|   2004 Giant NRS Air 16.5" Carbon confirmed Weight | pnassmac
Jan 16, 2004 9:45 AM | | Hello boys,
I'm sure some are curious about the weight of this bike, so here goes...
This is a frame-only purchase. The frame DOES include canti bosses. The canti studs were not installed on the frame. The frame has a disc tab. The integrated headset was also NOT installed. Water bottle bolts (4) were REMOVED as well. The weight DOES include the Fox AVA Propedal shock which weighs ~70 grams more than last year's Sid XC so keep that in mind.
Frame weight incl/ shock: 2435 grams
I have pictures but am struggling with the software. I'll post some soon as possible.
I'm a bit disappointed with the frame weight. I was hopeful it would be closer to ~2200 grams. Still, the frame in its natural carbon state with gloss looks sweet and no doubt will be the envy of all who behold it - not that I care what anybody thinks about it.
pnassmac
"Why is it that the people you're are trying to impress the most are the same people you care about the least?" |
| re: 2004 Giant NRS Air 16.5" Carbon confirmed Weight | scizod
Jan 16, 2004 11:27 AM | | How much was the frame? How much weight do you think you need to add on for an 18.5" frame? |
| re: 2004 Giant NRS Air 16.5" Carbon confirmed Weight | pnassmac
Jan 16, 2004 11:56 AM | | The frame was purchased from a local bike shop in Kettering, Ohio for ~1500.00.
Regarding the post about 1/4 lb. weight increases for each increase in frame size, I don't know. I prefer to say "I don't know" rather than guess. |
| re: 2004 Giant NRS Air 16.5" Carbon confirmed Weight | KMan
Jan 16, 2004 11:49 AM | | I agree that the weight is nothing special especially since it is a carbon frame (not that carbon is any lighter than alm).
Anyway from my experience you can add about 1/4lb for each size you go up so:
18" (Med) frame would be about 5.6lbs
20" (large) would be about 5.9lbs
Just guessing
KMan |
| re: 2004 Giant NRS Air 16.5" Carbon confirmed Weight | alleyoop
Jan 16, 2004 2:46 PM | | You must be an engineer to make a statement that "not that carbon is any lighter than aluminum". Carbon's strength as a frame material revolves around the fact that when properly layed up (free of voids), it is far stronger than aluminum, titanium, steel, scandium, beryllium, or magnesium at a lighter weight. A carbon frame can be much lighter than aluminum, with its only downfall being that it tends to fail catastrophically and is weakened after the surface (epoxy or nylon depending on whether it is thermoset or thermoplastic) is merely scored. Because of this, the manufacturers overbuild. The new composites such as Hexcell (that Trek uses on the linkage of the Fuel and Campagnolo uses for their '04 Record and Chorus road cranks) feature multi-directional fibers and radiuses that were not achievable before. |
| Interesting but I don't think that was KMans point | Trevor!
Jan 16, 2004 5:09 PM | | The point was probably more the fact that as a general rule of thumb with MTBS the carbon frames are generally not lighter then their counterparts. There may be exceptions to this geralisation. There was no point made regarding strength. |
| I took a piece of carbon I had laying around the house.......... | Tbonius
Jan 16, 2004 7:33 PM | | and threw it out my window onto the street down below....it bounced around a little, and then it just layed there...really freaked me out. Aluminum would never have done that. |
| My 20.5 inch NRS Aluminum Air frame weighed 2860gr with headset. | Danny
Jan 16, 2004 9:18 PM | | and all frame screws. Sounds like there isn't much savings going to carbon. Probably the real benefit is added stiffness.
Danny |
| 2003, they were rebuilding it with 2004 carbon frame. nm. | Danny
Jan 17, 2004 12:52 AM | | 2003, they were rebuilding it with 2004 carbon frame. nm. |
| My 20.5 inch NRS Aluminum Air frame weighed 2860gr with headset. | vwagoneer
Jan 17, 2004 3:50 PM | | My experience with carbon frames is that there is no added stiffness. In fact its quite the opposite; at the bottom bracket mine flexed badly with 180mm cranks. So badly I got rid of it. I believe this is a property of the carbon and why it is so strong; because it gives a little. Just my experience. |
| Thanks, that was exactly my point.... | KMan
Jan 18, 2004 5:28 PM | | No engineer here but my post was just to say that carbon MTB's that are being made are not significantly any lighter that aluminum frames. For that matter seatpost included. I think the "exception" to that is the Trek Fuel which is listed at about 5.5lbs for a large, but they are know to break on a pretty consistant basis (so are their aluminum versions as well).
Not discussing strength to weight here at all.
KMan |
| What about the sub-4lb Scott Strike carbon FS frame? nm | DavidG
Jan 19, 2004 2:29 AM | | |
| Show me an "official" weight of the Scott @ sub 4 lbs | KMan
Jan 19, 2004 9:56 AM | | Here are some FACTUAL weights....even though not sub 4, they are damn light, infact shockingly light.
Frame: Scott Strike 10 2001 Medium (Ti bolts) 1775 w/RockkShox SID XC (165mm; inc. bushings) 266. Total weight 2041 (4.5lbs)
Frame: Scott USA G ZERO Strike 10 1935 w/ Rock shox SID Race no lockout / included in frame weight 4.3lbs
Frame: Scott Strike Limited (Scandium) Size L; Ti bolts 1745 Rear Shock: DT Swiss SSD210L 220 Total weight 1965 (4.3lbs)
KMan |
| I was quoting the weight without the rear shock | DavidG
Jan 19, 2004 10:42 AM | | BTW, the first frame you listed (the "Scott Strike 10 2001 Medium...") is mine:
* Weight before tuning, without shock = 1,799g (= 3.86lbs)
* With the lighter Scandium swingarm the weight drops to 1,709g (= 3.76lbs)
* With the disk brake only Scandium swingarm you lose another few grams to 1,684g (= 3.71lbs)
* Tuning with Ti and carbon bolts and you're down to 1,654g (= 3.64lbs).
* Add a German Air Air Force 1SL shock (160g) and the total weight is 1814g (= 3.99lbs).
QED
The reason I think you should leave the shock off the frame weight is because the choice of shock alone can change the overall weight of the package by more than half a pound. A 'frame' per se does not include a shock (nor a seatpost clamp, front derailleur, etc.)
DavidG. |
| if you dont mind with bob the scott will be a great choice. nm | gore
Jan 20, 2004 7:08 AM | | |
| |
