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 )


Trek 5900 Superlight= 14.9 lbs???(10 posts)

Trek 5900 Superlight= 14.9 lbs???Ride-Fly
Apr 3, 2002 1:31 PM
This month's Cycle Sport has a buyer's guide for '02 bikes and I was a little surprised to see that the 5900 was so damn light. The only other bike with a Dura Ace build that was the same weight was the Litespeed Ghisallo. The Giant TCR Team ONCE and a Elite Bicycles Joule Scandium were also 14.9 lbs but the had Campy Record builds and Campy Record is a little than DA right?? My question is, just how the heck did Trek get the weight down so low w/ the heavier DA components??? I know the Ghisallo is a 2 lbs frame but it is supposedly like a wet noodle. The OCLV is supposedly a super stiff frame.
re: Trek 5900 Superlight= 14.9 lbs???TJeanloz
Apr 3, 2002 1:33 PM
I don't know the exact weight of the 110 frame, but my OCLV120 frame is 2.45lbs in a 56cm. I understand that the 5900 is ~.25 lbs lighter. Needless to say, the OCLV is lighter than most people give it credit for.
Plenty light,djg
Apr 3, 2002 3:06 PM
Although, if I'm not mistaken the 5900 saves not just 100 grams or so on the frame but a couple hundred on the fork. Had a 5200 until recently--very good bike, IMO, but a fairly heavy fork by today's standards (not that it matters much for most folks).

Still, I have to wonder both about the size of the 14.9 lb Trek, and whether it's outfitted with all the stock "Bontrager" parts or otherwise.
it's not about the frameRideLots
Apr 3, 2002 2:02 PM
most of the weight of a bike is not the frame; with the right components, just about any bike could be 15 pounds. It may not be perfectly serviceable or reliable, but the scale will read what you want it to. Throw these components on any bike (particularly a smaller size) and see what you get:

20mm Conti Supersonics
Performance Lunarlite tubes
11-21 DA cassette
USE Alien carbon post, trimmed
SLR saddle
THE Stem
Easton carbon bars
Speedplay X1 pedals
Otherwise DA components (with SRP bolts, take off another 90 grams)
A 1400 gram wheelset, and you're there
Must be a fairly small size...AllUpHill
Apr 3, 2002 3:27 PM
My 58cm 5900 is nowhere near being that light! It's 16.2 lb as I have it now: stock setup except USE carbon seatpost, SLR seat, speedplay X2's, 2 minoura bottle cages, and no computer.

I suspect that all the same parts but with a Giant TCR frame/fork would be at least a full pound lighter (and much cheaper).
Things have gotten a little crazy when...Ray Sachs
Apr 4, 2002 6:59 AM
a 16.2 pound bike is NOWHERE NEAR as light as a 14.9 pound bike! My 22 pound bike is NEARLY as light as my 18 pound bike and feels practically identical out on the road. Only my 28 pound touring bike really starts feeling at all heavy when I'm riding it and that's probably the geometry more than the weight. I know weight can make a difference when climbing mountains in the Tour de France and a lot of weight can make a difference to anyone, but 1.3 pounds on an already superlight bike?!?! Gadzooks!

-Ray
braggin' rightsRideLots
Apr 4, 2002 7:11 AM
I don't think it has much to do with real performance, except when you are in contention for the Tour and every last .1 second matters. When you are a Cat 4 racer and getting dropped on the first big hill, or a 7 hour century rider, a 5 pound difference wouldn't matter (even though technically, weight matters more to those with less power).

I think companies do this stuff for bragging rights and marketing. I've never seen one actually come out and claim that their lighter bike would actually make you faster, especially in any quantified way.
braggin' rightsAllUpHill
Apr 4, 2002 9:13 AM
Exactly. I've never fooled myself into thinking a couple pounds less makes any difference in cycling performce or cycling pleasure, at least for my purposes. My little bike-lightening hobby and my cycling hobby are, well, kind of two separate things, if that makes any sense. I find it neat when people tinker around to see how light they can get their ride, but a little more effort in training makes 1000 times more difference (and costs much less money) than some $200 super-duper magnesium stem.

I'd still like to have a $200 magnesium stem though... ;-)
re: Trek 5900 Superlight= 14.9 lbs???CT1 Guy
Apr 4, 2002 11:13 AM
Optimistic - I was in my friends shop and he had a brand new 5900, Bontrager Race Lites, full D/A etc etc - I hung it on the scales and it was nearly 17.5lbs complete with pedals.
The weights in that guidedjg
Apr 5, 2002 10:49 AM
are all over the map. You know, you start to see a couple of pounds difference between two bikes built of the same tube set and hung with the same group set and you have to wonder (or not).

Seems to me that different companies play different games with weights. Some put a 56 cm bike on the scales, some look for a 47. Some include pedals and some don't. I wouldn't be surprised if some weigh the bare frame and the groupset together, so as not to have to include, e.g., the seatpost binder bolt. Of course there's plenty of wiggle room with bikes marketed just as frames, as the manufacturer can list the frame plus a standard groupset and wheels, but then hang super-light (and super pricey) extras for everything else (including all the bolts).

Many of the listed weights in the guide seem entirely implausible--especially if they're supposed to represent ready-to-ride weight, and standard kit, for some size that people actually ride.

Not my bike of course--that's dead on.