donn12's info is straight from the source - cervelo's brainbike, if im not mistaken.
if i were in charge (and in my head i am), bike "frames" would include everything required as a frame: derailleur hanger, seatpost clamp, bb cable guides, cable stops. i agree with sedluk, though, in that disclaimers works fine too.

Does anyone know the actual weight of the 2012 S5 VWD, Team and Base models. For 2013 they are offering two frame the VWD & another not sure if it is the 2012 Team and the 2012 base model?

Over on Slowtwitch this is what Damon Rinard from Cervelo said concerning the 2013 models (http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gfo ... 84#4156384" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

+1

IMHO, that is the most accurate way to compare frames with the exception being the pressed in bearings. But just like you I would not have removed the bearings just to get a weight.

Frames should be compared on a funcitonal level. Last time I checked a frame MUST have a rear hanger, seat collar and cable guides to function as a frame. Removing those to get a lower weight is just muddying the water.

Respectfully, this is the LEAST accurate way to weigh frames. There is no manufacturer that lists frame weight with fittings attached...bare frame with NO fittings is the industry standard and provides the necessary baseline to make any comparison across models within the same manufacturer and across different manufacturers. For our purposes on this forum, when one person posts frame weight with mech hanger but no other fittings and then another guy posts weight of same frame with mech hanger and seat collar then everything gets muddied right away and the information becomes useless as we are unable to make real comparisons. Correct and consistent information is the best information!
EM3

_________________
________________

My 2011 Cervelo R5

I agree totally with you there.

My thinking behind including the 'bits' is that you bring the frames up to equal functional levels and therefore can make a 'if I swap frame A for frame B the change in weigh to my bike is C' comparison. 'Bits' can be added or subtracted on paper to equalize any 2 frames for comparisons, but that doesn't tell us if one manufacturers frame uses lighter or heavier add-ons.

I'm always cautious using the manufacturers data. I would assume most bike manufacturers are just like the manufacturers of other engineered products and the data they share is 'marketing' data as opposed to 'engineering' data. I'm sure a few do let their engineering data out, but I assume they are the exception and not the rule.

This is, IMHO, why thier published data doesn't include the 'bits' - so they can advertise the absolutely lowest number with respect to their frame weights.

At work when we compare our vehicles to competitors we always group individual parts into function subsystems. Then when we do performance/cost evaluations we are as much apples to apples as possible (it's almost never perfect). Just taking part vs part leads to bad comparisons more often than not, is my experience.

You can find it here: http://redkiteprayer.com/index.php?s=cervelo+R3

By contrast, the R3 has completely different molds and is made using some less expensive materials than the R5VWD. The R3 has a separate BB that is then bonded and over-wrapped to the seat tube, down tube and chainstays. Laying up a one-piece front triangle is considerably more difficult, especially at the bottom bracket. However, the extra time and work required result in a frame that is just as stiff as the R3 but 10 percent lighter. The R5ca realizes an even greater gain: a 56cm R5ca weighs in at 650g.

Fittings cups?? I meant headset, anyway it was 879gr just bare frame size 54 ...now it is: