TheRookie wrote:F45 wrote:He's using 2.25s.
Moderator: Moderator Team
F45 wrote:TheRookie wrote:F45 wrote:He's using 2.25s.
You won’t be able to build a SB140 to 20lbs. Anything below 26-27 would be sacrificing durability for a goal that doesn’t match the bike’s purpose.Jaker wrote:I currently have a 2010 ASR5c built to just under 20lbs and dream of someday building either an SB5c or one of the new SB140s to a similar weight. I don't currently have a dropper post, but I'm always on the lookout for a decent weight option that won't break the bank.
It’s 29lbs without pedals for the T2 model, which is $7400.Jaker wrote:The off the shelf weight is 27lbs, isn't it? It wouldn't be that hard to knock 4 to 5 lbs of that without sacrificing much. Then again, I don't live on the Front Range nor do I ride like my hair is on fire!
That sounds like a good way to allow the blowhards to identify themselves. I am now more motivated than ever to use id for inner distance. Thank you.youngs_modulus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:35 pm
P.S.: I'm a mechanical engineer now, but before grad school I worked as a bike mechanic off and on for about fifteen years. In every place I worked, a mechanic who used "ID" to mean "internal distance" instead of "internal diameter" would have been viewed as a bit dim by the other mechanics. "ID" may be engineering speak, as you say, but it's also bike speak. (I'm not insulting your intelligence, FWIW).