thanks for the link- very clear. i read in a big article in Velonews on the tcr advanced about 5 months ago that the frame used nano tech and that was why it could come in at 830g. obviously both statements were wrong- almost ordered a frame after riding a regular tcr and loving the "advanced" claimed wgt.and supposed stiffness. tcr advanced is now being adveritsed at 900g and i wouldn't be surprized if when it comes out its heavier than that. shows that velonews needs to not report as fact everything a manufacturer claims before a product is even on the market. Also realize that early prototypes wgts are often not the wgt of the final product.
Magazines do the worst reviews - only you can decide for yourself. You ride the way you ride and you feel the way you do on a bike. If magazines have anything to do with introducting a product - they should wasting time doing reviews and just post a bunch of pictures for bike porn. And stop repeating the manufacturer's marketing department because half the time they get it wrong anyway.
How often do we read crap about how carbon composites somehow magically reduce road buzz (as if some how the material is stiffer lighter than everything else but at the same time selectively chooses to eliminate the vibration from the ground up! AI?).
As regarding the weight of TCR Advanced - I'll have to get a few samples of the different models and measure them at different sizes before I'll write a weight down
Any donations? I'll take the integrated seatpost ver from Europe sales and the nonintergrated from US please!