# Did the Ghisallo become heavier ?



## Pierre (Jan 29, 2004)

Have 2 Ghisallo at home: a 2002 M/L and a 2004 M. I was surprised when I put them on the scale, the 2002 larger model weighs 815g (picture below), the 2004 smaller weighs 906g. 
The 2002 is an older version with a round top tube, while the 2004 has a triangular top tube. Did they add more material between 02 and 04 ? I think I've read that in the 2006 version they shaved 100g off and spec it at 800g.

By the way, I trust this digital scale.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*I believe so*



Pierre said:


> Have 2 Ghisallo at home: a 2002 M/L and a 2004 M. I was surprised when I put them on the scale, the 2002 larger model weighs 815g (picture below), the 2004 smaller weighs 906g.
> The 2002 is an older version with a round top tube, while the 2004 has a triangular top tube. Did they add more material between 02 and 04 ? I think I've read that in the 2006 version they shaved 100g off and spec it at 800g.


My 2002 M/L Ghisallo weighs 845 grams. The first production year Ghisallos were reputed to be noodles, and my Ghisallo certainly bears out that claim, as it is the flexiest frame I've every ridden. In the following years the Ghisallo was modified to increase its stiffness - which undoubtedly also increased its weight somewhat.


----------



## Ligero (Oct 21, 2005)

I worked for Litespeed and they did add some weight to the Ghisallo compared to the first year versions. A good percentage of the first year frames broke, the most common break was when reaching down to pull out a water bottle out the cage the cage would ripe a piece the down tube out and you would be left holding the bottle with the cage still attached. 

Another little known fact about the Ghisallos is that the Lotto team were not on real Ghisallo frames in the tour. They were on frames built with the Ghisallo goemetry but were plain straight gauge 3/2.5 tubing that weighed about 60% more then a real Ghisallo.


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

Ligero said:


> I worked for Litespeed and they did add some weight to the Ghisallo compared to the first year versions. A good percentage of the first year frames broke, the most common break was when reaching down to pull out a water bottle out the cage the cage would ripe a piece the down tube out and you would be left holding the bottle with the cage still attached.
> 
> Another little known fact about the Ghisallos is that the Lotto team were not on real Ghisallo frames in the tour. They were on frames built with the Ghisallo goemetry but were plain straight gauge 3/2.5 tubing that weighed about 60% more then a real Ghisallo.


I was trying to remember what Pro team used to ride Litespeed's just today. Some info only an insider could give us (frame gauge)...Thanks!

P.S.- Off the subject, but do you know why they decided to drop the carbon monostay off the Ultimate for 2006?


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Since you mention Ghisallo and tubing*



Ligero said:


> Another little known fact about the Ghisallos is that the Lotto team were not on real Ghisallo frames in the tour. They were on frames built with the Ghisallo goemetry but were plain straight gauge 3/2.5 tubing that weighed about 60% more then a real Ghisallo.


Since you brought it up - can you tell us what alloy was used for the Ghisallo tubing? The Litespeed literature just said "proprietary alloy", whereas the other frames specifically said to be 3/2.5 or 6/4. Could it be that the Ghisallo also used 3/2.5, but this was not mentioned because it would lead to too many questions about why Litespeed's most expensive frame didn't use 6/4?


----------



## Ligero (Oct 21, 2005)

Mark McM said:


> Since you brought it up - can you tell us what alloy was used for the Ghisallo tubing? The Litespeed literature just said "proprietary alloy", whereas the other frames specifically said to be 3/2.5 or 6/4. Could it be that the Ghisallo also used 3/2.5, but this was not mentioned because it would lead to too many questions about why Litespeed's most expensive frame didn't use 6/4?


You are exactly right! The Ghisallo is 3/2.5 tubing that is sanded to a wall thickness of about .5mm, I do not remember the exact thickness but that is pretty close. So they say it is "properietary" so that questions are not asked about how can 3/2.5 be strong enough to do that when 6/4 was suppose to be the best for low weight and high strength. They did make some 6/5 prototypes but they did not do very well because when the sand the wall thickness down it compromised the seam weld on the 6/4 tube.

The Ultimate has ti seatstays again because 1. it is lighter then the carbon stays, 2. the ti stays produce a better ride, 3. it is stronger to weid in ti stays then bond in carbon ones and most of all it is cheaper and easier to make.


----------



## euro-trash (May 1, 2004)

Ligero said:


> Another little known fact about the Ghisallos is that the Lotto team were not on real Ghisallo frames in the tour. They were on frames built with the Ghisallo goemetry but were plain straight gauge 3/2.5 tubing that weighed about 60% more then a real Ghisallo.


It wasn't even butted tubing? Was that to add stiffness? Strength? Or is weight savings so minimal it wasn't worth using butted tubing?


----------



## Ligero (Oct 21, 2005)

euro-trash said:


> It wasn't even butted tubing? Was that to add stiffness? Strength? Or is weight savings so minimal it wasn't worth using butted tubing?


It was to add stiffness. Can you imagine Robbie McEwen would do to a Ghisallo?


----------

