lightweight Ottrott ST -- any other ideas?

[jkahan]

So -- if anyone is willing to help me again, here's what I was given as a good ligt build for an Ottrott ST:

Zipp Carbon Crankset
Zipp Vuka Aero Bar
Dura Ace build with/ Vision Base bar, newton stem, 200TT carbon levers, Easton SL aero fork, Zero Gravity Brakes, Keo Ti pedals, Newton Stem

Since price is already outrageous, I am willing to consider other outrageous stuff -- anything else that I should consider?

-- I already have a Zipp 606/404 wheel set.

thanks again -- I promise not to ask too many more questions

[Serotta PETE]

Questions are good....we all learn from them.

It sounds like you already are there. SPOKES will have to go have some wine (I had to bring some to his house, for he is always out of it when I leave.)

The way I think he beat your weight was when he outfitted the Meivici with Campy Hyperion's


Have fun building.

PETE

[bigdeal]

you should wait for Zipp to officially release their aerobars, they showed them off at interbike so it shouldn't be long now. From what I hear they're pretty and light. At $1200 for a base bar, extensions, and brake levers, the only thing lighter will be your wallet.

[ClutchCargo]

Why wouldn't you use the Zipp stem? Add to all that pretty carbon, hmmm?

[Karbon]

So -- if anyone is willing to help me again, here's what I was given as a good ligt build for an Ottrott ST:

Zipp Carbon Crankset
Zipp Vuka Aero Bar
Dura Ace build with/ Vision Base bar, newton stem, 200TT carbon levers, Easton SL aero fork, Zero Gravity Brakes, Keo Ti pedals, Newton Stem

Since price is already outrageous, I am willing to consider other outrageous stuff -- anything else that I should consider?

-- I already have a Zipp 606/404 wheel set.

thanks again -- I promise not to ask too many more questions

Use Record, it's lighter. Tune it all with Al bolts/fittings.

Full aero pocketed Fibre-Lyte chainrings for those Zipp cranks, M5 brakes have better speed control if your a big guy, KMC X-10SL chain, KCNC cassette.

I think I saved you 1/2-3/4 of a pound :D

[zap]

As above plus......

If you like going fast, how about an AX-Lightness saddle?

If you can find one, an old Aerosport carbon base bar weighs 130 grams. No, you can't have mine.

One mod. THM crank is probably better and lighter than Zipp's isis thing.

[erty65]

Post the question here (http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=3).

[Ti Designs]

Question for ya,

How much does a Ferarri Enzo weigh without the motor? The answer is it doesn't matter, it's not going anywhere. The bike by itself still has a power to weight ratio of zero. Add your own weight to the bike and you have the real number. My bike weighs 176 pounds...

[davids]

Question for ya,

How much does a Ferarri Enzo weigh without the motor? The answer is it doesn't matter, it's not going anywhere. The bike by itself still has a power to weight ratio of zero. Add your own weight to the bike and you have the real number. My bike weighs 176 pounds...

http://www.storefrontdemme.com/stopmakingsenseforeignposter.jpg

[erty65]

Question for ya,

How much does a Ferarri Enzo weigh without the motor? The answer is it doesn't matter, it's not going anywhere. The bike by itself still has a power to weight ratio of zero. Add your own weight to the bike and you have the real number. My bike weighs 176 pounds...

Is there no difference between riding up a hill on a 176 pound bike and a 166 pound bike?

[Ozz]

Extralite (http://www.extralite.com/index_euro.htm)

Don't forget the ADA wheels! :cool:

[dbrk]

.

[SPOKE]

and get the Serotta F3 fork (if the frame is setup to use it). it weighs a bit more but it will have a great feel and handle the abuse for a very long time.

[obtuse]

it's a time trial bike for goodness sake! why do you even care about weight? aerodynamics should be your primary concern with an eye towards power output and comfort as well. weight is not even a remote consideration.

if you're using the thing for triathlons get the bike as aero as possible; set it up so you can stay in the aero position 98% of the time; this includes using low gears for hilly courses, a bike in a triathlon is not a road race. there's no drafting, there are no tactics and you needn't create gaps on climbs or bridge up to other riders. the goal should be to get to the bike leg as quickly and efficiently as possible, leaving yourself with enough energy for the run. anything you can do to reduce your frontal area is going to allow you to go faster on the bike with the same energy output or to fo the same speed with less energy leaving more in the tank for the run.)

obtuse

[Ray]

Is there no difference between riding up a hill on a 176 pound bike and a 166 pound bike?
Sure, some, but what's that got to do with it? The difference here isn't between a 26 pound touring rig and a 16 pound racing bike. Its an Ottrott, ferchissake, and the difference between using very expensive mainstream parts and crazy ridiculous expensive extremely lightweight parts is probably 2 pounds, maybe 3 tops. Less than your water bottles. And not enough to matter unless you are an elete TdF racer in the Alps. If then.

-Ray

[Ti Designs]

Is there no difference between riding up a hill on a 176 pound bike and a 166 pound bike?


My bike weighs in at about 19 pounds, the lightest [ridable] bike my shop has built was 13.5 pounds. That's 5.5 pounds difference at the cost of about $5500 or $1000/pound. I have 10 pounds of body weight (and brain matter) to lose to get to a good climbing weight. There are three points to be made here. First, it's not costing me anything to lose the weight. Second, you can't build a 9 pound bike. Third, wouldn't you feel a little foolish with a $10,000 stupid-light bike getting dropped on a hill by a guy on a heavy bike?

It's very simple, the rider is 90% of the system. Work on the big things first, little details like carbon fiber cables get lost in the breze. And for what it's worth, I went up Mt Washington on a 20 pound bike in an hour and five minutes (I was only 125 pounds back then).

[Fixed]

words of wisdom to bad most cats are deaf .
imho...
but there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to be in the weightweenie competion if that what they want
cheers

[Archibald]

And not enough to matter unless you are an elete TdF racer in the Alps. If then.

-Ray
Actually, you kind of have it backwards. The less watts you produce, the more weight matters.

[stevep]

[QUOTE=Ti Designs]My bike weighs in at about 19 pounds, the lightest [ridable] bike my shop has built was 13.5 pounds. That's 5.5 pounds difference at the cost of about $5500 or $1000/pound. I have 10 pounds of body weight (and brain matter) to lose to get to a good climbing weight. There are three points to be made here. First, it's not costing me anything to lose the weight. Second, you can't build a 9 pound bike. Third, wouldn't you feel a little foolish with a $10,000 stupid-light bike getting dropped on a hill by a guy on a heavy bike?

QUOTE]

awww,
shaddup eddie and go buy a new bike. then you can stop crying about everybody elses light bike.

[ergott]

I went up Mt Washington... in an hour and five minutes (I was only 125 pounds back then).

You are my hero!

1:42 PB 175lbs, 16.5lb bike

[Ti Designs]

awww, shaddup eddie and go buy a new bike. then you can stop crying about everybody elses light bike.

My Serotta is the perfect bike for me. It's a La Corsa with a mix of 9-speed Ultegra and Dura-Ace. I got back on it in March and thus far this year I've done zero maintainance (over 1000 miles in may, it rained on most of them). I've stopped for all kinds of mechanical problems on other (dare I say lighter) bikes, but never for my own. I've only been on your CCB ride twice, but I recall you having some kind of mechanical and needing to swing by your house... There are lots of things I can cry about - my salary, my hair, my tiny little - you get the point. My Serotta isn't on that list.

[Ray]

Actually, you kind of have it backwards. The less watts you produce, the more weight matters.
OK, fair enough. If you're racing and you're as weak as I am, I guess you'd want to be on a two pound bike so you could feel really really bad when you got dropped on the climbs. I guess my point is for a recreational rider, even a fairly fast one, it doesn't matter if you get to the top of the hill a few seconds slower (which is likely all the difference we're talking about for the small amount of weight and the hills most of us ride regularly). If those few seconds do matter to you all that much (and you're going hard enough on every hill to take advantage of the slightly lighter bike)....

....well, be my guest. Go crazy. But as some far more esteemed folks than myself have been saying, weight shouldn't be at the top of the list of considerations for this bike. Ti went up Mt. Washington in 1:05 on a 20 pound bike. I'd probably go up it in about 2:10 on a 10 pound bike, if I made it up at all. Weight is so far down the list of why I'd take twice as long to get to the top it isn't even funny.

-Ray

[david]

words of wisdom to bad most cats are deaf .
imho...
but there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to be in the weightweenie competion if that what they want
cheers

it ain't my bag, but let the guy have some fun.

[manet]

(I was only 125 pounds back then).

http://www.ralden.com/birdwatcher/Original%20Scans/Roland%20Jr.,%20circa%20junior%20high%20school,%20 74.JPG

[Archibald]

OK, fair enough. If you're racing and you're as weak as I am, I guess you'd want to be on a two pound bike so you could feel really really bad when you got dropped on the climbs. I guess my point is for a recreational rider, even a fairly fast one, it doesn't matter if you get to the top of the hill a few seconds slower (which is likely all the difference we're talking about for the small amount of weight and the hills most of us ride regularly). If those few seconds do matter to you all that much (and you're going hard enough on every hill to take advantage of the slightly lighter bike)....

....well, be my guest. Go crazy. But as some far more esteemed folks than myself have been saying, weight shouldn't be at the top of the list of considerations for this bike. Ti went up Mt. Washington in 1:05 on a 20 pound bike. I'd probably go up it in about 2:10 on a 10 pound bike, if I made it up at all. Weight is so far down the list of why I'd take twice as long to get to the top it isn't even funny.

-Ray
That's a slippery slope you're on. If a few pounds and a few seconds shouldn't mean anything, why should an expensive bike? Big difference in cost between a $700 Giant and a $7,000 uber bike with very little, if any, difference in speed.

Weight always matters, it just matters less than aerodynamics until the hills get steep or you're riding below about 15-mph.

[Ray]

That's a slippery slope you're on. If a few pounds and a few seconds shouldn't mean anything, why should an expensive bike? Big difference in cost between a $700 Giant and a $7,000 uber bike with very little, if any, difference in speed.
Agreed. But it isn't ALL about speed for most of us. There's comfort, handling, and the 'feel' of the bike. I'm about as slow as it gets, but I love my custom ti bike because of the handling and the indescribable feel of the bike. I'd climb any given hill just as slowly on any number of cheaper bikes.

Sorry to take this so far - if the OP wants a uber-light bike, he should have it. He just shouldn't think that the difference between a 14 pound bike and a 17 pound bike (all else being pretty much equal - it IS an Ottrott after all) is going to really mean much.

-Ray

[obtuse]

That's a slippery slope you're on. If a few pounds and a few seconds shouldn't mean anything, why should an expensive bike? Big difference in cost between a $700 Giant and a $7,000 uber bike with very little, if any, difference in speed.

Weight always matters, it just matters less than aerodynamics until the hills get steep or you're riding below about 15-mph.

exactly bub-
and this guy is doing triathlons so there's no drafting and aerodynamics play an even bigger role. no one ever has lost a time trial because their bike was heavier. there are no rapid changes in temp so light wheels don't matter; there are no attacks on climbs so light bikes make no difference. this guy should be looking for the most aerodynamic stable thing he can get that will allow him to put out a steady wattage at a steady cadence for whatever course he is riding.

gerolsteiner's walsers weigh over 22 pounds.

obtuse

[obtuse]

Sorry to take this so far - if the OP wants a uber-light bike, he should have it. He just shouldn't think that the difference between a 14 pound bike and a 17 pound bike (all else being pretty much equal - it IS an Ottrott after all) is going to really mean much.

-Ray


but he should know that he is completely wasting his money and would be better served with aero equipment than light-weight equipment for his intended usuage.

obtuse

[Archibald]

exactly bub-
and this guy is doing triathlons so there's no drafting and aerodynamics play an even bigger role. no one ever has lost a time trial because their bike was heavier. there are no rapid changes in temp so light wheels don't matter; there are no attacks on climbs so light bikes make no difference. this guy should be looking for the most aerodynamic stable thing he can get that will allow him to put out a steady wattage at a steady cadence for whatever course he is riding.

gerolsteiner's walsers weigh over 22 pounds.

obtuseNo one said aero wasn't important. I don't know what kind of events he's using the bike for, or what kind of courses he's riding. I assume you don't either. He's apparently worried about weight and if he's doing hilly courses, there's no good reason to tell him to just worry about aero if he feels he has the aero covered. There are some tri courses that have phenomenally difficult bike legs. I have a couple of high level tri friends who participated in the Alp de Huez Tri and the Tri World Championships in Lusanne (sp?) this year, they were very worried about weight and their bike setups since couldn't always stay in position on the ups (they said the Lusanne course had a section of 12% grade which sucked on a tri bike). I assumed he's doing hilly courses since he's using a road frame as his base instead of a dedicated TT/Tri frame.

Bottom line is the guy is asking for advice on the build of a light TT bike, what parts should I buy kind of thing. I think he's got it covered if he's comfortable with the TT specific equipment he's picked out. I'd spend my extra money on extra wheels, tires, and a comfy saddle.

[RPS]

For hilly or rolling terrain triathlons where drafting is not allowed, much of the climbing time penalty due to extra weight is offset in part by the descents. In a typical loop course where there is no net elevation gain, time differences due solely to weight are quite small. They can be estimated through calculations, but the required assumptions are probably not valid for such small differences.

I find it interesting that there is generally a lack of consideration for bike weight relative to the rider’s weight. A 120-pound female rider in our group considers her new 18-pound tri bike acceptable, yet no 180-pound triathlete I know would ever consider riding a 27-pound bike. And although she is at a significant weight disadvantage relative to her size, it doesn’t keep her from thrashing many men in the group.

[jkahan]

First -- thanks to all for the info -- I know I am asking very very open ended questions and I know that I am the 95% contributor to my bike leg.

I 100% agree that rider ability, comform and aero dynamics are the most critical components. I also like RPS's analysis about uphill and downhill loss/gain equilibrium --

For what it's worth -- I have a CXII fitted out for triathlons (I am currently doing 1/2s and fulls) - my typical cruising speed at this distance is 21mph -- and it is perfect with respect to comfort. Bike weighs in (sans water bottles) around 19.

Aerodynamically -- "I" would be the area of improvement. However, on hilly course (especially where I live and train) -- I am definitely expending more energy than I am used to when I am on my road bike. Thus, I am looking for the options that deal with (aerodynamics, bike ride/comfort, weight, and of course price).

So thanks to all and keep replies coming if u're not fed up with this silly thread:)

[Archibald]

I 100% agree that rider ability, comform and aero dynamics are the most critical components. I also like RPS's analysis about uphill and downhill loss/gain equilibrium --
Except it doesn't work that way. If you lose 10-seconds to your doppelganger on a climb from a 5-pound heavier bike, you are not going to recover it on the descent unless you expend greater effort or become more aero. If your doppelganger expends the same effort and becomes as aero as you, you will still be 10-seconds behind. Maybe 9.8-seconds from your increased weight, but it is basically a loss you can't make up without expending more energy.

[RPS]

This weight-versus-cost issue is a difficult personal decision, so I’m not going to pretend that I can help make it for you. I could say that my estimated time savings in a 40K time trial is about 3 seconds if I reduce weight by 1 percent (1.8 pounds) on a flat course, or about 8 seconds on a hilly course, but that would not address the total picture.

I’ve seen too many friends improve significantly by simply buying a new bike; and the improvements couldn’t be explained by weight savings. Intangibles like riding more, getting fit, etc… can make a greater difference than what can be explained with numbers.

As long as your expectations of time savings due solely to weight are in the range of seconds and not minutes, you can’t go wrong with whatever you decide.

[jkahan]

I think where I have really opened a can of worms is in meshing together two issues that I am having.. I've cast it as a weight thing, but this is not a very accurate characterization. What I am obsessing about is a geometry / responsiveness "feeling" that is lacking in my current Tri bike (CXII) --- especially when it comes to hilly courses.

Maybe the million dollar question is that if I'm going to get another custom bike can the geometry be tweaked to allow for better hill climbing while still allowing for an aero/tri ride? If so, how does one go about making these types of design choices (more accurately, how does the bike fitter do this).

At the same time, if one is going to spend big bucks (and a lot of wife points) buying a great frame (like the Ottrot ,or whatever), then one might as well try to maximize the components as well (upto a point) -- I whole heartedly agree the whole thing gets expensive and silly when you are paying thousands for a few less grams -- especially given that I am 80kilo old man to begin with:) -- to answer someone's previous post, I'm looking to drop minutes not seconds over a 1/2 or full ironman distance.

So for all of you who are willing to still answer -- here's my new question --

Are all Serotta's created equally when deciding which one to use as a tri bike?
Which ones are better? What about this new hi-speed geometry thing?

thanks again -- and I promise (maybe) to stop this thread soon.:(

[dave thompson]

<snip>............. I'm looking to drop minutes not seconds over a 1/2 or full ironman distance...........<snip>(
I think the answer to that statement is; your fit on the bike and your fitness, make much more difference than weight or aero. Weight and aerodynamics will make some difference though I don't think anywhere near as much as my two assertions.