It seems that it’s totally possible to get a fast bike like:
Canyon Aero CFR
Factor Ostro VAM 2.0
At around 6.5kg
Which is on part with climbing bikes like Canyon Ultimate or Tarmac SL8. With an aero bike you get more speed and a more aggressive geometry.
Colombian climber E.Rubio MOV, used an Aeroroad for The Giro.
What’s the rub?
Not sure there is a rub. Specialized clearly believe the Tarmac is aero enough that they don’t need to put out an aero bike any more. Same with Cannondale and the Supersix being aero enough to not make a new Systemsix. Canyon and Giant came at it from the other direction and made the Aeroad and Propel light enough to hit the 6.8kg limit pretty easily. Guess the question is really why they still bother selling the Ultimate (which has the same stack and reach numbers as the Aeroad these days so it’s not even really a geometry thing) and the TCR. Maybe the answer is simply that there is still a market for a more traditional looking bike because not everybody likes the look of aero bikes or cares about a few watts at 40kph. Or for climbers who care more about weight but don’t have unlimited budget I would guess that at every price point the non aero bikes are a bit lighter?
Giant’s argument is sales. As far as I know, the TCR represents about 30/35% of Giant’s sales the way it is. If ain’t broken don’t fix it.
I just disagree that hitting 6.8/7kg is pretty easy on those bikes. It isn’t. They rely on top-end components. The entry-level Aeroad is 8.17kg without pedals, Garmin, and water bottles. It’ll be 8.5kg ready to roll.
The most expensive Aeroad is 7.15kg. Again, no pedal, no head unit mount or bottle cages. It’ll be 7.5kg ready to roll.
The most expensive Tarmac SL8 is 6.6kg. 7kg ready to roll. I can see Specialized argument. It’s lighter than a proper aerobike, and it’s as aero as they are (at least they claim it).
Well, you are ignoring the UCI weight minimum requirements. Pro bikes can’t be less than 6.8kg…so if you can get a sponsors aero bike to, or close to, the UCI weight minimum, there is zero downside.
If Rubio had used the Ultimate, he likely would have had to either use deeper wheels or add weight to the bike to make sure they hit the minimum.
For those of us that will never race a UCI race, it may be more appealing to build up a weight weenie bike that doesn’t have to hit the UCI minimum. (I would still err to aero, personally).
I might have to:
Factor is misleading weight wise. Especially if you go with a white paint job.
Why should there be one?
It depends on your definition of easy, I reckon: in this context, I would distinguish between builds with mainstream off-the-shelf components and weight weenie builds where you need to heavily modify standard components or need to buy components from niche manufacturers.
The Aeroad that you linked to only has standard components, and you could go lighter if you wanted to.
The second thing is the optimization point: we know you will be faster in most circumstances with heavier, deeper aero wheels than shallower, lighter wheels. For example, replacing the 454 NSW wheels (1,400 g) with wheels in the 1,100–1,200 g range (such as Lightweight Meilenstein Obermayer EVO) gets you below 7 kg and closer to the UCI weight limit. There are a few 1,000ish g wheelsets, too, but AFAIK then you are making compromises with hub life/maintenance. You could also ditch the power meter to shave off a few grams as well. I haven’t checked the weights, but you could see if you can save a few grams by going with a Rotor carbon crank.
You could argue that this is harder than with an Aethos — yes, but that’s because aero frames have a larger budget of materials as you there is no advantage going below the UCI weight limit. It is by design. Instead, you use the extra grams for aero features, support for wider tires and other comfort features. Pros and manufacturers know that aero >> weight.
If memory serves, a few years ago (2018–2020ish, I believe), Canyon sold a 10k € disc brake road bike that weighed 6.0 kg without pedals. So bike manufacturers know how to make bikes lighter if that’s their optimization point. Now a 10k € bike seems “cheap”.
That’s precisely the concept of “not easy”. You’re getting a 12k cad bike and putting another 10k cad to make it lighter.
Being technically possible/achievable doesn’t mean that it is easy. 99.9% people I rode in my life have used 105 and ultegra. I never even seen someone riding dura-ace. Lightweight, have no idea how the are, never saw in my life.
So, buying the massively advertised aero gains, for me, is just feeding the monster. I’m not selling the conspiracy theorie that started with disc brakes. But let’s be honest that the last 5 years of evolution on bikes are devoted to emphasize 10 seconds gained over a 1hr TT. And, in order to have this gains you have to use 10k bikes, because the same model entry level comes with normal “not aero” handlebar.
If you do a 1 hr TT, you’d be better served with a TT bike.
Aero gains are mostly ineffective while riding in a bunch. Riding alone, are 10 seconds faster really relevant?
I own this bike, 52cm frame, Dura Ace, and PCW 5550s. My goal was to have a 7kg bike with “everyday” wheels and wider tires. I have not weighed it, as I don’t own a little hangy scale.
It is faster in all ways than my similarly-spec’d 2023 Cervelo S5.
As others mentioned above, for the teams it’s an easy choice. If they can get the aero bike down to the UCI weight limit, then it’s a no trainer. One should remember that they have relatively easy access to the lightest high end components.
A good example of this are the two highest profile teams using Scott bikes, DSM and Q36.5. they’re both exclusively on the Foil, zero interest on the Addict.
Also, after climbs there’s often a downhill, which tend to be fought more and more aggressively these days. Aero bikes generally have a higher terminal speed, so they are an advantage there as well
Could also be that the ultimate is lighter with cheaper parts
I don’t think you have to spend that much. We are replacing perfectly good wheels, for example. If Canyon and Zipp believed weight > aero, then Canyon would spec lighter, shallower wheels. They could take whatever the 454 NSW cost and spec a different wheel set.
The aero > weight mindset is used throughout the build and not just when it comes to the frame.
They used to be bigger, but they are expensive. They seem to be like SRM these days, living off of their reputation, but are no longer cutting edge.
I am not so pessimistic, especially since the you have lots of improvements that went hand-in-hand. Larger tires are one example.
Just have a look at the newest breed of bikes: comfort is taken more seriously. The new 3T Strada has a higher stack compared to my first-gen Strada. The avenge has been discontinued as has the BMC Timemachine.
As are “gains” from lighter wheels, etc. Who needs a 6 kg road bike? 
Just looked it up as it happens and there’s more difference in frame weight than I’d realised - Ultimate CFR is claimed 641g, Aeroad CFR is 960g. Which aligns with what seem to be ~300g differences between the Ultimate and Aeroad models at each price point. Looks like with the most recent models the Aeroad got a little heavier (previous model was 915g) so the gap is growing again. Guess maybe Aeroad taking advantage of tweaked UCI rules to have deeper tube sections has added a few grams.
Think it’s still possible to get the Aeroad down to pretty close to the 6.8kg limit with light component choices (the lightest stock model is 7.14kg but that’s with DT Swiss wheels which aren’t particularly light).
Soloist weighs what that aeroad weighs
If you have a regular scale just step on it with and without the bike…
If you are after performance and aren’t planing to compete in hillclimbs you will probably always be better if with something like the Aeroad etc. Often the climbing bikes feel more lively out of the saddle and are a bit more comfortable, but going by pure performance the light aero bikes win most of the time expect for very specific circumstances.
Explain? I googled and ended up on a forum thread that was way too long and conspiratorial for me.
Their advertised weight is not accurate to anything but a raw carbon paint scheme. If you weigh a frame after purchasing most are heavier than what factor advertises. If you know a shop that carries them check, good luck finding one at what they claim they weigh.
I have a contact that can get me a deal, so it’s high on my list if potential next bikes. He has caused there to be quite a few around town, so I will follow up. Then again, I like raw carbon so nbd.
Put water in and you’ll be closer to 11 kg
