Re: Dragonfly 54cm Frame Weight (picture)
08/06/05 01:59 AM (68.71.167.170)
Edit
Reply
Quote
My Fly was a little higher but to tell you the truth I can't remember exactly what it was. I did not really consider it worth worrying about.
What was interesting was the reaction of my shop. They weigh everything they put on or build and weight variances are common. They had found some of the highest from Colnago. The owner still just got a C-50 for himself and his number 2 man. (They are not a Calfee dealer.) The former number 2 loved Colnago as well.
They carry Scott and their weight is fairly consistent. However I would never swap my Fly or a C-50 for the Scott. I think a poster hit the nail on the head with production carbon build techniques leading to a difference. Give me handmade any time!
I know one thing...I'll be dead before my Fly is. I don't know if I would feel safe on many of the new super light frames in 5 years. It seems so much that they are using a more dense carbon but it sure is getting thin. If I am going super light give me boron and carbon. I remember when Craig first announced the Fly project he said essentially that he did not want to go that light with conventional carbon fiber. I also remember that maintaining the ride and stiffness were major factors along with a minimum of a 25 year life span. I found it interesting that Trek has added Boron to the bottom bracket of the tour bikes this year.
Oh well back to looking at my bikes. Crushed toes, broken back and concussion repercussions have probably brought my season to an end.
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Flat
Re: Dragonfly 54cm Frame Weight (picture)
Edit
Reply
Quote
