RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Sub 2lb Litespeed?(37 posts)

Sub 2lb Litespeed?PsyDoc
Jul 12, 2001 5:12 AM
I came across this info yesterday on "Hi-Tech Bikes" website. "LITESPEED had pulled out the stops and is making a sub 2lb compact road frame for 2002. don't ask me how they are doing it, I had to pull teeth to get any info at all. It's all very hush hush top secret stuff, but even in the biggest size it supposed to be a tiny bit over 2 lbs." I went over to Litespeed's website and they have a photo of the bike and they have called it the "Ghisallo" and provide the following information: "Introducing the lightest Litespeed ever. Featuring breakthrough, proprietary titanium-alloy tubing and a compact frame design, the Ghisallo is quite possibly the lightest bicycle you will be able to buy. One more reason Litespeed is the world leader in cycling technology." Anyway, here is a photo:
damnit..my 2001 is already outdated !!! (nm)jayz
Jul 12, 2001 6:34 AM
.
it looks sweet..tcr01
Jul 12, 2001 7:07 AM
I would guess that little beauty is going to cost some serious coin!
Price I would think is more than my .02cents (nm)Mabero
Jul 12, 2001 7:09 AM
But.............VaMootsman
Jul 12, 2001 7:19 AM
it's a Litespeed.
Hey!Lamerider
Jul 12, 2001 8:12 AM
don't you be dis'ing Litespeed, look at all these crazy responses, they ain't the gestapo it's a bike company for crissakes, all your negative responses are so predictable, you need to get laid and chill out, you people are nuts, morons all of you, get a life losers, if you idiots knew anything about bikes, douchebags, blah, blah, blah....
can't be too durableColnagoFE
Jul 12, 2001 8:08 AM
sub 2 lbs? I bet if you weigh over a buck fifty this thing would either break or be flexy as heck. I mean there are some realities here folks. Either they came up with a new supermetal, it's really flexy, or it's not very durable.
one of those...TJeanloz
Jul 12, 2001 10:40 AM
The rumor is that they came up with a new supermetal- like 7/4 ti or some such thing.
44cm slopingnm
Jul 12, 2001 8:26 AM
nm
Hey LameriderLazyrider
Jul 12, 2001 9:36 AM
Here you go again proving my point about all you guys spouting junk every single time Litespeed is mentioned. If you are a real cycling enthusiast you would be intrigued by new technology from any bike company. Here is a new innovation from Litespeed that may or may not be a viable one and I am sure you are turning your nose up to it just because of the name. I HAVE NEVER EVER CRITICIZED ANY BIKE ON THIS SITE. I love bicycles and am curiuos to read about all company's innovations. You on the other hand are a Jerko&& who has these irrational reactions to the name LITESPEED. The fact that you would even place a post here quoting verbatim, statements I made at various other times means you are obsessed with me. You must be lonely and probably do need to get laid. All you people stating I am rude, a troll and breaker of some pact don't understand that I attacked no one initailly until I received uninstigated negative comments. I know I could just ignore them, but it is not my nature. I give what I get. Lamerider, I would love to see you get smacked around a little if you weren't able to hide behind the anonymitiy of the keyboard. You are a big man sitting at your computer but I assure you that you wouldn't be so brave in vivo (if you even know what this word means). Keep talking your SH$# while knowing what I said is true about guys that think they are big men when no one knows who they are.
you prove our point!nm
Jul 12, 2001 9:46 AM
nm
Your Litespeed is now outdated, overrated, and ugly. Nice work.Lazy Rider is my B!tch!
Jul 12, 2001 4:09 PM
remember when...jaybird
Jul 12, 2001 9:31 AM
remember when a 4lb frame was too light to be used for daily use... Give it a shot... Do you know what ti tubing is being used. You could probably get that weight just using all 6.4 on a 52cm with a sloping design.
remember when...tcr01
Jul 12, 2001 10:04 AM
I don't think the weight is acheived more through how the tubing is butted. For example look at Merlin's compact frame. It is actually heavier than their traditional designs because they are using straight guage tubes. Litespeed will probably not give up the secret to the alloy mix in the Ti and I'm sure the butting is very complicated. I applaud Litespeed for pressing forward with technology. I wouldn't sweat durabilty on this frame. I bet Litespeed will offer a great warranty for it. Some of you can rag on this frame all day...as it passes you up on the climbs!
merlin has the xl compact nowColnagoFE
Jul 12, 2001 11:42 AM
with butted tubes. advertised 2.9 lbs frame...not sure what size.
It's a self-propelling frame too?mike mcmahon
Jul 12, 2001 11:57 AM
Man, those guys at Litespeed are really on the ball if they're coming out with a frame that can pass cyclists on climbs. Assuming someone decides to build it up and ride it, I'm sure you're right that it will instantly make that person the fastest climber in town.
Finally got rid of those yellow stickers.railer
Jul 12, 2001 9:37 AM
Looks like a nice ride.
re: and what's the point?cyclopathic
Jul 12, 2001 12:13 PM
it's still illegal to race sub 14lbs bike (which you can easily build with 2.5lbs frame)
weight rule only for UCI racesDog
Jul 12, 2001 12:32 PM
The 15 pound (6.8 kilogram - 14.99 pounds) minimum weight rule only applies to UCI races, which are basically international professional level only. Not an issue for 99.99% of cyclists.

Doug
weight rule only for UCI racesjaybird
Jul 12, 2001 1:24 PM
i would venture a guess that the net weight of a non UCI rider and his bike is still significantly more than that of a UCI rider. Alot of wannabes that I see would rather pay and extra 1000 bucks for something that is a pound lighter when in reality they could probably take 5lbs off their ass and notice a bigger difference... gotta love the fat guys on the ultralights...
every mg counts!Biggy
Jul 12, 2001 1:43 PM
just ask the fat girls that drink diet coke
every mg counts!jaybird
Jul 12, 2001 1:54 PM
yea, the diet coke with their big mac...
prove ittcr01
Jul 12, 2001 1:24 PM
Can you give me a general list of what components would easily yield a 14 pound bike with a 2.5 pound frame? I don't think it's that easy. Don't forget the pedals and water bottle cages either. I have a TCR frame(2.2 lbs) with DA drivetrain, Solio stem/bars, Mavic K's, Hutchinson air lite's, Look 247 pedals, King stainless cages, San Marco ERA saddle and the bike comes in at an honest 16.6 pounds. Note that I am using the Giant carbon fork w/ an alloy steerer(I could shave a quarter pound off here w/ a carbon steerer but I will pass) I wouldn't know where to shave 2 pounds EASILY off this bike.
Here's a way.Lazy
Jul 12, 2001 2:50 PM
Got a little bored so I did some research. Here's the deal:

CK 11/8" HS: 98g
Phil Wood Ti/Magnium BB: 135g
Dia-Compe PRS-200 brakes: 205g
Campy Record 53/39 Cranks and chain rings: 632g
Speedplay X1 pedals: 150g
Campy 11/23 Ti cassette: 156g
Campy Record F der: 89g
Campy Record R der: 187g
Campy Record Ergo levers: 365g
USE carbon alien seat post: 130g
Selle Italia SLR: 135g
Zipp Carbon bottle cages (2): 54g
Look HSC3 fork: 380g
The Stem, magnesium: 117g
Easton EC90 bars: 195g
Mavic Ksyriums: 1600g
Vittoria Latex tubes (2): 130g
Axial Prolite (2): 380g

Total = 11.3 lbs.

You could save some more weight if you really tried by going with carbon cranks, Ti bolts, or lighter wheels. Big price tag for all this stuff though.
It looks easy on paper,TJeanloz
Jul 12, 2001 4:36 PM
But I can assure you it's not. Do you plan to have a chain on this bicycle? Add 279g for Record 10 speed. Cables and housing? They're made of steel, and not light, add another 250g or so. Are you planning to adjust that headset? The LOOK plug weighs about 75g (and isn't counted in the fork weight). Chris King HS weighs 98g in 1"; 1 1/8 is more like 125g. My Vortex has about as light parts as a bike can (all of the above, sans Phil BB and non-functional Dia-Comp brakes) and it weighs about 16.5lbs, 16.25 on good days. It is possible to get a really light bike, but it is by no means cheap or "easy".
agreedtcr01
Jul 12, 2001 4:59 PM
By the time you do the full build, sub 16 is darn hard to beat.
Sure does...Lazy
Jul 12, 2001 5:05 PM
I agree with you. As for the cost of the parts listed, the price total was well above $3000. I figured about 2 lbs. or so for cables and chain. I've never tried the Dia-Compe brakes, but they do look pretty flimsy. Didn't figure in the excess weight for the fork plug. HS weight came from www.chrisking.com. I've never weighed any of this junk myself, so all these are published weights.

Anyhow, I would never attempt to assemble a bike like this. It is possible though. That's the point I was driving at.
It looks easy on paper,jaybird
Jul 13, 2001 4:54 AM
well, why don't we just start drilling holes in the crank brake levers, chainrings and cassette cogs.... Just kidding. I remember several years ago, a guy on our team drilled out just about any flat surface on his campy super record gruppo to save weght. I think it may have saved him a pound but it cost him bigtime when his crank arms and chainrings failed... No it wasn't me, all of my sr is in tact.
More things you missedAlexR
Jul 13, 2001 5:55 AM
Grease - advertised weights of hubs, headsets, pedals, and bottom backets are dry

Bar tape w/plugs

Rim strips

QR Skewers

These are just a few that came to mind. No doubt there are a few more grams hidden outside of advertised weights. Who includes the weight of the seatpost collar? Frame builder?

Adding up advertised weights is not how you weigh your bicycle. Put it on a scale.

Alex
Gosh! Lazy really isn't lazy. (nm)9WorCP
Jul 12, 2001 7:12 PM
Don't kid yourself, I was bored stiff at the office. :-) nmLazy
Jul 13, 2001 4:37 AM
easy..cyclopathic
Jul 13, 2001 5:23 AM
Trek 5500

Frame: Trek 1160g
Fork: Alpha-Q 346g
Cranks: Dura-Ace 72.5 588g
Chain: Sram PC59 276g
Cassett: Dura-Ace 12/23 162g
B/B: Dura-Ace 174g
Pedals: Bebops 198g
Wheels: American Classic/Zipp 1088g
Brakes: Cane Creek 244g
Derailurs: Front Dura-Ace 72g
Derailurs: Rear Dura-Ace 196g
Shifters: Dura-Ace STI 398g
Headset: Chris King w/Ti Race 88g
Seat Post: USE Carbon Alien 131g
Saddle: Selle Italia SLR 138g
Bars: Easton C90 184g
Stem: ITM Mag 110g
Skewers: Tune 54g
Cables: Dura-Ace 178g
Tires/: Tufo S33 Lites 441g
Crank Bolts: 25g
Headset cap/bolt 20g
Bar Tape: 48g

Total 6319g
13.93 lbs

You could prob save enough weight by replacing stem, bars, seat, wheels, tires, pedals (X/1?). STORCK makes very light carbon cranks (290g!) you can also save some weight by using MTB cranks with smaller rings and 11-21 cass

Pers I don't think 2lbs would make that much diff (I am more concerned with aero drag and engine tune up) that's why my TCR1 is pretty much stock, it is not the bike.
Proof is when its on the scaleixiz
Jul 13, 2001 7:00 AM
I dont measure any components just put it on the bike and measure the bike. My Merlin XL with all stock parts (see in photo galery) 15 lbs with cages and computer.

Dont even have extra light weight parts like
Cane Creek BRS, CArbon Cranks, CARBON HANDLEBARS, Alien Post, SLR saddle, MAg stem. Every part on bike IS OFF THE SHELF (ok i lied -did modify HS for threadless)
Light, cheap, and durable...pick any two.
Jul 12, 2001 12:25 PM
No Free Lunch (NFL) priciple applies.

Ultimately the proof is in the pudding - how does it ride and can you ride it more than once?

P.S. Don't we already have 2 lb. frames available (i.e. Bianchi, Calfee, Trek, etc.)?
Not that hard to doixiz
Jul 12, 2001 2:03 PM
Sub 2lb - If its 2.1 it would be impressive, but not that hard my Merlin XL is 2.5 lbs. With the new sloping design im sure you can cut an oz or two and if you use a size 52cm frame you can also cut a couple of oz, and OS and DB or TB tubing with some FEA you can tune the tubing thickness to remove more weight.

Therefore sub 2 lbs can be achieved with existing Ti tubing and not a miracle.
sloping and seatpost weightDog
Jul 12, 2001 1:24 PM
I had a sloping EV2, and noticed that the extra long seatpost needed adds back at least 50 grams, about 2 ounces. That could make a 1.9 pound frame the equivalent built up of a 2.1 pound frame, depending upon the weight of the seatpost; mine was measured with a CT2, a fairly light carbon post.

Doug
50 grams is not .2 lbs., its just shy of .125 lbs.railer
Jul 12, 2001 3:50 PM
Yeah, true though, the longer seatpost negates the savings of the shorter seat tube. I guess you save only on the shorter seat stays. Top tube length probably doesnt change too much. One bonus I think is a plusher ride with more exposed seatpost to absorb vibes.