# FSA off on weights. Anybody share thoughts?



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

So I have been poking around online looking for some spring shopping ideas. I already have some FSA parts (wing bars, stem, post) and have checked the weights vs. claimed... also looked at weightweenes listings. Is it just me or is anybody wondering why this continues? How is this not false advertising and why havent the been sued.... or have they? Just to save some responses I fully understand that actual weights will be off +/- to an extent but they shouldnt be like this. This is flat out lying and false advertising.... I feel like they should let me send them in and get my money back.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

Lay off of the burgers for a few days and you'll make up for it in body weight loss.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

Andrea138, thats the consumer mindset that is ruining our country. This has nothing to do with wanting lighter parts and everything to do with a company lying to consumers to take their money. I dont care if they weigh 40gr more than other bars.... I care that I paid money for what they were supposed to weigh.


----------



## akatsuki (Aug 12, 2005)

B15serv said:


> Andrea138, thats the consumer mindset that is ruining our country. This has nothing to do with wanting lighter parts and everything to do with a company lying to consumers to take their money. I dont care if they weigh 40gr more than other bars.... I care that I paid money for what they were supposed to weigh.


I agree... consumer fraud is rampant especially in the bicycle world and FSA should take them back. Although I would not be surprised if they had a set of bars that weighed that much somewhere in their production process and picked that one out to use for their advertising.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

Thats what im wondering... what is the law on this? I know that there are guidelines for claiming country of origin for a product and wonder if there is anything regarding specs that may vary. Example- does a certain number of stems from FSA have to weigh +/- a certain amount from the claimed weight?


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

Your post would sound a lot less like ramblings of a conspiracy theorist if you offered some actual data -- "FSA claims the part weighs XX grams, the one they sold me weighs YY grams".....

Do you have anything more than anecdotal evidence that this is widespread or a common tactic by one or more parts retailers? If you do indeed have that evidence, it appears that you might have some sort of legal recourse, should you choose to pursue the matter.

If you want to be taken seriously, more *FACTS* (that can be verified) and less ".._ruining our country_.." language might help you get closer to your objective.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

Weightweenies.starbike.com They do individual weights of products with a digital scale and post all claimed manu. weights as well as the +/- %. Sorry to neglect the stats but I just assumed that most on this forum knew about the site. You made a fair point though. Personal example is that my seatpost weighs 241gr on a standard scale but is claimed at 200gr by FSA. Im not making the point of 41g being so bad but Im not happy with a 20% diff from what I paid for. And to clarity this thread isnt for my own personal complaint but just for general discussion to see what others think about this part of the industry that we invest so much money into.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*Really? Really?*



B15serv said:


> I already have some FSA parts (wing bars, stem, post) and have checked the weights vs. claimed...I feel like they should let me send them in and get my money back.


FSA's claimed weights have always been "conservative."

Ten seconds of research could tell you that.

It's like weighing a frame before it's got water bottle bosses, or before paint, or whatever.

That said, it is a little annoying to compare FSA to, say, Campagnolo. You need different discount factors for each if you're trying to be a weight weenie.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

First off my handlebars dont have watter bottle bosses or anything. :blush2: More importants its amazing how little people pay attention to the origional post. I am not a weightweenie nor do I aspire to be one. The point of this thread is to share peoples thoughts on a manufacturers claims for things like weight. NOT to discuss my personal tastes of the role of weight in a bicycle.


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

B15serv said:


> Sorry to neglect the stats but I just assumed that most on this forum knew about the site. You made a fair point though. Personal example is ........


I suppose this just illustrates that we all have different criteria that are important to us in our purchasing decisions. I have to acknowledge that I am FAR from a 'typical cyclist' (if there is such a thing?) because of my size. _*My username is a tipoff*_. I don't care one bit (within reason, of course)how much a component weighs. My only concern is "can I break it?" So I've never paid much attention to advertised vs. actual weights. Maybe I'm in the minority in that regard.

It might be interesting to investigate industry standards (ie: your inquiry about allowable deviations in weight) and legalities involved in the matter.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

Justtoobig, you raise a great point..... what about the people like you that simply need strong parts? Well there are some companies/parts that have claimed strengths and stiffness. What if it were easier for consumers to test figures like that and found that the numbers are off? It makes you wonder how bold some companies are in that grey line that seperates marketing hype from lying.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

B15serv said:


> First off my handlebars dont have watter bottle bosses or anything. :blush2: More importants its amazing how little people pay attention to the origional post. I am not a weightweenie nor do I aspire to be one. The point of this thread is to share peoples thoughts on a manufacturers claims for things like weight. NOT to discuss my personal tastes of the role of weight in a bicycle.


That's "more importants," then? I read the OP.

Manufacturers claimed or "factory" specs on things in many industries are quite conservative -- take dry weights on motorcycles, for example.

FSA estimates low, but it's not as though the actual weight is three times what they claim or anything. It seems to be about a 10-20% reduction. That's not terrible.


----------



## android (Nov 20, 2007)

B15serv said:


> First off my handlebars dont have watter bottle bosses or anything. :blush2: More importants its amazing how little people pay attention to the origional post. I am not a weightweenie nor do I aspire to be one. The point of this thread is to share peoples thoughts on a manufacturers claims for things like weight. NOT to discuss my personal tastes of the role of weight in a bicycle.


There's a lot of reasons there could be a discrepancy that are not due to dishonesty. 

First, handlebars, cranks, stems and other parts usually come in a variety of sizes. They can't all weigh the same. I've seen very few mfgs post weight for each size. If there is only a single weight given, you can bet it's the smallest.

Secondly, there's just plain old manufacturing variation. Draw up a part and take it to a machinist. If you put in a size as 0.020 instead of 0.02 it's going to cost you about 10 times as much because the +/- tolerance on the first number is much smaller. Manufacturers aren't going to build parts to +/- 1 gram when that would substantially increase the mfg cost.

Also, a lot of tubular parts are extruded using dies. Dies wear and the parts become heavier. I don't think parts should be more than about 10% over the advertised weight, but meeting an advertised weight goal is not the aim of most manufacturing lines.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

If you purchase food that claims to have 0g trans fat but then later see that the ingredients list a "trivial" amount, do you return it to the store or file a lawsuit?


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

Andrea138 said:


> If you purchase food that claims to have 0g trans fat but then later see that the ingredients list a "trivial" amount, do you return it to the store or file a lawsuit?


You know what's funny is that they are expressly, legally allowed TO do that. As long as you don't have AT LEAST 0.5 GRAM of trans fat, you can call it "zero."

That's okay, since many naturally occurring products have, say, 0.03 grams of trans fat or the like, but if they get it up to 0.4 per serving by their test methods, and an actual portion that people eat has 3 or 4 100-calorie "servings..."

I've seen that happen with a few processed, high-oil foods.

But we're going far, far afield of FSA weights now.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

Huh - Imagine that - a bicycle component that weighs more than the advertised weight. My experience is that most actual weights are greater than advertised. I was recently surprised after receiving 4 Continental 4000s tires - two weighed 230gr, one weighed 215gr, and one weighed 210gr. (Advertised weight is 205gr). It wasn't that the actuals were greater than the advertised that surprised me, rather that there was such a variance in individual actual weights for a thing that is made in an automated process. None of the saddles I have weigh as advertised, but I can sort of understand that when you have multiple materials coming together in a product that variances in each material may combine to achieve different weights. My assumption is that advertised weights are either the lowest perfect prototype weight acheived, or lowest "estimated" weight - not averages or real world weights as a consumer might expect. As others have suggested, some frames advertised weights exclude paint and/or bottle mount hardware and/or deraileur hanger and/or cable stops, etc. Then there's wheels....All of that said, I realy don't care that much. Assuming all manufacturers are playing the same game, it's all relative.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

Argentius said:


> You know what's funny is that they are expressly, legally allowed TO do that. As long as you don't have AT LEAST 0.5 GRAM of trans fat, you can call it "zero."
> 
> That's okay, since many naturally occurring products have, say, 0.03 grams of trans fat or the like, but if they get it up to 0.4 per serving by their test methods, and an actual portion that people eat has 3 or 4 100-calorie "servings..."
> 
> ...


Exactly my point. This type of thing happens all around you, but in situations that are probably more "important" than how much your bike parts weigh


----------



## superflychief (Mar 25, 2008)

Argentius said:


> That's "more importants," then? I read the OP.
> 
> Manufacturers claimed or "factory" specs on things in many industries are quite conservative -- take dry weights on motorcycles, for example.
> 
> FSA estimates low, but it's not as though the actual weight is three times what they claim or anything. It seems to be about a 10-20% reduction. That's not terrible.


ha ha ha so if you buy a sports car that is advertised at 2500lbs and actually weighs 3000lbs you'd be ok with they? Hey an extra 500lbs aint terrible. A couple percent difference is understandable and most companies advertise a weight being for a specific size of part/frame. But listing your product at 20% less then it's actual weight is shameless false advertising. Obviously a 120mm stem will weigh less then a 130mm stem but if you're going to advertise your product based on the smallest weight (ie 90mm stem) then it should be clearly documented as such. Who wants to buy any part/bike and have the weight 10-20% more. 10% on a bike could be 1.5lbs. Yes these numbers aren't huge when you're talking about 40grams but in terms of the bigger picture it's rediculous.


----------



## ncvwnut (Oct 15, 2008)

I can understand the OP. I agree with some of the other posters though. Things come in different sizes. I'm not so sure that that manufacturer will take the time to post weights on all the sizes. I'm sure that there is a difference in weights from a 170mm crank to a 175mm crank. It doesn't take much to get 40g of aluminum over two crank arms. It may be better if they would post their average weights over all sizes.


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

I think Conti's are handmade, at least the race level tires. 



Gimme Shoulder said:


> Huh - Imagine that - a bicycle component that weighs more than the advertised weight. My experience is that most actual weights are greater than advertised. I was recently surprised after receiving 4 Continental 4000s tires - two weighed 230gr, one weighed 215gr, and one weighed 210gr. (Advertised weight is 205gr). It wasn't that the actuals were greater than the advertised that surprised me, rather that there was such a variance in individual actual weights for a thing that is made in an automated process. None of the saddles I have weigh as advertised, but I can sort of understand that when you have multiple materials coming together in a product that variances in each material may combine to achieve different weights. My assumption is that advertised weights are either the lowest perfect prototype weight acheived, or lowest "estimated" weight - not averages or real world weights as a consumer might expect. As others have suggested, some frames advertised weights exclude paint and/or bottle mount hardware and/or deraileur hanger and/or cable stops, etc. Then there's wheels....All of that said, I realy don't care that much. Assuming all manufacturers are playing the same game, it's all relative.


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

Andrea to answer your statement about food I will clarify... yes they are allowed to have slight discrepencies. If they were off however by the percentage amounts that we are talking they would be violating law. And to clarify your misdirected aggression I posted this to hear thoughts from people that can read and understand a post. I am in no way angry or threatening to sue or crying about anything. Just wanted to hear some intelligent conversation on this issue and everybody has been great making points on both sides. Its the principle of the matter, not a couple of grams. In an economy like this people shouldnt have to worry about being lied to when they choose to give a company their money. What would happen if you bought a car and found out that it got 20-35% less MPG than you were told?? Oh im sure you'd just eat a few less burgers and that'll balance it out.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

That would probably explain the variability. Thanks.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

B15serv said:


> Its the principle of the matter, not a couple of grams. In an economy like this people shouldnt have to worry about being lied to when they choose to give a company their money. What would happen if you bought a car and found out that it got 20-35% less MPG than you were told?? Oh im sure you'd just eat a few less burgers and that'll balance it out.


If people disagree with you, and you say the same thing and change the metaphor slightly, will they then agree?

Look. The great thing about the information age is when someone is "overestimating" the performance of their product, or when they are outright lying, it often becomes apparent quite quickly.

Just to continue talking in circles about lies, lies, and statistics, come on now. How many auto manufacturers make big, bold print about their vehicles getting "(up to)* 33 MPG,*" when they well know that's with the rental car engine that no dealership stocks, with the manual transmission, driven in the EPA test that overestimates mileage to begin with?

The real world mileage may well be 15% less, just like that FSA bar's weight may be, um, as low as 150 grams.

Really? Really?

Worry about being lied to? A few grams of handlebar weight, on the principle of the matter?

Please.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

I have heard that rim weights grow as dies age and allow more material into the extrusions. If true (seems reasonable), that could happen to bars and certain seatposts.

I dug this example up for another thread -- Notubes sells two versions of the same rim (same drilling), one guaranteed sub 352g. Total _advertised_ weight range for this rim is 330g to 369g, and this is from a manufacturer who cares enough to charge an extra $10 for the lighter samples. It is not too surprising that other components can vary significantly.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

Having followed many of Andrea's posts, I know she doesn't need me or anybody else to defend her. But really, I didn't see any aggression in her posts here. Given her style, the fist post was clearly tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure she's quite capable of understanding your position without necessarily agreeing to it. You've made some good points, but some may simply see this as making mountains out of molehills. Whether it's cars, or nutrition, or bike stuff, the marketing geniuses often stretch the boundaries of truth. We know (or should at least suspect) this and should take the information with a grain of salt.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

If you look at their advertised weights, they don't give specifics, only generalities on the bars.

Compact is 264 grams, Ergo is 277 grams. But what size is it? 38cm, 40 cm, 42 cm, or 44 cm? They don't tell you. So there will be some variances.

A 38 will be less than a 44. But you don't know how much.


----------



## Leopold Porkstacker (Jul 15, 2005)

I’ve largely given up on this whole “lightweight” phenomena for the _most_ part. For the past eight months or so I’ve been riding a 5lb+ weighed-down bike (lights/batteries/tools/etc.) that normally weighs 15 and some 1/2 pounds, and of course have given up entirely on those sub-160gm tires and “light weight” tubes (haven’t had a flat in just under 3,000 miles). I look at the whole picture as a great training program with all that extra weight as a challenge to my commute workout. In fact, the next group ride I go on I believe I will carry some extra crap with me just to make the workout more of a hinderance.


----------



## android (Nov 20, 2007)

I kind of like the fact that it drives weight weenies nutso. My friend makes massive spreadsheets with all the components he's putting on his bike and the published weights. He has a gram scale and even known how much chain links weigh, so he can adjust accordingly. BUT it never balances with reality and that drives him psycho!!

Me, I do the old fashioned stand on a bathroom scale and subtract the difference method for weighing my bike if I get the urge. Not that I care that much, it's around 18lbs.


----------



## monkeybullit (Sep 18, 2006)

I recently got a Lynskey R230 and the claimed weight is 2.45# and the actual weight is 2.85#. By this same mindset, I should be able to sue Lynskey for this? Oh wait, I had it painted, so the paint must make up the difference in weight. 

My issue is with the mindset of claiming to be able to sue a company over incorrect weights. Contact a lawyer if it bothers you that much and see what happens.

Make your dissatisfaction known with your purchasing power and don't buy from companies that make false claims on weight. My guess is that you won't be spending any money because everyone does it to some degree. Should I be sued for claiming I weigh 160 on my driver's license when I weighed 158 this morning? 

Rant off... Carry on.


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

We endorse or reject this stuff at the cash register. If one feels that they have received less (or in this case "more") than what they paid for, by all means, return it and cast your vote against that product. (Returning a particular product speaks louder than just not buying it to begin with). If one thinks a particular brand, like FSA, is advertising falsely, then boycott their products at the cash register. Unless one has the means to prove that a manufacturer is intentionally falsifying the information beyond some legal standard, I doubt anything could be done in the courts.


----------



## STARNUT (Jun 19, 2005)

I know this; if it says FSA or Mavic on it, it'll be over claimed weight. In some cases _way_ over claimed weight. In fact in most cases.

The difference is one company makes good quality, over claimed weight stuff and the other makes crapy over claimed weight stuff.

Suffice it to say, I've never bought a Mavic product for weight and have always been happy as they have never given me any problems. I have a set of 1st gen Ksyriums that have a brazilian miles on the (yes I said brazilian) and are going strong. 

On the other gram scale, I've bought FSA stuff _because_ of the claimed weight only to be disappointed not only in the weight, but the performance as well. To have an FSA product that: one, does what's it's supposed to do without breaking, cracking, creaking, or shifting properly and; two, come in at the claimed weight.

Just something to think about here. The new Vittoria 320 TPI clinchers are claimed to be 220. I've weight probably 20 of them thus far and had it range from 197 to 210....... are you going to equally as pissed about an _UNDERAGE_ on claimed weight as you are an _OVERAGE_? If not then the "legal" argument is moot because the point you'd arguing is that the QC is poor and therefor unsafe, not false advertising. Or you'd be arguing the Manipulation of Standards under False Advertising. What you'd actually have to prove that FSA went out and designed the bar to be 200 grams and _then_ purposely manufactured it to be over claimed weight to save costs. If FSA can prove it's with "manufacturing" specs and they have followed all the internal procedures to account for any variance, you have no chance at suing them and actually winning. Additionally, I'm not sure the warranty extends to over or under weight products since it wouldn't be counted under the "manufacturing defect" heading. This of course assumes there is a "standard" way to measure the weight of a product (for that matter _anything_) in the bike industry.............. and we all know the bike industry is about as far from a model of standards and efficiency as you can get. The standard is......... there is no standard. I can't count the number of times I've held a seatpost in my hand that was supposed to be a "27.2mm" and it was 27.35 or 26.98. Just last month we had batch of forks on frames come in that were all almost .75 to a full mm _under_ the 1 1/8" OD diameter they should have been. Conclusion, a Zipp 145 stem would not clamp down on it.

Starnut


----------

