h and there is a big truck comming from the right who hasn't seen me. Are the brakes going to slow me down enough?

In a light bike I prefer function over saving weight. I want good brakes, a reliable stem and bar, etc. I need a bike that make me win races! Not weight saving at all costs.
That way you create a bike that you can hang on the wal. Very nice to look at, but not functional...

Hope I sorted some things out!

_________________
'Tape was made to wrap your GF's gifts, NOT hold a freakin tire on.'

Follow me on twitter. I try to be interesting
On Facebook!