Going ultralight, help identifying a 5.2kg beauty

It is amazing though dont you reckon, things do seem to be getting stronger for a given weight? There are a lot of trail mtbs that are really light these days and they have to deal with a lot of impact stuff too. Even cx frames are crazy light. 850g is amazing, and think some of the pro riders using these frames are not exactly super light and they can put out more power with one leg than most of us can do with two I would imagine the main danger is crashing, if a thin bit of the frame takes a direct hit I bet you would end up with a broken frame although I have crashed my top end bike at a decent speed and I was suprised to see that I came off a lot worse than the frame.

I would only doubt a light frame if it was a show piece not in mass production, or a brand who did not have a proven track record.- assuming the manufacturer did not give a low rider weight limit,

@Bikeboy76, I think it might have been in this month's issue of 'Cyclist' magazine that I read about frame repairs the other day. One of the things mentioned was a carbon fibre engineer who repairs frames, stated that the minimum weight for a properly viable frame was 850g (I think - you should probably check). That's probably assuming a 65kg whippet or some such in the saddle. I think for 100kg, an ultralight frame might not be viable anyway.

That said, check this out:
http://road.cc/content/review/85070-canyon-ultimate-cf-slx-90-sl
£3.7k, 6kg, 120kg weight limit. Purely race-focused in handling though, probably a bit twitchy unless you plan to race.

Bike Boy, think I'm like you - above average size, stronger on the flat, not so good on hills.

I also have a history of breaking bikes! Would love a superlight bike but daren't!

Also, a featherweight bike is no good if it's really flexible.

To that end, I've focused the equipment spend - and weight loss - where it matters most - wheels, and have gone for a slightly heavier, Ti frame for hopefully longevity and a bit of reassurance.

The aero wheels also play to my strengths by making the most of speed I can hold on the flat.

So, is 'lighter is better', answer is, it depends, IMO!

Still not listening then?

Ah well. Can't say I didn't try...

In fairness he just responded to a comment that implied saving weight on the bike is a better long term solution than losing a few pounds. Unless you are already very thin then that is crazy talk.

Buying shiny bikes is always a good idea though if you can afford it, a nice bike can be a lot of fun to ride.
Be under no illusion though, it will make no difference to your times/speed outside of proper race conditions, and even then for most of us actual performance gains are secondary to the equipment looking nice (and fitting, good handling etc.)

Also, at risk of sounding like a broken record - have a look at your riding style and be open to adapting it.
Turning a smaller gear at a higher cadence not only is more efficient, but it also causes your body to metabolise your fat far better. i.e. you're burning some fat instead of just glycogen.

Hmm. I'm thinking, because of what you told us about your riding style, that an ultralight bike isn't for you. You're strong on the flat, right, and like to push a big old gear? Surely you want to go aero-framed and deep rims?

Put it this way. The only time you'll get any advantage of, say, a 6kg bike, is when you're accelerating, or going up a steep hill. On your current setup, your total weight is near as makes no difference 100kg. A saving of 2kg is a 2% difference in weight. And if you're mashing a gear that's too big anyway, that 2% won't be noticeable.

An aero bike though, you're making little % gains all over, and if you're mostly on the flat then you're getting a lot more out of your money.

This book costs £8.79 and I went from £82kg --> £73kg. (It didn't cost me anything because I got it off my brother in law.)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paleo-Diet-Athletes-L-Cordain/dp/1594860890

I have to admit though, I would love to have a badboy like one of these someday and I'd probably have to come up with a pretty good excuse to get one too!

Or just do some of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EDyLObj8W1U

You could probably get down to 88kg for less than £3000

Deep rims are more of an issue than bike weight in crosswinds. And anyway the bike's weight is dwarfed by the large wobbly thing balanced on top of the saddle.

But I'm getting a sense of Deja Vu, so the above is probably the 'wrong' answer.

Tejvan's Trek is now 5.7 kg but achieving it didn't come cheap. Here is Jack Pullar's 5.5 kg Cannondale he used for the 2012 National HC.

A crosswind is unlikely to affect you - if I remember from the ride London/climbing thread you're about 90kg? A coupla kilos won't make much difference on your bike, not unless you're rocking deep deep rims.

A thought about cost - some of the better chinese imports seem to be around 1000g for frame and fork - that's knocking on the door of the lightest branded pro frames, I think, and all for about 400 quid. Team them with some ultralight chinese carbon wheels and you'll be on your way to something featherweight.... though, if you believe a lot of the talk, you'd be insane to ride it if you weigh more than 70kg.

The Cannondale Supersix Evo Black Inc is 5.2kg.

It's also £7,500, mind.

6.5 is easily obtainable, i even have done it with a caad10 and campag centaur mainly oh and super fancy wheels

below that though

oh 6kg doable for a lot of money on a 700 something frame

5kg? pah.

http://road.cc/content/news/96-german-carbon-group-full-road-bike-under-3kg

The components on my Canyon add up to over 3k. Frame, FFWD carbon wheels, full SRAM Red.

It's 6.5kg or thereabouts.

Sub 6kg? I could probably shave 400g off with some hyper wheels. Another few hundred on bars etc. So, for about another £1k yes, I could get in the region of 6.

5.2kg? That's going to cost.