RE: [CR]KOFs and the market.

(Example: Production Builders:Cinelli)

From: "Roman Stankus" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: RE: [CR]KOFs and the market.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:59:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Index: AcZD8FyD3++WdL8KS5+Vs+jmOXsjTQAQHUHw

I was simply replying to clarify that Louis was talking about frame and not complete bike weight. Peter didn't state the weight of Bobet's frame so sho knows what it weighed. A modern frame will weigh SIGNIFICANTLY less. Less is less no matter how you cut it and weight can matter. My guess would be more like a third in savings (maybe more) - still significant.

Roman Stankus Atlanta, Ga.

-----Original Message----- From: [] On Behalf Of John Thompson Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:12 PM To: Subject: Re: [CR]KOFs and the market.

Roman Stankus wrote:
> Louis was talking about the frame weight - not the complete bike.

That may be, but even so I think "half the weight" is more an extravagant verbal flourish than reality. There are only so many ways to reduce a frame's weight, and if you're using steel (as you would with a KOF frame) you have even fewer options. Tube thickness below a certain point is structurally unsound -- think "beer can." With bikes that limit is about 0.5mm wall thickness. For a durable bike you'll need a thicker wall, say 0.8mm or 0.9mm -- about the same as Reynold 531 or Columbus SL back in the day. Modern investment cast lugs, shells, and crowns are seldom lighter than the old pressed pieces, so where are you going to cut the weight, if not in the components?

John (
Appleton WI USA