WW builds, can function suffer under weight?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Post Reply

Can function suffer under weight advantage?

Yes
16
70%
No
7
30%
 
Total votes: 23

User avatar
Frankie - B
Administrator
Posts: 6575
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
Location: Drenthe, Holland

by Frankie - B

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

danielgillett wrote:I think that if people are going to set a record light bike, there has to be some rules about it - otherwise a single speed road bike will be the lightest.
Perhaps, It must have:
-9 or 10 Speed, with 2 chainrings
-Functional Braking System
-Ergopower or STI Levers (No Downtube)
-700c Wheels

So, if these rules existed, based on the current Road Bike Articles section, the Giant Showbike would be the record holder.

What do you think?


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

by Weenie


User avatar
tobias
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 11:21 pm
Location: haan* <GER>
Contact:

by tobias

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... :evil:)
-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.

Joel
Posts: 751
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:43 pm
Location: Belgium

by Joel

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

User avatar
Frankie - B
Administrator
Posts: 6575
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
Location: Drenthe, Holland

by Frankie - B

At what reasons can function suffer under weight?

This is to easy: To make the bike lighter! :lol:

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.'

Joel
Posts: 751
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:43 pm
Location: Belgium

by Joel

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

bobalou
Posts: 1013
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:05 am

by bobalou

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. 8)

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. :!:

User avatar
Ye Olde Balde One
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:26 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

by Ye Olde Balde One

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!

User avatar
Frankie - B
Administrator
Posts: 6575
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
Location: Drenthe, Holland

by Frankie - B

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


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

Ye olde wrote: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.


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.'

bobalou
Posts: 1013
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:05 am

by bobalou

Frankie - B wrote:
bobalou wrote:So... it's also possible that you could ask "Can function improve with less weight" and I'd have said "yes" to that too. :!:


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

Ye olde wrote: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.


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?


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.

User avatar
Ye Olde Balde One
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:26 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

by Ye Olde Balde One

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!

jim
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 5:04 am

by jim

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...

User avatar
cadence90
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:52 am

by cadence90

Frankie - B wrote: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?

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

User avatar
Ye Olde Balde One
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:26 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

by Ye Olde Balde One

jim wrote: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...


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!

User avatar
Frankie - B
Administrator
Posts: 6575
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:17 am
Location: Drenthe, Holland

by Frankie - B

cadence90 wrote:"Is it acceptable that function can suffer due to weight savings?"


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

cadence90 wrote: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?


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

cadence90 wrote: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....


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. :wink: ) 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 :lol: ) 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.'

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post