# 4.8kg MTB



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

-----


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Not sure what you're looking for here. A pat on the back? I will say that I can see this was a labor of love and that it took a ton of effort and creativity. On that front, good job. With that out of the way, this bike is a complete pos. It is unrideable. I've read another post of yours where you think it'd ride fine on grass or light soil. I'd be surprised if it survived riding off of a curb. Making an uber light bike is worthless if the bike itself is worthless. You've essentially created an impressionist work of art that should only be hung on a wall. Keep it up!


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> Not sure what you're looking for here. A pat on the back? I will say that I can see this was a labor of love and that it took a ton of effort and creativity. On that front, good job. With that out of the way, this bike is a complete pos. It is unrideable. I've read another post of yours where you think it'd ride fine on grass or light soil. I'd be surprised if it survived riding off of a curb. Making an uber light bike is worthless if the bike itself is worthless. You've essentially created an impressionist work of art that should only be hung on a wall. Keep it up!


Oh it rides well but you don't know until you ride it . I have never mentioned grass or light soil . I mentioned light trail .

I agree making a light bike is pointless if you cannot ride it but I haven't done that .

'Not sure what you're looking for here. A pat on the back?' Well I see lots of others have made posts of their builds so I thought I would too . Maybe we should all pat each other on the back .

This is a WW community not an XC community . Then again .


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

karimian5 said:


> This is a WW community not an XC community . Then again .


You've said this type of thing before. It's first and foremost a mountain bike community. This is not a mountain bike. Sorry.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> You've said this type of thing before. It's first and foremost a mountain bike community. This is not a mountain bike. Sorry.


Tell me what part of it isn't a mountain bike . I really want to know . The rims, the frame, the fork . Are they road parts do you think oh wise one ?!!! This is a weight weenie community on a mtb site .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

GiantTurd said:


> Silent - no need to ruin this guys effort, not for you fine, but I think it is brilliant and I am not riding it myself. Kudos, well done, this is how things get achieved or ideas started.


Thnk you my friend . I'm glad we still have some open minded people left .


----------



## Crossmaxx (Dec 2, 2008)

karimian5 said:


> Oh it rides well but you don't know until you ride it . I have never mentioned grass or light soil . I mentioned light trail .
> 
> I agree making a light bike is pointless if you cannot ride it but I haven't done that .


Look, I don't want to nag you for your creation, it's impressive how much effort you've spent on it and how you've tuned every component of the bike. But you really should stop claiming this bike is capable of even light trail action until you can provide some evidence of this. Why don't you post a video of yourself (or someone else for that matter) riding this bike on this "light trail" you keep referring to? I've yet to see a single picture of your creations out in the nature, so you'll forgive me for thinking that you have never taken them for a proper ride. You can claim that it holds up as much as you want (referring to your "testing"), but until you show the bike being ridden, I won't believe that this bike would make it down some stairs in one piece.

By the way, how much does the frame weigh in its current state? There ought to be lighter options out there than a Planet X frame?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm with Silentfoe and Crossmaxx, I don't want to poop on anyones party but until I see a vid proving otherwise I'm saying that for all practical purposes that bike is unrideable, anywhere at any speed. Not that there's anything wrong with that but if you're just looking for a number to post why not construct the entire thing from cork? Or maybe balsa wood?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

To me, lightweight XC means something that may be raced, because you generally don't build light unless you are looking for that competitive advantage. Then, you are balancing cost, durability, weight, performance and so on. You will make sacrifices in one or more areas, but generally you keep it to stuff that will get the job done. During an XC race, I'm constantly trying to rip the BB out of the frame while pedaling, trying to go as fast as possible uphill, and downhill. It is in no way "easy" on the bike.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

It's an extreme project bike, a show bike if you will. I don't think anyone is claiming high levels of reliability. It certainly will have its limits. I do applaud the effort, and the level of creativity.

Assuming the posters here are WW fans (and I've seen many of you as semi-regulars here), it would be great to give K a bit of a break. At the end of the day, he's just testing WW limits, which I would assume you'd be interested in given your participation here. 

If he overdoes a modification, that's his risk. I don't see the need to **** on a project that someone is excited about.


----------



## Crossmaxx (Dec 2, 2008)

phlegm said:


> It's an extreme project bike, a show bike if you will. I don't think anyone is claiming high levels of reliability. It certainly will have its limits. I do applaud the effort, and the level of creativity.
> 
> Assuming the posters here are WW fans (and I've seen many of you as semi-regulars here), it would be great to give K a bit of a break. At the end of the day, he's just testing WW limits, which I would assume you'd be interested in given your participation here.
> 
> If he overdoes a modification, that's his risk. I don't see the need to **** on a project that someone is excited about.


Answer me this: is he testing WW limits if he isn't actually using/testing the bike? If yes, then if I make a bike completely out of foam, with spinning wheels and all, am I too testing the WW limits? If not, then what proof do we have that he actually is using/testing his bike? I've seen none whatsoever.

I would say I fall under the category WW fans, but I don't see why I should be interested by this project when I get no information whatsoever whether his modifications hold up to any sort of real use. And that's my main objection to his posts, he claims that they are trail worthy (which, if true, would be very impressive), but he doesn't back this up in any way. What if someone takes his word for it, replicates some of the modifications and then experiences a failure?


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Crossmaxx said:


> Answer me this: is he testing WW limits if he isn't actually using/testing the bike? If yes, then if I make a bike completely out of foam, with spinning wheels and all, am I too testing the WW limits? If not, then what proof do we have that he actually is using/testing his bike? I've seen none whatsoever.
> 
> I would say I fall under the category WW fans, but I don't see why I should be interested by this project when I get no information whatsoever whether his modifications hold up to any sort of real use. And that's my main objection to his posts, he claims that they are trail worthy (which, if true, would be very impressive), but he doesn't back this up in any way. What if someone takes his word for it, replicates some of the modifications and then experiences a failure?


That's a fair comment, and you have a point. I suppose I'm assuming that basic functionality remains, but that's not necessarily true.


----------



## Steve-XtC (Feb 7, 2016)

It's fun. .... it would probably need a complete rebuild after a race but it shows what's possible at the extreme just as a F1 car would likely never make a long motorway journey or similar it doesn't mean the learning and tech developed is useless. I live right next to mcclaren ... I see their prototypes almost every day when they are road testing ... half the time it's some franken-car that Is totally impractical but what the heck if it completes 50 miles on standard fuel (well premium) on some normal sideroads as eventually the tech will filter down. 

It's how things progress. No one is asking you to buy one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm not ranting, just saying it's a non-rideable bike. If that's what trips your trigger that's great and I wish you godspeed but expect that some people may not understand the concept, and also expect some skepticism when claiming questionable parts have been "tested". This is a discussion, right? Btw karimian5 recently railed on other posters for not proving the weights of their posted bikes. Kharma?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Steve-XtC said:


> It's fun. .... it would probably need a complete rebuild after a race but it shows what's possible at the extreme just as a F1 car would likely never make a long motorway journey or similar it doesn't mean the learning and tech developed is useless. I live right next to mcclaren ... I see their prototypes almost every day when they are road testing ... half the time it's some franken-car that Is totally impractical but what the heck if it completes 50 miles on standard fuel (well premium) on some normal sideroads as eventually the tech will filter down.
> 
> It's how things progress. No one is asking you to buy one.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is it progress?

F1 and rally cars produce technology that lead to more efficient mass produced automobiles. Better tire compounds, better aerodynamics, use of new materials.

How does milling down a saddle or cutting apart a carbon fork benefit the bicycling industry? It's not enhancing the saddle; he's not changing its chemical or structural make up. He's not improving the layup schedule/makeup of the fork tubes or adjusting the resin/carbon ratio.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

My kids strider bike is lighter than this bike and my kid used to ride the hell out of it. I should post pictures and a complete run down of what part weighs what. It's more of a legitimate bike than this thing.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Some great points in here . You are right I do need to prove to everyone by making a vid . I did announce over a week ago it is now a show bike hence the brake fluid being drained . 

These are ideas and with all people out there who build and create like myself should inspire others to do the same . 

JB Weld - I did state that because it's true but I see what you mean . 

Phlegm - you are right it does perform below your average XC bike and when testing it did bounce a little (annoyingly) . 

Steve Xtc - Very true . The tech in F1 wouldn't hold on a normal road . There are videos out there of them being driven on a normal road but they have picked the smoothest of the smoothest of roads to do the stunt . One pothole and the carbon leaf spring would just snap . 

Jayem - I guess WW means different things to different people . When I was growing up looking at the WW scene I was constantly looking at people (mostly Germans) hacking their bike parts and machining new components and all sorts . The bikes looked 'under nourished' to say the least but they were still capable of basic terrain . This is what WW is to me and if you check most (older) sites you will see these examples . 

Crossmaxx - well I could make a bike out of foam but if you are comparing my carbon bike to foam then that is a bit extreme . I understand the point you are making but if I really wanted to make a bike that wouldn't hold to anything then i would indeed make cardboard frame and use plastic to make the wheels and get the bike below 1.5kg . Don't forget one of the other ways I was able to keep the weight down was making it fully rigid and singlespeed .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> My kids strider bike is lighter than this bike and my kid used to ride the hell out of it. I should post pictures and a complete run down of what part weighs what. It's more of a legitimate bike than this thing.


My BMX will be lighter than your kid's bike . Ha I win . Don't mean to act like a child but I am just stooping to your level .


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Prove it or gtfo.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> Is it progress?
> 
> F1 and rally cars produce technology that lead to more efficient mass produced automobiles. Better tire compounds, better aerodynamics, use of new materials.
> 
> ...


I am actually . If you bother to read my posts on G+ then you will know I experiment with different amounts of material vs resin/epoxy . Making a component light but still able to take my weight IS progress . You carry on being a hater . I think the publicity my bike got shows you are a minority .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> Prove it or gtfo.


Gtfo this post .


----------



## Steve-XtC (Feb 7, 2016)

Le duke, much of F1 is just shaving a few grams here and there. McLaren then make a road legal car and some transfers and some doesn't ...
Someone has to try it first though ... and the road legal car ends up having a lot moderated .. but equally before carbon frames titanium was the ultimate ... now carbon is a standard component on either performance cars or light bikes... but along the way I'm sure there was a lot of "but it will never work for...." 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Steve-XtC said:


> Le duke, much of F1 is just shaving a few grams here and there. McLaren then make a road legal car and some transfers and some doesn't ...
> Someone has to try it first though ... and the road legal car ends up having a lot moderated .. but equally before carbon frames titanium was the ultimate ... now carbon is a standard component on either performance cars or light bikes... but along the way I'm sure there was a lot of "but it will never work for...."
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, and they develop new technology in the process. That's the difference.

They aren't just boring holes in things for the sake of reducing weight. That doesn't work in F1.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> Yes, and they develop new technology in the process. That's the difference.
> 
> They aren't just boring holes in things for the sake of reducing weight. That doesn't work in F1.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Where I have made holes they are done in the right places . The holes in the frame were from where I removed the cable guides. the other holes were from the manufacturers . Plse think before you post . It's getting boring now .


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

karimian5 said:


> 'Not sure what you're looking for here. A pat on the back?' Well I see lots of others have made posts of their builds so I thought I would too . Maybe we should all pat each other on the back .
> 
> .


Aw crap, this is turning into a circle jerk now.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

It is a cool story of dedication and expendable income - If it is a showpiece, then cool, it will get conversations going.

If it is meant as an ultra-light XC rig, then I want to see some Nino-esque XC moves with it


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

006_007 said:


> Aw crap, this is turning into a circle jerk now.


:lol::winker:


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Nino is awesome . FYI he got banned both from this site and the official WW site . He moved on though but I am still holding out on this site . Very nice community here spoiled by a few brats .


----------



## doccoraje (Jan 12, 2004)

karimian5 said:


> Nino is awesome . FYI he got banned both from this site and the official WW site .


My guess is that you are talking about a different Nino! Nino Schurter was never banned from this site (not sure he has ever been a member), and he is the one on that pic 006-007 posted.


----------



## Crossmaxx (Dec 2, 2008)

karimian5 said:


> Nino is awesome . FYI he got banned both from this site and the official WW site . He moved on though but I am still holding out on this site . Very nice community here spoiled by a few brats .


Well, you can at least tell how much of a WW you are when your first association with the name "Nino" isn't the reigning Olympic and World XC champion, but rather some WW guy with questionable sales ethics.


----------



## Crossmaxx (Dec 2, 2008)

karimian5 said:


> Crossmaxx - well I could make a bike out of foam but if you are comparing my carbon bike to foam then that is a bit extreme . I understand the point you are making but if I really wanted to make a bike that wouldn't hold to anything then i would indeed make cardboard frame and use plastic to make the wheels and get the bike below 1.5kg . Don't forget one of the other ways I was able to keep the weight down was making it fully rigid and singlespeed .


And that's all fair enough - as long as you provide some evidence that the bike is actually capable of what you're claiming it to be.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

karimian5 said:


> Nino is awesome . FYI he got banned both from this site and the official WW site . He moved on though but I am still holding out on this site . Very nice community here spoiled by a few brats .


I'm fairly certain that Nino Schurter has never posted here.


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

I always find these builds interesting, regardless.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Sideknob said:


> I always find these builds interesting, regardless.


Thnkyou .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Crossmaxx said:


> Well, you can at least tell how much of a WW you are when your first association with the name "Nino" isn't the reigning Olympic and World XC champion, but rather some WW guy with questionable sales ethics.


Well considering he is a racer and I'm a builder then you can understand why there was a mistake . He isn't a weight weenie.....and neither are you .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Urban Dictionary: weight weenie

Although I am around 90% of a weight weenie as my bike components do work (regardless what some of you say) . If I was 100% I would shave even more weight off, remove the rear brake and get the bike below 4KG but then it really would be unreliable . I think in its state 4.8 is a good number . :thumbsup:


----------



## Crossmaxx (Dec 2, 2008)

karimian5 said:


> Well considering he is a racer and I'm a builder then you can understand why there was a mistake . He isn't a weight weenie.....and neither are you .


You know what? If you consider yourself as the definition of a weight weenie, then I'm really relieved that I don't qualify. But just out of curiosity, how many threads on the first page (not started by you) of the WW forum qualify as weight weenie per your definition?


----------



## JD_OC (Mar 29, 2005)

Back in 2009 I built this budget single speed cruiser:

http://forums.mtbr.com/weight-weenies/just-finished-my-14-8-lb-cruiser-ss-548937.html

Which only had a front brake. Funny thing is I initially intended for it to just be a cruiser bike, but it was only a matter of time before I took it to the dirt. I found out it was a blast to ride just because it made my local trails feel like double-black diamonds compared to my FS Ellsworth.

The best MTB use for it though was when I took non mountain biking friends (or my wife) on my local trails, I would always go for this single speed as it really helped slow me down and even the playing field a bit. I did put RK SS 2.2s on it though as that helped a ton. I still own this bike and plan on keeping it a long time.

Anyway, the point of my story is I don't think there's anything wrong with a crippled or sketchy bike, heck they can be really fun on the trail! So, I think a lot of the hate your post is getting is because people don't believe you are a real MTB rider, and hence anything you build will immediately be questioned.

If a known MTB rider (famous or otherwise) posted this exact same bike but then described his experience with it on the trail, I think the reaction would be different.

Just my $0.02


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

doccoraje said:


> My guess is that you are talking about a different Nino! Nino Schurter was never banned from this site (not sure he has ever been a member), and he is the one on that pic 006-007 posted.





Crossmaxx said:


> You know what? If you consider yourself as the definition of a weight weenie, then I'm really relieved that I don't qualify. But just out of curiosity, how many threads on the first page (not started by you) of the WW forum qualify as weight weenie per your definition?


I'm not 100% but close . To answer your question - not many . Also not my definition . This IS what a weenie is .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

doccoraje said:


> My guess is that you are talking about a different Nino! Nino Schurter was never banned from this site (not sure he has ever been a member), and he is the one on that pic 006-007 posted.





JD_OC said:


> Back in 2009 I built this budget single speed cruiser:
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/weight-weenies/just-finished-my-14-8-lb-cruiser-ss-548937.html
> 
> ...


I think you're right . That is a cool concept btw . TBH I get more positive feedback then negative . I have some usual 'trolls' that have been following me for a while and anything I post they will put something negative but they are very few . The first person who commented - he is new :madmax: . I think if my bike were that bad it wouldn't get the positive response from these websites . Even Bikeradar are interested although not sure what they will do with the info they wanted .


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Why not tie up the brake hose? I know it would add a gram or 2 but the bike looks seriously undone with it flopping around like that.


----------



## JD_OC (Mar 29, 2005)

+1 on tidying the brake hose. However, no need to add a gram or 2. What about using some Vectran thread to tie it up? I have a spool of it and it is insanely strong. Several feet of the stuff probably weighs 0.1grams, lol. 

Oh, and let's see of video of this bike in action, that would be awesome.


----------



## hilltopcrew (Jun 30, 2010)

Just post a vid of this bike on an light xc trail already!!!!!!!, hitting some roots and rocks. I want to see it, you know we all want to see it. 

I know that I am not a true weight weenie because i just pointed-clicked-bought my 17.9 lb xl frame 3 inch tire 29+ Stache T-R-A-I-L bike. 
However, people are impressed when you can hit anything an XC 120mm travel FS 29er can, AND it weighs less than their road bike. 

I admire what you've done here (you sir, are awesome). Clearly no one else has gone to this level of commitment. No Sarcasm.

I do not admire an unrideable bike (your bike sir , sucks). Clearly no one (who likes living) will ride this thing.

Please post a vid.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

hilltopcrew said:


> ...
> I know that I am not a true weight weenie because i just pointed-clicked-bought my 17.9 lb xl frame 3 inch tire 29+ Stache T-R-A-I-L bike.
> However, people are impressed when you can hit anything an XC 120mm travel FS 29er can, AND it weighs less than their road bike.
> ....


On a tangent, I'd like to see a build thread for this bike. That weight with the tires and fork is definitely a challenge, and it would be great to see more detail on it.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Ah, thanks for the link to your build hilltop. I misread the "120mm" piece, and somehow thought you were running a fork with that much travel. From your thread I see it is rigid, which now makes more sense:

http://forums.mtbr.com/trek/lightest-treks-show-me-your-weight-weenie-1029913.html

...and yes I've just hijacked the OP's thread, which may be a good thing.


----------



## hilltopcrew (Jun 30, 2010)

The Hijack is ON!

Yeah, im rigid SS, it's all I need in my main areas of Ohio and Florida.


----------



## Zerort (Jan 21, 2013)

Silentfoe said:


> It's more of a legitimate bike than this thing.


Then get on it and ride your kid's bike.

We'll you probably can't because your are such an aggressive beast.

At least this guy has some creativity and isn't on here bashing all of you heroes - yes, you SilentClown.

He built this carbon contraption up for his liking, just like you wear your daily uniform for your liking. He's not on here bashing you and telling you your clown suit isn't saving you any watts.

It never stops with you.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

For those playing at home, here's a summary of the thread thus far:

-questioning the trail-worthiness of the project
-a couple of GTFO requests
-demand for videos of trail riding
-definitions of what mountain bikes, XC, etc.
-definitions of what a weight weenie is
-people liking the project
-people hating the project
-both a "poop" and POS reference
-F1 racing discussion
-kids bikes
-hole-drilling
-circle jerk sessions
-various "Ninos"
-messy brake hoses
-something called "Vectran" that I've never heard of - must be from the future
-a hijacking of an unrelated bike build
-clown references

Now you're up to date if you've just joined us.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

It just needs some Sierra Club hate to be truly complete. Where are the NorCal guys at?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

phlegm said:


> For those playing at home, here's a summary of the thread thus far:
> 
> -questioning the trail-worthiness of the project
> -a couple of GTFO requests
> ...


:lol:

Now we need a discussion on weight weenie fat bikes (they do exist) and unicycles . Carbon fibre unicycles .


----------



## fxrextreme (Mar 11, 2015)

Well done! I think your bike is awesome. Some people just enjoy being haters. Don't listen to them just enjoy yourself doing what you do


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

fxrextreme said:


> Well done! I think your bike is awesome. Some people just enjoy being haters. Don't listen to them just enjoy yourself doing what you do


Aw cheers man .


----------



## Crossmaxx (Dec 2, 2008)

Karimian, aren't these the discs you have on your bike? Alpha ceramic rotors - Page 2 - Weight Weenies


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Crossmaxx said:


> Karimian, aren't these the discs you have on your bike? Alpha ceramic rotors - Page 2 - Weight Weenies


Damn that's crazy but let's get some facts here . First he doesn't mention what pads were being used (most likely using the wrong pads and not ceramics) . This would for sure scratch off the ceramic coating leaving the bare (untreated) carbon and of course eventually shed the carbon to pieces like in the picture .

Secondly he says this : 'As I mentioned, the rotors are perfectly flat, on the table. But once mounted on the hub they are out of true.' Well he needs to get his hub tabs checked because if the rotor isn't flat on the hub then he either had debris under the rotor when installing or has some messed up hub .

It looks like user error (as is usually the case ) . If anyone remembers the issue some had with THM cranks where the tabs were getting broken and people were blaming THM . Turned out the chainrings were installed without tabs (or second chainring) by the user and the tabs were therefore not protected .

I still standby these rotors and mine were fine during testing (I have a score mark on the front though but not sure how that happened) .


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

karimian5 said:


> I still standby these rotors and mine were fine during testing (I have a score mark on the front though but not sure how that happened) .


What kind of pads were used for the test?


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> What kind of pads were used for the test?


Ceramic compund :

ALLIGATOR Magura MT2 / MT4 / MT6 / MT8 Ceramic Brake Pads - Probikeshop

I didn't use the BFO brakes as I had my Scrub rotors on at that time .

I have just looked at the Spanish forum link on the WW site and my heart was racing a little . I literally have my scrub rotors next to me right now but I still stand by what I said before . If the rotors are warped then the stress riser will be on the outer edge of the disc .

UPDATE: I looked at the link for the Spanish forum and it looks as though the guy did use ceramic pads but very uneven contact so i think the rotors were warped .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

It's quite weird reading the translated post but so far I have read that one other has had the same problem . One person has questioned the photo asking how both rotors went at the same moment and one other is saying these things happen (which is true) and the company has sold quite a few already without issue . 

Poynt if you are reading this how are yours holding up ?!!!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

karimian5 said:


> Secondly he says this : 'As I mentioned, the rotors are perfectly flat, on the table. But once mounted on the hub they are out of true.' Well he needs to get his hub tabs checked because if the rotor isn't flat on the hub then he either had debris under the rotor when installing or has some messed up hub .


Not if the bolt-pattern diameter on the rotor is too large or too small. Then when you mount it up it'll warp.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Jayem said:


> Not if the bolt-pattern diameter on the rotor is too large or too small. Then when you mount it up it'll warp.


Or perhaps the bot holes weren't aligned properly . The stem of the bolts fitted the same as any other rotor I have fitted so maybe this was a one off .

I do have to point out to all of you that the miles I have put into these rotors is very minimal . I think these guys either had a one off issue or something else could be wrong with their set up . Honestly i don't know . We need more people to comeback with some feedback . I will leave the rotors on my bike for now (considering it is now a show bike) but if more have this issue and they have set things up perfectly then I will be removing them and installing the Scrubs .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Check out these bad boys . Reset Racing pedals I had previously . Completely taken apart and all anodising removed . Hollowed out the titanium axles and removed the end caps . 203grams . 

I really need your opinions on this one . Now I prefer flats over clipless and I know this bike is all about getting the lightest weight possible but I also want performance to be part of it . These pedals use full bearings (including needle bearings) as appose to bushings . They spin better and will last longer . They will however bring the bike to 5070grams (more or less) . 

Also as you can see I weighed the Scrubs and they come to 97grams for 160mm and 140mm together . 

This all will add 176 grams to the bike overall .


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

How does the fork work? It is now fully rigid? If so, why not use a road bike fork? Something in the sub 300g range should be possible and much stronger than a cut down suspension fork.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

TigWorld said:


> How does the fork work? It is now fully rigid? If so, why not use a road bike fork? Something in the sub 300g range should be possible and much stronger than a cut down suspension fork.


It is a rigid DT Swiss that I have shortened . The wider tubing on this fork is far stronger than the narrow tubing on a road fork . A road fork would brake on the first rock that I hit . also the connection point between the steerer and the legs will be stronger .


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

Really? I think you'll find a road fork at the same weight as your DT swiss cut 'n shut will be far stronger. So much so, you could go with a much lighter fork and still be ahead strength wise. Just watch any of the "Road Bike Party" videos and you'll see what a carbon road fork can handle. There is so much wasted material in a suspension fork re-purposed as a rigid fork it just doesn't make any sense where you can use a lighter weight purpose built rigid fork.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

My fatbike carbon fork is 540g and can take a 5" tire


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

FYI


__
http://instagr.am/p/BJOxwbjBGIK/


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Copied from G+ :


Thought I would do a bit more work on the Resets . Hollowed out the titanium axles (cobalt drill bit) and deburred . I then machined the inside of the front segment of the pedals using the lathe and then tapered the ends and deburred . 

201 grams . I will put these on the bike to see how they look . This will bring the bike over 5kg but by only 40grams . 
﻿


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

The bike is at 4880 (with brake fluid) .

4880g-64g (discs) - 60g (pedals) = 4756

4756g+200g (pedals - this is where the scales stopped flashing after I took the photo) +97 (discs) = 5053 . Still not bad considering these are floating rotors and flat pedals .


----------



## thebrown (Oct 7, 2016)

A few things scare me on this "bike". #1 is the seat. There is no way that thing is comfortable and I would never trust my nuts on anything that small hanging about a seatpost liek that. #2 is the way the rear brake cable just hangs there waiting for something to snag it. #3 are the pedals, I just don't understand them at all. The scariest thing of all is all the cutting down in length, epoxying and machining. When these things are built in factory they are built to certain specs for safety. Messing with this decreases the structural integrity and increases the possibility of failure. IMHO looks like this would explode if it was taken on some rough single track.


----------



## doccoraje (Jan 12, 2004)

karimian5 said:


> You are right I do need to prove to everyone by making a vid . I did announce over a week ago it is now a show bike hence the brake fluid being drained.





thebrown said:


> A few things scare me on this "bike". #1 is the seat. There is no way that thing is comfortable and I would never trust my nuts on anything that small hanging about a seatpost liek that. #2 is the way the rear brake cable just hangs there waiting for something to snag it. #3 are the pedals, I just don't understand them at all. The scariest thing of all is all the cutting down in length, epoxying and machining. When these things are built in factory they are built to certain specs for safety. Messing with this decreases the structural integrity and increases the possibility of failure. IMHO looks like this would explode if it was taken on some rough single track.


Don't be scared, he already accepted it is now a show bike, no need to test it on soil :thumbsup:


----------



## thebrown (Oct 7, 2016)

doccoraje said:


> Don't be scared, he already accepted it is now a show bike, no need to test it on soil :thumbsup:


Seems like and incredible waste of time and money. He could have bought a Scott Scale and has a useful bike to ride.


----------



## detsortehul (Jun 25, 2007)

Nice project, thank you for sharing! :thumbsup:


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

These bad boys are under 160g for the pair. I got them for my 10year old's fat bike, they are great. Not great for rock strikes, I assume.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Ole said:


> These bad boys are under 160g for the pair. I got them for my 10year old's fat bike, they are great. Not great for rock strikes, I assume.


You assume correctly:
https://forums.mtbr.com/weight-weenies/superlight-aest-platform-pedals-863523.html


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

thebrown said:


> A few things scare me on this "bike". #1 is the seat. There is no way that thing is comfortable and I would never trust my nuts on anything that small hanging about a seatpost liek that. #2 is the way the rear brake cable just hangs there waiting for something to snag it. #3 are the pedals, I just don't understand them at all. The scariest thing of all is all the cutting down in length, epoxying and machining. When these things are built in factory they are built to certain specs for safety. Messing with this decreases the structural integrity and increases the possibility of failure. IMHO looks like this would explode if it was taken on some rough single track.


Well that is an opinion and not a fact but I'm done arguing with people . Assume away .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

doccoraje said:


> Don't be scared, he already accepted it is now a show bike, no need to test it on soil :thumbsup:


Already been tested (like I have mentioned hundreds of times) . Only later I decided I wanted something as a trophy bike . Something to look at to remind myself (and others) what can be done so I drained the brakes and kept it as a show bike . All parts had previously been removed and tested using my trail bike . The Resets were on my trail bike and so removed them and did this extra work .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

thebrown said:


> Seems like and incredible waste of time and money. He could have bought a Scott Scale and has a useful bike to ride.


Not a waste of time and money . Over the years I have learned how to machine , how to build, test etc and it's because of these bikes .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

detsortehul said:


> Nice project, thank you for sharing! :thumbsup:


Cheers man .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Ole said:


> These bad boys are under 160g for the pair. I got them for my 10year old's fat bike, they are great. Not great for rock strikes, I assume.


Those do look cool but they are mags and on pedals I ahve also personally learnt the hard way that magnesium is weak for pedals . Also these platforms are small . the Resets are much larger in size (so more grip) . Also don't forget these pedals have full bearings (one of the other reasons hwy I wanted to fit them over the Aerolites) . they are fitted with one standard bearing and one needle bearing per pedal which makes them very smooth . I want the bike to not just show lightweight parts but also functional and higher performance parts . You can't beat Reset Racing . Granted these have cost me £590.00 but I think the high quality German engineering they really do stick out well on the bike .


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Your posts and intent are so confusing. You want the lightest stuff, going to ridiculous lengths to do it. You say it's a show bike now, meaning you have zero intent to ride it and even have it be rideable...at all. Then you post how the part needs to be functional. Functional for what? A show bike or a riding bike? This is not a functional bike. You may claim that it is but it absolutely is not. Refer to your multiple comments on how the brake lines are drained. This thing is wall art. Why not just start hanging even more absurd, paper weight parts? No need for "functional". That should save you a headache.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

It is confusing, those pedals mentioned by Ole would be far from the weakest link on that bike. It's hard to choose but I think my #1 concern (aside from cork brake pads) would be that carbon rear cog. It's hard for me to imagine it surviving even one hard effort, let alone a complete ride. Maybe I'm completely off base.

I'm not hating, just thinking out loud. Carry on.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> It is confusing, those pedals mentioned by Ole would be far from the weakest link on that bike. It's hard to choose but I think my #1 concern (aside from cork brake pads) would be that carbon rear cog. It's hard for me to imagine it surviving even one hard effort, let alone a complete ride. Maybe I'm completely off base.
> 
> I'm not hating, just thinking out loud. Carry on.


Fair point but I still prefer bearings over bushings . Also the wider platform and I'm also going for quality too . Again you can't beat Reset Racing .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Fitted and I think looks cool .


----------



## JD_OC (Mar 29, 2005)

I really don't understand those pedals. The grip on those would be really bad compared to a proper pinned pedal. There seems to be so many better options for a similar weight like these:

HT Components ME03T Magnesium Pedals > Components > Pedals > Platform Pedals | Jenson USA

These magnesium pedals would hold up much better than those CF plates. I know you like bearings and all, but that seems very secondary to having a stable secure platform. Just an idea...


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

JD_OC said:


> I really don't understand those pedals. The grip on those would be really bad compared to a proper pinned pedal. There seems to be so many better options for a similar weight like these:
> 
> HT Components ME03T Magnesium Pedals > Components > Pedals > Platform Pedals | Jenson USA
> 
> These magnesium pedals would hold up much better than those CF plates. I know you like bearings and all, but that seems very secondary to having a stable secure platform. Just an idea...


True but they are unique . Bearings will perform better over bushings even if you have one bearing you still have the bushing . I also don't like the look of the exposed nut and washer on those HT pedals . Looks like an afterthought to me .

FYI I didn't actually make the plates (even though they would be easy to make) . I bought the pedals with steel axles and steel plates and they weighed nearly 400grams . Reset were making aftermarket bodies in different colours, carbon fibre plates and ti axles . Unfortunately they were ceasing production of these to make way for their newer model so I couldn't get the blue bodies which i really wanted so ordered the carbon plates and ti axles .

They grip very well . I had these on the trail bike for nearly a year . They still spin great and cleaned up nicely (before modifying ) .


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

Building the lightest possible MTB is an admirable goal, but once you can't actually ride it in XC conditions and it becomes a "show bike", then 4.8kg its absurdly heavy. eg. take a look at this 2.7kg road bike that supposedly has been ridden for 20,000km in 2 years: The world's lightest bike - BikeRadar Australia

Put a flat bar on that bike and some CX tyres and call that a 3kg MTB.

Don't get me wrong. I like a lot of the things you are trying but stuff like the cut down suspension fork is just a total waste of time. Heavy and dangerous. I like that your working with what you've got, but some times you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear no matter how much you shave it down.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

TigWorld said:


> Building the lightest possible MTB is an admirable goal, but once you can't actually ride it in XC conditions and it becomes a "show bike", then 4.8kg its absurdly heavy. eg. take a look at this 2.7kg road bike that supposedly has been ridden for 20,000km in 2 years: The world's lightest bike - BikeRadar Australia
> 
> Put a flat bar on that bike and some CX tyres and call that a 3kg MTB.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I like a lot of the things you are trying but stuff like the cut down suspension fork is just a total waste of time. Heavy and dangerous. I like that your working with what you've got, but some times you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear no matter how much you shave it down.


First of all the 2.7kg road bike wasn't tested or ridden . It was 3.2kg when it was ridden the 20,000 km . It was then sold off in parts to Fairwheels who then built the 2.7kg road bike and made it a show bike (still hanging in their shop to my knowledge) .

Secondly this bike can be ridden off road but not to the extremes of XC racing but more than CX . So somewhere in between .

It is still an MTB based on this fact but also the fact it has a MTB frame , MTB fork, MTB cranks, MTB wheelset etc .

Also if you put a flat bar and CX tyres on the road bike it would be a hybrid not a MTB .


----------



## solo-x (Feb 16, 2010)

You talk in circles when you defend the bike you've built.

I actually have the lightest MTB in the world. It exists only in my head, so one can't really weigh it. Or ride it. It's a show bike, but you can't really see it either. But I can describe it a LOT!


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

solo-x said:


> You talk in circles when you defend the bike you've built.
> 
> I actually have the lightest MTB in the world. It exists only in my head, so one can't really weigh it. Or ride it. It's a show bike, but you can't really see it either. But I can describe it a LOT!


Not particularly useful comments. Pro or Con, at least most replies here have been thought out.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

phlegm said:


> Not particularly useful comments. Pro or Con, at least most replies here have been thought out.


Cheers man . I guess I have to get used to things like this but it's all good . I have learned to deal with the hate .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

solo-x said:


> You talk in circles when you defend the bike you've built.
> 
> I actually have the lightest MTB in the world. It exists only in my head, so one can't really weigh it. Or ride it. It's a show bike, but you can't really see it either. But I can describe it a LOT!


I talk in circles because people keep asking the same bloody question over and over again . It actually gets boring having to explain the same stuff . Oh and the bike has been weighed, has been tested and has been shown so don't really get what you are saying . For every bike article that just shows a bike but has a detailed description shall I email the editor and ask if the bike has been tested ?!!! Would get pretty boring . Either accept it or comment somewhere else .


----------



## Joshua_B (Oct 1, 2011)

I think it is awesome, I wouldn't hesitate to race it, I would like a wider bar and some alloy brake rotors, but other than that, I think it is badass, I have used many components by the manufacturers used in this build on my bikes and the are sound. I have been running an 86gram tune saddle for 3 years now, along with a carbon ti post and MCFK bars. I'm not sure about the carbon cogs, but I'd like to give it go.


----------



## Joshua_B (Oct 1, 2011)

Pretty bad when you can't show off a weight weenie bike in a weight weenie forum.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Joshua_B said:


> I think it is awesome, I wouldn't hesitate to race it, I would like a wider bar and some alloy brake rotors, but other than that, I think it is badass, I have used many components by the manufacturers used in this build on my bikes and the are sound. I have been running an 86gram tune saddle for 3 years now, along with a carbon ti post and MCFK bars. I'm not sure about the carbon cogs, but I'd like to give it go.


Thnk you . I wanted to keep the bar long but it is some free weight savings . I have put the Scrub rotors back on .

Regarding the carbon chainring/sprocket I got the idea from FibreLyte who have been making them for years for MTBers and roadies and there are forums out there with guys who have fitted them to their mountain bikes . According to Stephen (from FibreLyte) as long as you keep them clean after each ride they should be fine . I have one by them that I machined down to save weight but it is a 43T . That is why I then decided to make my own out of prepreg which is stronger too . The sprocket was my idea (and was also harder to make with the splines) .


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Joshua_B said:


> I think it is awesome, I wouldn't hesitate to race it, I would like a wider bar and some alloy brake rotors, but other than that, I think it is badass, I have used many components by the manufacturers used in this build on my bikes and the are sound. I have been running an 86gram tune saddle for 3 years now, along with a carbon ti post and MCFK bars. I'm not sure about the carbon cogs, but I'd like to give it go.


I'd like to see ANYONE race this bike on a modern XC course. I'd also hope that they had excellent health insurance. Please send me a Trailforks or MTBProject link of the trails you'd race it on. Seriously.

Let me be clear: I think Seb's devotion to this project is awesome. I'm about to PM him regarding carbon fiber part making (I want to make a bike trailer). I think some of his stuff is cool, some of it is taking it way too far.


----------



## solo-x (Feb 16, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> I'd like to see ANYONE race this bike on a modern XC course. I'd also hope that they had excellent health insurance. Please send me a Trailforks or MTBProject link of the trails you'd race it on. Seriously.
> 
> Let me be clear: I think Seb's devotion to this project is awesome. I'm about to PM him regarding carbon fiber part making (I want to make a bike trailer). I think some of his stuff is cool, some of it is taking it way too far.


This.

At what point does the functionality of a part degrade to the point you can no longer say it is a functional part? If I claim I have the lightest wheel set in the world, but I accomplished that by removing the heavy axles and freehubs and replaced them with very carefully machined PVC tubing, the wheel would work. Might even survive a short test ride, but does it qualify as a wheel anymore? Or what if I claim I have the lightest geared hardtail in the world, but I've simply installed a couple SS cogs and my "derailuer" is moving the chain over by hand? If your ww MTB is so delicate it can't be ridden on trails, then what you have is an overweight road bike with flat bars. (And even road bikes are durable enough these days to survive light trail use.) At which point it is just as effective to have the "MTB" be a figment of your imagination.

I too think the carbon chain ring and cog are pretty neat ideas, and I'm curious how well they'll hold up. Even said as much in the thread over on the SS board where I first saw them. I think the modified fork is a express trip to the dentist (and for not a lot of weight savings), and the carbon crank axle is one mild drop away from ending all hope of having kids. Except that the saddle already did that. The pedals won't last either, so maybe the carbon crank axle survives simply because the hollowed out Ti spindle that had a max rider weight of 150lbs when it was unmodified let go first. We won't discuss the brakes (can you claim a weight 30 grams lighter if that means you removed the brake fluid? If so, can I claim an even lighter weight by simply removing the brakes altogether?) that use materials not suited for dealing with heat to convert kinetic energy into, you guessed it, heat. So yeah, some of these ideas are as useful as my weightless bike.

I could start a diet program that starts by simply cutting off your arms and legs and removing redundant organs. You only need one kidney, you can get away with one lung, divide your liver in half, cut out 33% of your intestines. Look ma! I only weigh 42lbs!!! There is pushing sensible boundaries, and then there is ignoring the fact that boundaries even exist.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Well you are entitled to your opinion . Answered all this stuff before .


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

solo-x said:


> This.
> 
> At what point does the functionality of a part degrade to the point you can no longer say it is a functional part? If I claim I have the lightest wheel set in the world, but I accomplished that by removing the heavy axles and freehubs and replaced them with very carefully machined PVC tubing, the wheel would work. Might even survive a short test ride, but does it qualify as a wheel anymore? Or what if I claim I have the lightest geared hardtail in the world, but I've simply installed a couple SS cogs and my "derailuer" is moving the chain over by hand? If your ww MTB is so delicate it can't be ridden on trails, then what you have is an overweight road bike with flat bars. (And even road bikes are durable enough these days to survive light trail use.) At which point it is just as effective to have the "MTB" be a figment of your imagination.
> 
> ...


Every bit of this is the harsh truth. Cannot be disputed.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

I have explained so many times the strength of the crank axle . You tell me how my wheel will fail . 

From now on I want a detailed explanation on a certain part of my bike as to why you think it will fail . If you cannot come up with an explanation then you are just picking at straws and just saying this will fail because of xyz . 

You negative guys have absolutely no idea what a weight weenie is and it's sad because this is a weight weenie section . If you want oversized heavy bikes then that is up to you .

This bike is more capable than a road bike and has a much stronger frame, fork, wheels etc . Seriously if you cannot fathom that then question yourself . 

Also how will the wheel fail . Is it made of plastic tubing ?!!! Last time I checked no . How will the crank axle fail ?!!! Is it again made of plastic tubing ?!!! Has it failed yet ?!!! 

Oh and Silentfoe you can go to hell . You made your presence before and you clearly have no idea about anything. Stick to what you do best which is zero knowledge of bikes .


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Cute. The onus isn't on us to prove your parts will fail. It's on you to shut us up with proof that it works. We'll all eat crow the moment you make a video of this bike cruising up or down any trail that isn't buffed out and sanitized. You can't do that because this "bike" cannot be ridden. It doesn't have brakes, the rear sprocket is a joke, the fork will fold the crank spindle will snap and that's all after the pedals fold when you go over a curb. 

We know what a weight weenie is. Your definition is ridiculous and applies only to you. Most of us are happy to be on here, finding lighter parts that work which will help bring our bikes down to a great weight. I have an XL FS 29er that I can get down under 23lbs on race day. What's cool about that is it's totally reliable. That's pretty much as far as I'm willing to go about with that bike. 

I said it the first time, others have said it, and I'll repeat it. Your passion is cool. The drive to do a project is admirable. You have taken this too far in most opinions. It's not rideable. It cannot function. You may as well draw a picture of a bike on a piece of paper and call it the lightest mtb ever. It'll serve the same purpose. Imo the moment you drained the hydraulic fluid from the brakes, you lost all credibility. This response was more than you deserved.


----------



## TigWorld (Feb 8, 2010)

karimian5 said:


> ...Oh and Silentfoe you can go to hell...


Chill out mate. Everyone's been pretty kind to you in this and your other weight weenie threads and you've received a fair amount of what I would call "constructive criticism". If all you want is gushing applause for everything you've done then you're in the wrong place.

The best thing about the weight weenie forum is not how light something is, but how light can we go while still being functional and reliable. We've all used parts that are too light and have resulted in premature failure. Discussing those parts and swapping war stories on how/when they failed is what this forum is all about.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> Cute. The onus isn't on us to prove your parts will fail. It's on you to shut us up with proof that it works. We'll all eat crow the moment you make a video of this bike cruising up or down any trail that isn't buffed out and sanitized. You can't do that because this "bike" cannot be ridden. It doesn't have brakes, the rear sprocket is a joke, the fork will fold the crank spindle will snap and that's all after the pedals fold when you go over a curb.
> 
> We know what a weight weenie is. Your definition is ridiculous and applies only to you. Most of us are happy to be on here, finding lighter parts that work which will help bring our bikes down to a great weight. I have an XL FS 29er that I can get down under 23lbs on race day. What's cool about that is it's totally reliable. That's pretty much as far as I'm willing to go about with that bike.
> 
> I said it the first time, others have said it, and I'll repeat it. Your passion is cool. The drive to do a project is admirable. You have taken this too far in most opinions. It's not rideable. It cannot function. You may as well draw a picture of a bike on a piece of paper and call it the lightest mtb ever. It'll serve the same purpose. Imo the moment you drained the hydraulic fluid from the brakes, you lost all credibility. This response was more than you deserved.


Right there is where your silliness shows . I said I drained the brakes because I decided to keep it as a show bike . I added the 30 grams to the overall weight . The fact that you have completely skimmed over that part really shows your lack of 'smarts' .

My negativity only applies to the few like you . I get more positive than negative not just on this site but other sites . The fact that websites and companies are willing to post my bike shows that too . Believe me if I had more negativity I wouldn't bother .

I actually like this community and have nothing against most members...except members like you .

Everything you are saying are your opinions and nothing more .Really doesn't hold anything tbh .

Again you are spouting utter nonsense and yet think you are right . Really sad tbh .

The fact that you show yourself as a rude unintelligent mean person who thought it would be nice to make the first post of my bike a very insulting one shows that you really are still a kid in a man's body . You have no respect and I think that reflects in your failed approach .

Now go ride your 23lbs iron steel bike kid .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

TigWorld said:


> Chill out mate. Everyone's been pretty kind to you in this and your other weight weenie threads and you've received a fair amount of what I would call "constructive criticism". If all you want is gushing applause for everything you've done then you're in the wrong place.
> 
> The best thing about the weight weenie forum is not how light something is, but how light can we go while still being functional and reliable. We've all used parts that are too light and have resulted in premature failure. Discussing those parts and swapping war stories on how/when they failed is what this forum is all about.


Couldn't agree more but read the first post this guy made and then say if he is a nice guy . He called my bike a POS . If someone said that about your bike would you respect them ?!!! I have much respect for the community otherwise I wouldn't bother posting here . Seriously . I like this website as a whole . The fact this guy and a very small number like him like to post utter filth towards me rather than making reasonable points like the rest of you shows he is a minority that I wont show any respect towards .


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Had to waste brake fluid to get this right but I made an error on the brake fluid (mainly because it was more of a guestimate but I wasn't far off) . The brake fluid actually comes to 22grams NOT 30grams . 

After some thoughts and what I have read here (and considering I still haven't got round to testing the carbon plates yet) I put the BFO alloy ones back on . 

I also took on board what someone PM'd me over at G+ about the sprocket being more durable on a road bike and so put the alloy one back on . Still keeping the carbon oval ring I also made . 

After weighing the bike (with tyre covers on) and doing all calculations the bike comes to 5082grams now including brake fluid . 

So the same weight as when Bikerumor did their article on it except now with large heavier flat pedals . 

I think this is a good weight and the bike has more durable parts on now . 

When I have time next year I will do some testing on the carbon plates and sprocket .


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Why do you have tire covers?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> Why do you have tire covers?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


To protect the tyres . The bike has had all its tests so now that I am storing the bike any time I need to move it these will protect the tyres when transporting . I think they are cool . Didn't even know they existed . Continental make some but you have to take the wheel off where as these have velcro attachments .

I paid over £230,00 for these tyres so want to keep them in pristine condition and after an Email to Maxxis they told me to keep them warm and away from UV rays .

I also have some tyre spray to further enhance its protection .


----------



## Streetdoctor (Oct 14, 2011)

That's not a bike... tire protectors?!


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Streetdoctor said:


> That's not a bike... tire protectors?!


I deducted your rep like you just did to me and calling me an ass . How's hell ?!!!


----------



## Streetdoctor (Oct 14, 2011)

karimian5 said:


> I deducted your rep like you just did to me and calling me an ass . How's hell ?!!!


It's almost 2017 man, I neg repped you because you're a homophobe and talking **** like that has nothing to do with mountain biking. Not to mention I agree with everyone about your bike being useless and you being salty that everyone isn't patting you on the back for the destruction you call weight savings.


----------



## Seb K (Apr 21, 2009)

Streetdoctor said:


> It's almost 2017 man, I neg repped you because you're a homophobe and talking **** like that has nothing to do with mountain biking. Not to mention I agree with everyone about your bike being useless and you being salty that everyone isn't patting you on the back for the destruction you call weight savings.


Excuse me ?!!! I've just reported you . Keep taking you meds .


----------



## Streetdoctor (Oct 14, 2011)

karimian5 said:


> Excuse me ?!!! I've just reported you . Keep taking you meds .


Refer to post #104. You have issues man... you negative reppin' me has actually gotten me more positive rep by everyone else in this thread. I appreciate that. Now, I'm not a weight weenie and this thread has been beaten to death so i'm done here.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

How about we all take a break from this thread, and enjoy the holidays.

I honestly wish everyone a great break, and hopefully people can spend time with family and friends. 

I thank everyone for their contribution to this forum over the years, and wish you a great 2017!

Cheers!


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

karimian5 said:


> Excuse me ?!!! I've just reported you . Keep taking you meds .


You just edited it.

Your original post called SilentFoe a transvestite, and said he liked to have relations with old men. And some other choice comments.

Which is why you were called a homophobe. Deal with it. You wrote what you wrote and he called you out on it.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Crossmaxx (Dec 2, 2008)

karimian5 said:


> I have explained so many times the strength of the crank axle . You tell me how my wheel will fail .
> 
> From now on I want a detailed explanation on a certain part of my bike as to why you think it will fail . If you cannot come up with an explanation then you are just picking at straws and just saying this will fail because of xyz .
> 
> ...


Karimian, this is an honest question, not meant to be judging: If you have so much confidence in the strength of your bike, why don't you silence all of your doubters (including me) by taking the bike for a ride on a trail that you consider that this bike capable of (and that's more demanding than a road bike can handle) and film this with a GoPro or whatever? If you're truly confident of the bike's capabilities, this seems like a no-brainer to shut everyone up and impress people even more. Since no one has seen you ride anything you've made, you must understand that people have their doubts?

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> You just edited it.
> 
> Your original post called SilentFoe a transvestite, and said he liked to have relations with old men. And some other choice comments.
> 
> ...


Exactly.

"Last edited by karimian5; 5 Hours Ago at 11:31 AM."

He didn't need any neg rep until he did that. He earned that one. It's funny because he immediately turns and negs me back. I just smiled and nodded. He's a peach.


----------



## Steve-XtC (Feb 7, 2016)

Crossmaxx said:


> Karimian, this is an honest question, not meant to be judging: If you have so much confidence in the strength of your bike, why don't you silence all of your doubters (including me) by taking the bike for a ride on a trail that you consider that this bike capable of (and that's more demanding than a road bike can handle) and film this with a GoPro or whatever? If you're truly confident of the bike's capabilities, this seems like a no-brainer to shut everyone up and impress people even more. Since no one has seen you ride anything you've made, you must understand that people have their doubts?
> 
> Merry Christmas!


What exactly is more demanding than a road bike can handle ?
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=road bike party

.. and then once scratched Karimian no longer has the bike for the purpose he built it...

Noone would expect the bike in Martyn's video to actually do what it does... but it did..


----------

