# Fuji team superLite...



## kure (Jun 29, 2004)

has anyone ridden this bike before or owns one... i am very interested in purchasing one as an upgrapde ..how does it climb?...acceleration??...comfort level...stiffness... etc

thanks...


----------



## dgangi (Sep 24, 2003)

*Yes...*



kure said:


> has anyone ridden this bike before or owns one... i am very interested in purchasing one as an upgrapde ..how does it climb?...acceleration??...comfort level...stiffness... etc
> 
> thanks...


I own a Fuji Team ('03) and a good friend of mine owns the Team SuperLite ('03 I believe). I've ridden both and they are very close in how they ride. The Team and Team Superlite have identical frames -- the parts spec varies (crankset, wheels, cockpit but the drivetrain is the same). These nicer parts make the Superlite 1/2 pound lighter but it has a weight limit on the wheelset - 175lbs I believe. 

The Team line of bikes is definitely built for racing. They have a very short wheelbase and handle very quickly. The frame has a funky diamond shaped down tube that is supposed to help stiffen up the frame. Based on my experience with the bike, this is not hype -- it's for real. The bike climbs and accelerates exceptionally well.

I have >3000 miles on my bike and have ridden it on about every terrain imaginable. For the most part, I find the ride to be rather compliant for such a lightweight racer. FWIW, I use Vittoria Rubino Pro tires, which roll very smoothly and give a nice ride. I understand that much of the way a bike "rides" is due to the tires and not the frame.

Also read the reviews on RBR. There are quite a lot of them for the Fuji Team/Superlite.

Anyway, I have met a number of people who own Fuji Teams and everybody has had nothing but good things to say about their bikes. I *really* like my bike and plan on keeping it a long time.

Thx...Doug


----------



## kkleen (Oct 18, 2004)

dgangi said:


> I own a Fuji Team ('03) and a good friend of mine owns the Team SuperLite ('03 I believe). I've ridden both and they are very close in how they ride. The Team and Team Superlite have identical frames -- the parts spec varies (crankset, wheels, cockpit but the drivetrain is the same). These nicer parts make the Superlite 1/2 pound lighter but it has a weight limit on the wheelset - 175lbs I believe.
> 
> The Team line of bikes is definitely built for racing. They have a very short wheelbase and handle very quickly. The frame has a funky diamond shaped down tube that is supposed to help stiffen up the frame. Based on my experience with the bike, this is not hype -- it's for real. The bike climbs and accelerates exceptionally well.
> 
> ...


I have an 04 Team Super lite. The bike is fast and a great climber but they have very long top tubes compared to other bikes. I am tall but with a shorter torso so i purchased the 61 cm frame with a 59 cm top tube and a 12cm stem. This is a bit to laid out for me and gets a bit uncomfortable after 30 miles. But the bike is FAST, LIGHT and CLIMBS. Keep the ride under 2 hours and under 30 miles and it is a great choice. It is not an all day rider


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*watch the sizing...*

Fuji frames are measured to the top of the seat tube, just like Treks. A stupid way to measurement to call "frame size". This makes a 56cm more like a 54cm measured center to top. The bottom bracket height is also higher than any other brand, apparently criterium oriented. The head tube angle and fork offset are also pretty extreme, apparently intended to create a fast steering bike. 

The higher BB requires a longer head tube to produce the same handlebar height, relative to the saddle. As others noted, the TT length is also longer than most, although in the 56cm size, for instance, the seat tube angle is only 73 degrees. This reduces the TT length by 1cm, compared to other brands that have a 74 degree STA.

Don't make the mistake of comparing the TT length of frames wiht different STAs, without making the proper compensation.


----------



## rj2 (Jun 22, 2005)

I purchased a 56cm '04 closeout last month at Supergo. Climbs great after I changed the cassette to 12-27. As a 200 lb. rider, the wheels wouldn't stay true, but American Classic detensioned and retensioned the wheels by hand. My only cost was shipping to them. My longest ride since the wheel rebuild was 56 miles with 1,500 feet of climbing in 3.5 hrs and I felt like I could have done more. It's plenty stiff in the BB; I only get big ring front derailleur chain rub in crossover gears while out of the saddle. The stock tires made the ride harsh, probably because they require a minimum of 130 psi. I've used both Conti GP 3000 (25c) and Hutchinson Carbon Comp (23c) at 115 psi and the ride is sweet.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

C-40 said:


> Fuji frames are measured to the top of the seat tube, just like Treks. A stupid way to measurement to call "frame size". This makes a 56cm more like a 54cm measured center to top. The bottom bracket height is also higher than any other brand, apparently criterium oriented. The head tube angle and fork offset are also pretty extreme, apparently intended to create a fast steering bike.
> 
> The higher BB requires a longer head tube to produce the same handlebar height, relative to the saddle. As others noted, the TT length is also longer than most, although in the 56cm size, for instance, the seat tube angle is only 73 degrees. This reduces the TT length by 1cm, compared to other brands that have a 74 degree STA.
> 
> Don't make the mistake of comparing the TT length of frames wiht different STAs, without making the proper compensation.


 You always dazzle me with this talk. However I don't understand a couple of your suppositions. 
1) Why would the height of the bb effect the headtube? Wouldn't it just change the angle of the downtube,- while shortening the seatube? Plus they are slightly compact, so the seattube may be a virtual measurement. I don't pretend to know.
2) Wouldn't a Seat Tube Angle STA of 73 degrees be more slack than a 74 degree seattube, thus lengthening the TT?

My impressions of the Fuji Pro is that it was quite stable, yet very agile. A bit harsh riding (I credit that aero downtube), although the 75 miler I did recently did not fatigue me. Quite stiff. Not overly light, although the 04 pro has a carbon seat stay- I would opt for the full alum version, if I had to do it again.


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

C-40 said:


> Fuji frames are measured to the top of the seat tube, just like Treks. A stupid way to measurement to call "frame size". This makes a 56cm more like a 54cm measured center to top. The bottom bracket height is also higher than any other brand, apparently criterium oriented. The head tube angle and fork offset are also pretty extreme, apparently intended to create a fast steering bike.
> 
> The higher BB requires a longer head tube to produce the same handlebar height, relative to the saddle. As others noted, the TT length is also longer than most, although in the 56cm size, for instance, the seat tube angle is only 73 degrees. This reduces the TT length by 1cm, compared to other brands that have a 74 degree STA.
> 
> Don't make the mistake of comparing the TT length of frames wiht different STAs, without making the proper compensation.



The bottom bracket is a little on the high side, but not any more than a Cannondale. The top tube and head tube lengths are middle of the road as near as I can tell. We agree on the fast steering though; 45mm fork offset along with a 73.5 degree head angle makes for fast steering.

My opinion is that because of the steering these bikes are best suited to racing crits. The frames are cheap enough that a race crash shouldn't cause major grief which is nice as well.

Just my opinion.


----------



## mp3ison (Jun 8, 2005)

*Nice Bike*

I found out the Fuji Team SuperLight and the Motobecane le Champion SL are exactly the same bike - made in the same factory. I did some calling around and found this 'cross' branding is rather common on bikes.

I kinda wanted the Fuji for color only - but in my area (Arizona) you can buy the Motobecane for $400 less. So I bought it - and it rides very good. The weight is what I really enjoy - I love having a bike that is really light. The frame is stiff and quick, which is what I prefer.

So I understand you liking the Fuji and that raw finish on the Fuji looks sharp.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

mp3ison said:


> I found out the Fuji Team SuperLight and the Motobecane le Champion SL are exactly the same bike - made in the same factory. I did some calling around and found this 'cross' branding is rather common on bikes.
> 
> I kinda wanted the Fuji for color only - but in my area (Arizona) you can buy the Motobecane for $400 less. So I bought it - and it rides very good. The weight is what I really enjoy - I love having a bike that is really light. The frame is stiff and quick, which is what I prefer.
> 
> So I understand you liking the Fuji and that raw finish on the Fuji looks sharp.


Just received my Motobecane LC sl last night. This is NOT the same frame. It has a round downtube not an Aero downtube, although the handling at the bb is the same. Also the tt doesn't have that odd bulge at the headtube. It may however be made in the same factory. It certainly is spected with very similar parts


----------



## dgangi (Sep 24, 2003)

*Motobecane is *nearly* identical*



AlexCad5 said:


> Just received my Motobecane LC sl last night. This is NOT the same frame. It has a round downtube not an Aero downtube, although the handling at the bb is the same. Also the tt doesn't have that odd bulge at the headtube. It may however be made in the same factory. It certainly is spected with very similar parts


You're right -- the Fuji and Moto frames aren't identical, but they were built to be as close as possible. Here's what my local Bikesdirect rep told me:

The Motobecane is manufactured by Fuji with the *exact* same dimension and material as the Team Superlite frame. Since the Motobecane was going to be sold at a price less than a Fuji Superlite MSRP, Fuji felt there would be issues with their own vendors if they made the Moto identical to the Team SL. So to satisfy other Fuji dealers, the Motobecane could not look identical to the Superlite...hence the downtube was ovalized in lieu of the Fuji "diamond" downtube. 

The Bikesdirect shop rep swears this slight change (oval downtube vs. diamond) has no impact on the performance of the bike as all other dimensions are *exact*. I know this cannot be 100% true -- given the physical property differences between an oval and a diamond, if one were to measure the physical differences between the bike frames (flex, vibration, etc), there would undoubtedly be a subtle difference. But I doubt the "average" cyclist can tell.

Aside from the frame, the only other difference between the bikes is the brakes. Moto = Tektro; Fuji SL = Ultegra. Both weigh in around 15.5 pounds. Both have Ultegra 10 speed drivetrain, AC Sprint 350 wheels, yadda yadda yadda.

At $1095, the Moto is an absolute steal. I'm considering getting one myself.

Thx...Doug


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

dgangi said:


> You're right -- the Fuji and Moto frames aren't identical, but they were built to be as close as possible. Here's what my local Bikesdirect rep told me:
> 
> The Motobecane is manufactured by Fuji with the *exact* same dimension and material as the Team Superlite frame. Since the Motobecane was going to be sold at a price less than a Fuji Superlite MSRP, Fuji felt there would be issues with their own vendors if they made the Moto identical to the Team SL. So to satisfy other Fuji dealers, the Motobecane could not look identical to the Superlite...hence the downtube was ovalized in lieu of the Fuji "diamond" downtube.
> 
> The Bikesdirect shop rep swears this slight change (oval downtube vs. diamond) has no impact on the performance of the bike as all other dimensions are *exact*. I know this cannot be 100% true -- given the physical property differences between an oval and a diamond, if one were to measure the physical differences between the bike frames (flex, vibration, etc), there would undoubtedly be a subtle difference. But I doubt the "average" cyclist can tell.


 I sold my Fuji Pro last night on ebay. The moto Sl arrived last night on my door step. I suspected that the two rides would be similar, and that the geometery would be similar.
Here are my preliminary observations. The Fuji Pro (not to be confused with the team sl) has a more vertical vertical seat tube. The rear tire tucks up under the bike much more than the Moto sl. The Moto sl is going to require that I put on a shorter stem than I used on the Fuji pro (120mm) This was a dissappointment as I had just swapped in my favorite bars (standard 26.6) and the 120mm stem, replacing the stock 100mm WCS (OS) stem (which would probably have fit perfectly) On the Fuji Pro, the 100mm stock stem was much too short. I just assumed. Now I have to unwrap and rewrap the bars.
The Fuji pro seemed solid, light enough, but not light.
The Moto sl seems light, but a little heavy in the front end. This may correct itself when I go back to a shorter stem.


----------



## mp3ison (Jun 8, 2005)

*Overall impression?*



AlexCad5 said:


> I sold my Fuji Pro last night on ebay. The moto Sl arrived last night on my door step. I suspected that the two rides would be similar, and that the geometery would be similar.
> Here are my preliminary observations. The Fuji Pro (not to be confused with the team sl) has a more vertical vertical seat tube. The rear tire tucks up under the bike much more than the Moto sl. The Moto sl is going to require that I put on a shorter stem than I used on the Fuji pro (120mm) This was a dissappointment as I had just swapped in my favorite bars (standard 26.6) and the 120mm stem, replacing the stock 100mm WCS (OS) stem (which would probably have fit perfectly) On the Fuji Pro, the 100mm stock stem was much too short. I just assumed. Now I have to unwrap and rewrap the bars.
> The Fuji pro seemed solid, light enough, but not light.
> The Moto sl seems light, but a little heavy in the front end. This may correct itself when I go back to a shorter stem.


Interesting - how do you find the finish, quality, and value of the Motobecane? And what is your bike's weight? Mine is 15.3 and another buyer on here says his is 15.6. Mine feels real light and the ride is Fun.

I like the low weight so much I was thinking of seeing if there are any parts I could change out and get under 15 lbs - just for Fun. However, I don't know which or to what - probably the shop I bought from or someone on here could have ideas.


----------



## ravenmore (Aug 12, 2004)

*I have the Moto too*

and it looks suspiciously like an '04 Fuji Team SL, but not like the '05. Very light bike - I love the way it rides. I've always preferred a shorter stem, as it makes the steering quicker. I'm a bit of a Clyde though, and had to ditch the AC wheels unfortunately. But yeah - huge value going with the Moto...... Very similar if not exactly the same as a Team SL.


----------



## bikeshopguy (Oct 27, 2003)

*more cookie cutter bikes*

sure the fuji is nice, the motobecane is nice, a specialized is nice, a felt is nice, bah bah

but arent they all a buch of cookie cutter bikes from the same factories in taiwan?

why not a Trek or LeMond or something special?


----------



## pwagle (Jul 4, 2005)

To last sapp:

Not all folks can afford the extra $1000 for an equally equipped brand name such as Trek. And since when is Trek considered "special"? lol. They make great bikes (I own a 5900 Superlight), but it isnt anything glorious. Very cookie cutter if you ask me. It gets the job done and love it. 

So what is up with the large number of the snot-nose jockeys on this board? Wow, rather juvenille especially since most of them have probably never even riden these Fuji/Moto frames/bikes being discussed. I've ridden my buddies Moto Le Champion SL he picked up for just over a $G....craaaaze cheap. He swapped out the wheels for some Zip 303's he had laying around, sold the AM classics on ebay for $425, upgraded brakes and saddle, and he has himself a nice 16lb goat that he isnt afraid to tear up. It rides just fine coming from a someone whose ridden high end Treks for years. He likes taking the no-name brand out in group rides just to toast the $5k+ posers.


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

mp3ison said:


> Interesting - how do you find the finish, quality, and value of the Motobecane? And what is your bike's weight? Mine is 15.3 and another buyer on here says his is 15.6. Mine feels real light and the ride is Fun.
> 
> I like the low weight so much I was thinking of seeing if there are any parts I could change out and get under 15 lbs - just for Fun. However, I don't know which or to what - probably the shop I bought from or someone on here could have ideas.


 Several problems to work through. As I said, on the Fuji, the fit was perfect with extending the stem. On the Moto, the same stem on the same sized bike was much too long and much too slow. Need to speed up the steering quite a bit. Hoping I don't need to change the rake to acheive this.
Finish is excellent, and the bike is REALLY sharp looking. Far superior to last years orange.
Saddle is really light, and really uncomfortable.
The rear wheel apparently is being recalled by am classic. My guess is the spokes on my wheel are too close to the cassette, and rubbed (until I pushed them slightly back) although bikes direct didn't say why the recall was happening. I won't go into how I feel about bikes direct contacting me THE DAY after receiveing the bike from them that AM Classic is recalling the wheel.
The bike (after a couple of changes in equipment is 16lbs on the bathroom scale.


----------

