Weight Weenies

I am currently on a Colnago C40 which is great but am starting on a new race bike. I need a lightweight frame as a base. Aluminium is out so that leaves Carbon or Ti. I am leaning toward the Ghisallo, which is light with no rider weight limit. I am 200lbs and put a lot of torque through the BB / rear triangle. I know the Ghisallo has a reputation for being a bit flexy - is the '05 model any stiffer? Any bigger guys out there with experience and / or any other frame / fork combo suggestions ? Thanx.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

smallfish101 wrote:I am currently on a Colnago C40 which is great but am starting on a new race bike. I need a lightweight frame as a base. Aluminium is out so that leaves Carbon or Ti. I am leaning toward the Ghisallo, which is light with no rider weight limit. I am 200lbs and put a lot of torque through the BB / rear triangle. I know the Ghisallo has a reputation for being a bit flexy - is the '05 model any stiffer? Any bigger guys out there with experience and / or any other frame / fork combo suggestions ? Thanx.

Given your weight I'd look at carbon. The Ghisallo while light will be a noodle at your weight. I have ridden one and I'm 50lbs lighter than you and I thought it was to flexable. Just my .02

Thanks Zoey. I respect these opinions a lot. It gets away from all the manufacturers BS and into the real nitty gritty.
Keep 'em rolling

For what its worth, I really like the feel of a Trek. My dad has a 5900 and I ride it pretty frequently over my (former) Giant TCR carbon. It felt wayy stiffer in the BB area, and he even had aluminum Record cranks and I have FSA carbon. I weigh 140 so I'm not that good of an indicator, but he's 180-185 and loves it. I know its a "Trek" but hey, they do make good bikes.

I'm 220 lbs and I ride a Storck Carbon 1.1 with a regular Stiletto fork, nice and stiff, better than my old Trek 5200. Storck now has a 1.0 frame which is even stiffer. A good way to go for big guys.

Talk to nicrump here at WW. He builds custom carbon (and steel) frames.

1.96 meters and 92 kg´s on an XXL Scott Cr1. Nice and stiff, love it

Every Ghisallo we sold broke and had to be warrentied. The walls of the tubing are just too thin and a person over 150lbs will flex and brake one.

I would look at a OCLV 110 Trek or a Scott CR1. I know of a 6'3 gentleman that loves his 120OCLV 5200 Trek and now that there is a lot of 110 models for 05 I think you'd love it. It's an inexpensive bike as well so you can race on it, thrash it, and if you crash it oh well. You don't want to crash your C40.

One thing I will give Trek is that they have a really good warrenty program. I cracked an OCLV mountain bike and they replaced it no questions asked.

The really cool part was the the frame was no longer in production and not offered the year I broke it. They still replaced it for free.

Additionally, I had bought the bike from someone else (it was new in the box, but I was not the orginal owner). That's what I call a warrenty program!

Orbea Orca...

Only had it a couple of weeks but at 190 pounds so good so far

Very light as well....

Speaking of Orbea, I was down at my LBS yesterday and they had the new Orbea Onix. It's a beafier version of the Orca. Frame weight is just over 1200 grams.

The owner of the store said it was very popular with bigger guys because it's stiffer than the Orca. It's also alot cheaper than a the Orca.

Just a thought.

smallfish101 wrote:I am currently on a Colnago C40 which is great but am starting on a new race bike. I need a lightweight frame as a base. Aluminium is out so that leaves Carbon or Ti. I am leaning toward the Ghisallo, which is light with no rider weight limit. I am 200lbs and put a lot of torque through the BB / rear triangle. I know the Ghisallo has a reputation for being a bit flexy - is the '05 model any stiffer? Any bigger guys out there with experience and / or any other frame / fork combo suggestions ? Thanx.

Good suggestions above .. but am wondering why you say aluminum is out? It's pretty cost effective, light, stiff and strong enough even for your weight. It might break sooner then steel or Ti but you could possibly afford to break anywhere from four to eight Aluminum frames at the cost of a carbon or Ti one. And if you're racing, that's worth considering, unless you have a team paying for it.

Aluminium can be just as good (especially the larger frames) as carbon is. for example the 2003 Scott alu xxl team issue is just as good as the 2004 carbon version (same goes for the Storck but here I think the alu versions are slightly better)

bobalou wrote:Good suggestions above .. but am wondering why you say aluminum is out? It's pretty cost effective, light, stiff and strong enough even for your weight. It might break sooner then steel or Ti but you could possibly afford to break anywhere from four to eight Aluminum frames at the cost of a carbon or Ti one. And if you're racing, that's worth considering, unless you have a team paying for it.

The reason that I do not want aluminium is that it is a much harsher ride than either carbon or Ti. Our roads are not great. I have had several Aluminium bikes in the past and the carbon is streets ahead.

The reason that I do not want aluminium is that it is a much harsher ride than either carbon or Ti

Ti is a much better ride than Alu. or Carbon, but you do sacrafice stiffness.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com