|Any Suggestions for a Very Light Frame?||vonbarron|
Aug 3, 2001 9:34 AM
|I am looking to build up a light comfortable road bike ~16 lbs or so and I do not have any strong bias as to frame material. I am a light rider (145 lbs) and normally ride a 56cm frame with 56.5-57.5 top tube. Mostly I do relatively fast recreational rides of 40 to 60 miles. I do not like vertically stiff frames like Cannondales and prefer some comfort and compliance. Any ideas for a light frame that meets those requirements and does not carry an unreasonable cost (no more than $1500-2000 for a frame, lower is better).|
|re: Any Suggestions for a Very Light Frame?||Dog|
Aug 3, 2001 9:39 AM
|some lighter frames:
(used) Colnago C40
|here's some more||ak|
Aug 3, 2001 10:26 AM
|I liked the list above, but here's a few ultralight frames that were left out (IMO)
Klein Quantum series
the new Pinarello
|re: Any Suggestions for a Very Light Frame?||Lardog|
Aug 3, 2001 11:50 AM
|If you want the lightest, don't worry about cost. I believe the C40 is about as light as they come. ~2 lbs.|
|Decide First||grzy mnky|
Aug 3, 2001 12:47 PM
|First you need to make a choice: light, cheap, and durable. Pick any two. Once you've done this you can then continue. |
The suggestions that everyone has come up with so far are great, but I'd also add Kestrel to the list. Ultimately you need to decide what ride and fit qualities matter to you. Simply picking the lightest bike doesn't ensure that you're going to like it. I like the ride of my Ti bike much better than my old OCLV, even though the Trek was lighter.
|Actually, pick any "one".||railer|
Aug 3, 2001 1:37 PM
|Light isnt usually cheap. Light usually isnt durable.
Cheap isnt light. Cheap isnt durable.
Durable isnt light. Durable isnt cheap.
Of course this is only generally the case and is only relative, someone might think their Murray (cheap) is light compared to thier neighbor's DH bike (expensive).