Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Is it the future yet?
Joined
·
1,978 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So my friend just bought a Large 566 w/UltegraSL.
wrenchscience.com along with other websites, say the bike weighs 17.43lbs. They say the Rival weighs 16.56lbs
Forum member "desmo13" has a Large with the Rival group that was 17.4lbs. at his shop.
My buddies, weighed at the shop, was about 19lbs. It came with Fulcrum 7's. The same FSA cockpit and pedals as the Rival version.
He has since switched out parts including; a 30g lighter Ritchey WSC stem, a 55g lighter Look Ergo4 ti. seat-post, 400g lighter Mavic Ksyrium SL wheelset, 20g lighter Keo Sprint pedals . The bike now weighs 17.6lbs. which is still heavier than listed weight. I know sometimes the small size or medium size is measured, but is there really that much weight difference in size?
If you build a bike on wrenchscience website and you change Ultegra Sl for Rival, you save .39lbs.

An '08 555 was reviewed in Road Bike Action Mag. size X-Large. They claimed the weight was 17.4lbs. My '08 Medium 555 weighed 17.4lbs AFTER I changed the Mavic Equips to SL's, - 400g's and changed out the handlebars and stem for another 60g savings. Why didn't my bike weigh less?

PLEASE NOTE: I'm NOT beefing about Look bike weights, I'm wondering why our bikes are substantialy more in weight than what I am seeing in magazines and on websites and even desmo13's bike for that matter..?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
966 Posts
There is always a difference between claimed manufacturer figures and actual - some are better while some are way off mark but you also need to take following into consideration;

Usually the claimed manufacturer weights are for the lightest product like the following;

1 - Frames are for S - each size up is around 75g more.
2 - Bars are for size 40
3 - Stems are for 90
4 - Cassettes are for size 11-23
5 - Wheels never include rim tape or Q/R.

Then there is the samll matter of tyres and tubes, some training tyres weigh 900/pair while race tyres can go down to 360/pair. Also type of rim & bar tape makes a difference.

If you add all those up then you can easily have a differnce of 2lbs or more.
 

·
EMS / MedEvac Pilot
Joined
·
121 Posts
Most Mfg. claimed weight is also w/o pedals...


toonraid said:
There is always a difference between claimed manufacturer figures and actual - some are better while some are way off mark but you also need to take following into consideration;

Usually the claimed manufacturer weights are for the lightest product like the following;

1 - Frames are for S - each size up is around 75g more.
2 - Bars are for size 40
3 - Stems are for 90
4 - Cassettes are for size 11-23
5 - Wheels never include rim tape or Q/R.

Then there is the samll matter of tyres and tubes, some training tyres weigh 900/pair while race tyres can go down to 360/pair. Also type of rim & bar tape makes a difference.

If you add all those up then you can easily have a differnce of 2lbs or more.
 

·
Is it the future yet?
Joined
·
1,978 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Usually the claimed manufacturer weights are for the lightest product like the following;

1 - Frames are for S - each size up is around 75g more.
2 - Bars are for size 40
3 - Stems are for 90
4 - Cassettes are for size 11-23
5 - Wheels never include rim tape or Q/R.
I can understand that thinking, but the articles are saying "Our XL test bike weighed in at..."
I wouldn't think the XL 555 had a 40 handlebar on it and they took off the rim tape/Q/R when they weighed it.

Are they just going by what the manufacturer spec. sheet says or are they actually weighing them? As in.."our test bike weighed in at..."
I'm sure it varies from publication to publication.
Probably why CompetitiveCyclist.com is acutally weighing everything "personally" now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I would not trust much you read in a bike magazine "review" . To me they usually sound like someone rewrote the product description supplied by the manufacture. In the case of the review of the 566 the photos show a selle italia slr saddle and a look ergopost on the bike. These 2 items would definitely push the weight down and the cost up on that bike. I didn't look very closely at the rest of the spec but those 2 jumped out at me.

On a total aside the best "official" bike review ever was by bikesnob for the look 566.
http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2009/04/bsnyc-product-review-look-566-road.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,160 Posts
info...

LOOK frame weights are usually pretty accurate, but they probably apparently don't include even trivial parts like the seapost clamp or BB cable guide.

A medium 585 is advertised as 990 grams, but my small is 1040, with the seatpost clamp and BB cable guide. A 566 is only supposed to weigh 130 grams more.

All built up with a Campy Record/Chorus group and Fulcrum Zero wheels, it weighs 6.83 Kg or only 30 grams over the 15lbs UCI minimum.

The weight discrepancies of individual parts can add up fast. To get the weight on my bike down, I have a 145 gram SLR saddle and 45 gram KCNC skewers. The rest of the parts are off the shelf standards like a Ritchey 4-axis stem, FSA K-force seatpost (not light at 215 grams) and Easton EC90 SLX3 bars (200 grams). I use Speedply X-2 pedals, not the 50 grams lighter X-1 and a Chorus crank that is 40 grams heavier than Record. I could swap two parts and be well below the UCI minimum weight.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top