Onion bhaji wrote:
I recently discovered there is a carbon seat post available for the SC which begs the question why wasn't it included as standard. Left me wondering what other corners have been cut adding further weight to the bike. Just doesn't reflect well.
Those saying weight doesn't matter aero is more important. Not sure what aero has to do with the weight, the two are not mutually exclusive. You can be light and aero at the same time.
Additionally when you are going at your absolute limit on a tight undualting, multi lap course I can 100% guarantee weight will make a difference. Yeah the bike goes fast when up to speed but getting up to speed takes a little longer, especially with multiple 180 degree turnarounds.
The wheels, saddle, and crankset have all been changed on mine. Still weighs a ton. I even swapped out the stock stem which was also heavy.
Sure weight makes a difference, but its likely smaller than you think. There are (were?) some good websites that allowed you to plug in numbers to see what real world diffs would be, for, for example, lighter wheels, etc. The differences are very very small when comparing different weights.
All that said, I've never before heard of the SC being described as a heavy tri bike. Compared to a road bike? Sure. But as a tri bike, its lighter than a lot of other top end models, like the Felt IA series, cervelo beam bikes, etc.
Here is a chart pt out by QR that shows the trek SC in there as pretty darn competitive. I previously owned a Felt IA which was way heavier, and I never felt the weight slowed me down. On a very hilly mont tremblant bike course, my fastest bike split is actually on the Felt.