"Is it acceptable that function can suffer due to weight savings?"
Thank you, I couln't have said it better myself!
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!
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.
) 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.'