VOTE NOW: Bike of the Year 2009 (Road bikes)

Home:Ballyhoura

• See the contestants here
• Then vote here

Many lovely bikes there you will agree, my pick would be #40, #17, #45! What would ye go for?

Maybe we should do a poll like this for the boards.ie "Images of Beauty Bike of the Year 2009"...what do you think?

Captain Havoc

I love my LIDL bike aka Rebecca, it's much better than the Carrera I was on previously.

Lumen

I'm a bit partial to those Cannondales, except for the SI cranks.

I'd take this, with the wheels from this.

edit: Martin Bosch appears to own (or have owned) eight of those bikes.:eek:

The tax man

#34 rocks my boat but not with those awful rims. BTW is that a bell I see on the stem.

Ryaner

Some very nice bikes there. Lots of old CSC colour schemes although I may just be drawn to the Cervelos due to the on on my bike rack.

Some of the weights are insane though. #52 @ 4.8kg. He does seem to be running a tiny cassette too. Is an 11-23 really that small?

Lumen

Ryaner wrote: »

Some of the weights are insane though. #52 @ 4.8kg. He does seem to be running a tiny cassette too. Is an 11-23 really that small?

4.8kg is not light.

2.7kg is light (more examples here). Only a six speed cassette though.

sy

#47 Wilier Le Roi for me and the Scott #46 with those white hubs!
What, no Focus or no Planet X?

sy

Lumen wrote: »

.
edit: Martin Bosch appears to own (or have owned) eight of those bikes.:eek:

So that's blorgs real name!

Home:Ballyhoura

I should probably direct you to this thread of "The Sweetest Bikes of 2009" on WeightWeenies althought maybe this would be better as a link in the "Images of Beauty" thread because there are so many nice bikes there. Lumen, that is one hell of a gallery of light bikes there! Thanks for that. I was going to point Ryaner to the bikes on page 6 of WW link, 3.3kg and 3.97kg. Amazing stuff although I believe many of them are simply not made to be ridden as they actually wouldn't be capable of it. One line that really struck me was:

However it was a really fun project and we won't forget how a sub-4kg bike feels in our hand!

I mean after spending thousands upon thousands on building the ultimate WW bike, and you don't even get to use it at the end of it? :eek: All you get to do is lift it and then go put some heavier bits back on it so you can actually use it. Mad stuff!

Ryaner

Home:Ballyhoura wrote: »

I was going to point Ryaner to the bikes on page 6 of WW link, 3.3kg and 3.97kg. Amazing stuff although I believe many of them are simply not made to be ridden as they actually wouldn't be capable of it.

How much of a difference does the weight of the bike make to handling? Other than a lighter bike being easier to get up hills that is. My hardtail is lighter than my road bike but that really isn't a fair comparison.

Lumen

Ryaner wrote: »

How much of a difference does the weight of the bike make to handling?

Stiffness (or lack of) which can cause brake rub, wasted power and dodgy descending (judging by reviews comparing modern stiff CF racing bikes with the 80s steel equivalents). As I understand it, it's possible to achieve 6kg without sacrificing anything functional, but from that point on the compromises start piling up.

Obviously sub-6.8kg is not UCI legal anyway, and some of the wheels probably wouldn't pass the latest UCI tests for non-standard wheels.

None of these things matter, IMO. Weight weeniness doesn't need to be justified on functional grounds, it's largely a technological, aesthetic and financial pursuit, essentially constructing or commissioning works of engineering art.

edit: in terms of handling improvements from reduced weight, I think they're marginal at best. Geometry makes a much larger difference, so unless you have two gemoetrically identical bikes with different weights it's going to be difficult to judge.

Ryaner

Lumen wrote: »

Stiffness (or lack of) which can cause brake rub, wasted power and dodgy descending (judging by reviews comparing modern stiff CF racing bikes with the 80s steel equivalents). As I understand it, it's possible to achieve 6kg without sacrificing anything functional, but from that point on the compromises start piling up.

Obviously sub-6.8kg is not UCI legal anyway, and some of the wheels probably wouldn't pass the latest UCI tests for non-standard wheels.

None of these things matter, IMO. Weight weeniness doesn't need to be justified on functional grounds, it's largely a technological, aesthetic and financial pursuit, essentially constructing or commissioning works of engineering art.

edit: in terms of handling improvements from reduced weight, I think they're marginal at best. Geometry makes a much larger difference, so unless you have two gemoetrically identical bikes with different weights it's going to be difficult to judge.

Thanks. That makes sense. Guess I'll just need to wait until the snow clears and the remaining parts for the new bike arrive, see how it rides

Raam

Huge fan of this, but not the saddle.

ednwireland

my focus cayo full 105 cf monocoque less than 1200 euro great bike

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

Huge fan of this, but not the saddle.

A bit busy?

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

A bit busy?

It's called style.

RobFowl

Raam wrote: »

It's called style.

Sorry RAAM it's busy to the point of being eurosceptic

Raam

RobFowl wrote: »

Sorry RAAM it's busy to the point of being eurosceptic

You ride with black shoes, right?

RobFowl

Raam wrote: »

You ride with black shoes, right?

I Do

Raam

RobFowl wrote: »

I Do

I'm just ribbing ya

It's defo busier than I'd normally go for, but I've always had a soft spot for the Bianchis.

blorg

Home:Ballyhoura wrote: »

I was going to point Ryaner to the bikes on page 6 of WW link, 3.3kg and 3.97kg. Amazing stuff although I believe many of them are simply not made to be ridden as they actually wouldn't be capable of it.

Yer man with the 2.97kg bike actually rides it, or at least he does in its slightly heavier 3,195g incarnation. Up to 1,000km a week apparently.

Ryaner

blorg wrote: »

Yer man with the 2.97kg bike actually rides it, or at least he does in its slightly heavier 3,195g incarnation. Up to 1,000km a week apparently.

How can he afford to cycle 1000km a week? Although I suppose he did spend 15k on wheels so money must be coming from somewhere.

sy

blorg wrote: »

Yer man with the 2.97kg bike actually rides it, or at least he does in its slightly heavier 3,195g incarnation. Up to 1,000km a week apparently.

Yeah but "Günter Mai from Lamperthei", doesn't have to contend with our road surfaces!

niceonetom

I googled Herr Mai in the hope he'd be a bit fat (because I'd find that funny). Unfortunately he isn't a porker:



But he is
a) wearing a silly hat and
b) riding in a very flat landscape. Check out that horizon.

Home:Ballyhoura

That is a very severe/low position (saddle to bar drop)...probably so he could buy as small a frame as possible and cut off as much steerer tube as he could!