Commuting - Touring bikes that don't weigh 28 lbs

Do they exist? my commuter is not a touring bike, but rather an all steel racing bike that weighs 22 lbs. All the touring bikes I've seen with just a rack weigh in at around 28 lbs. This is HEAVY. Are there not any touring bikes made out of Reynolds 853 or Reynolds 531 or Columbus tubing?

A couple of pounds doesn't really make a whole lot of difference for a serious tourer who is hauling 50+ lbs of gear with him anyway. :) But I would actually be quite interested to know the answer to the same question because I'm in the market for a nice touring bike that I want to use an all-around bike (and that includes rides with little or no gear).

Tour-centric bikes are a breed apart. They are built like pick up trucks for a reason - strength. The design compromises must exist. The best material that will go the distance, and not cost the price of a real pickup is going to be steel. I think they are amazingly light as is. My Trek 520 flies up hills, even with the oft criticized road triple. It's all racked, caged and fendered and has a heavy Brooks B-67 saddle. Add a Trek DeLux Interchange trunk and it weighs 33lbs. Stripped for speed, it weighs 26lbs. It's a great commuter. You are going to give up a little weight. Get stronger or get carbon. :)

be a man and cycle on a 100lb bike mine is made out of iron (sorry not trying to flame)

Unless you're a 77 pound woman, 28 pounds isn't heavy no matter how you look at it. Even the lightest racing bikes if fully equipped would weigh mid 20's.

Do they exist? my commuter is not a touring bike, but rather an all steel racing bike that weighs 22 lbs. All the touring bikes I've seen with just a rack weigh in at around 28 lbs. This is HEAVY. Are there not any touring bikes made out of Reynolds 853 or Reynolds 531 or Columbus tubing?

The mid-80's Trek 620's were made from Reynolds 531. I have a 1985 (64 x 60 seat tube x top tube) that is remarkably light and peppy (although it's probably still 24-25 lbs stripped of rack/fenders/bags). With a smaller frame and careful selection of components, I wouldn't be suprised to see a 620 of that era come in at 22-23 lbs.

For comparion, I have a Waterford "Sport" model (RST-22) that wasn't designed for a touring load but was was still beefed up a bit to handle a large rider (I'm 6'3" and about 250 lbs). Without fenders/rack and with mid-range components it weighs about 25 pounds.

With matching components, I think the Trek might come in a little lighter than the Waterford.

Therefore, you CAN find fairly light touring frames, but as others have posted, touring bikes generally emphsize strength over weight. Once you add a couple water bottles and a backpack for commuting, a few pounds won't make much difference.

My Cannondale T800 in a size large with a Brooks B17 narrow, Tubus racks front and rear and pump weighs in at 27 lbs. It's not stock but I haven't put anything on it that is designed to be lightweight either. With a lighter set of wheels and tires, a lighter bar, a lighter seatpost, etc, I could probably drop that weight another 2 or 3 pounds. With a carbon fork I could probably give your 22 pound bike a good run for it's money. I wouldn't want to tour on it, but I could get close to 22 lbs.

take off the cassette, derailleurs, and a chainring or two. that'll save a few pounds.

Moots is making a Ti touring frame. If I wanted a lightweight touring bike and money were no object, that would be a start. Also, if you are looking into a short-tour/credit-card/sag wagon bicycle that won't have to hold a heavy touring load, look at Burley and Co-Motion (Nor'wester), or Rivendell (Rambouillet).

Go on a diet. Lose five pounds. Don't carry water.

MTBs are easily over 28 pounds, have highly inefficient suspensions, and with slicks are almost as fast as a road bike. Five pounds really isn't a big deal.

Using a cyclocross frame for touring is an idea. Both the Gunnar Crosshairs and the Salsa La Raza are lightweight steel.

You can get a Bob Jackson (http://www.bobjacksoncycles.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=43) it is built out of Reynolds 631. Not sure what the built up weight would be. But I have toured extensively on a bike that weighed in at 32 pounds empty and over 90 pounds when I hit the road. I wasn't interested in speed, but seeing what was out there.

Aaron:)

My bike isn't 22 pounds, but I do what Slowandsteady says too- I try to lose a few pounds if I can before starting a tour. Every pound I lose makes me feel a lot better when I'm dragging all my crap behind me.

Koffee

If I were looking for a lighter off-the-shelf touring bike, I'd probably start with a Cannondale and swap out some of the heavy parts. Here's an example: Cannondale T800 (http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/06/CUSA/model-6TR8.html)

The stock tires are ~520-gram Michelin Transworld 700 x 35's with probably 140-gram tubes. Throw in some 700 x 28 Continental Ultra2000 folding tires with 70-gram tubes. You give up some load-carrying capacity, but you shed about 700 grams of rotating weight. That's about 1.5 pounds right there.

I don't know what that suspension seatpost weighs, but I'd bail it for a light cheap $20 Kally Uno and cut the Uno down from 350mm to 250mm, probably losing close to a pound of weight compared to the suspension post.

Take off the stock pedals and put on some Speedplay X5's or whatever your preference in pedals is, and there goes more rotating weight. A set of Speedplay X5's would be about 1 pound lighter than the pedals, clips & straps that the bike comes with, and again, that's rotating weight where it counts more. If you're not a Speedplay guy, figure about 500-600 grams for the stock pedals/clips/straps and subtract the weight of the pedals you'd use.

Seats are a matter of preference but I happen to be fine with something like a classic Flite, so that could lop another 1/2 pound of weight or more.

So there's some potential, if you start with a bike that's not excessively heavy at the core. I'm not trying to pose aluminum as the only option either, but the Cannondales are easy to find.

BTW my winter/spring commuter is a steel mountain bike with a rigid fork, fenders, panniers and rack, lights, and in the winter it's got ~900-gram studded tires too. The time that I really feel its fully-loaded ~36-pound weight is when I've just gotten home and have to carry it up two flights of stairs to my apartment ;) The rest of the time it's just a matter of pedalling it until I safely arrive at the destination. It can still be persuaded to exceed 25mph when necessary.

Well, I run a road bike. I'm really more about a commuter than a full on touring bike, and that's where weight comes into play. what I have now is strong and light, with a campy road crank and dura ace components. There's no problem here. 25 lbs would be on the heavier side of a road style bike. For those hauling 60 lbs of gear on a tour, it's not a big deal, but I'm in the business of a light, fast commuter. It seems all the nice Columbus steel bikes are good candidates for lightweight commuters.

Lite is not always right. I read parts of a book about bicycles by an engineer from MIT. Way over my head, but it has some ineteresting information. The book pointed out some ineresting aspects of rider weight vs. total bike weight and as mentioned above rotational weight. Given the average rider here, most of us are not TDF participants, who is of average weight, etc. there is little to nothing to be gained by going super lite. Racing has been popularized by Lance Armstrong the bike manufacturers followed with high end carbon racing bikes and lots of advertising and hype. Additionally, lowering the rotational weight
may not have the desired results of gaining the greatest cruising speed, which the book makes the case that choice of tires and road surface can have a greater effect than one would think on overall cruising speed and the effort it takes to cover the distance.

When I go into a LBS these days all of the young sales people can show me are expensive race inspired bikes. Non of which were designed with comfort or utility in mind. A good touring bike is not going to be lite weight and I would not want one.

The reason for steel vs. aluminum (Cannondale is an exception and their bikes are quite nice) or carbon is strength to weight and good ride qualities. The ride qualities of steel combined with the geometry of a touring bike give it strength and a much more gentle ride than a racing bike. Most mountain bikes geometries are very close to some of the best touring bikes. Give a mountain bike solid fork and you have a good all around bike.

I ended up with a Novara Randonee as a result of the best compromise of finances and intended use. If I could afford it I would prefer to have a Rivendel Atlantis, Bruce Gordon or a Vanilla. Non of which are lite when compared to a full carbon race bike. Heh, the bikes at Wally World weigh in at over 37 pounds.

A super light TDF bike reviewed in an Austrailian mag clocked in at a cost of $ 818.00 per pound!

Cycles Marinoni make a touring frame out of Colombus Zona. I have no idea of the weight, but it's sure to be less than BMX gaspipe.

http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/html/en_turismo.html

Look at the extra weight as a training aid. Your racing bike will feel even lighter ;)

Marinoni linked above makes both a tourer as was mentioned, and a Sport Tourer which is the one you want. As light as possible, but with eyelets for racks front and back, fender clearance, and long stays to allow heel clearance.


http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/html/en_ciclo.html

http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/html/en_cicloalu.html

http://www.marinoni.qc.ca/html/en_cicloxti.html

They make about 3 or 4 versions now of it. Steel, aluminum or titanium. They are custom cut to your size and the frame/fork combo is around 600 cdn for the steel frame which is cheap for almost custom made. Toss on a brooks saddle, pedals of choice, maybe a different wheelset. And you have a bike 100% suited for panniers with the least weight and best of all, about half the price of the more expensive models.

Choice of a paint style, choice of components, and all for about 2k if you go with say a campy veloce groupo. Doubt you'll find many that work better for touring/randonneuring and be lighter.

When you talk about a 28# tourer in comparison to a 18# roadie the difference is really not so much frame weight. The difference in frame weight between the tourer and the roadie might be 2# and another 1# for a non-carbon fork. The extra half-pound to a pound per wheel is there for a reason and you wouldn't want to be without it. Same for tires...then there are the racks, bars and stems/seat posts. Lots of touring frames are highly developed and constructed out of leading edge materials appropriate to their function. Now, if you really do not need to carry 40+ pounds of luggage, and traverse unimproved/unpaved roads or go somewhere that repair is impossible.....then you can build a surprising light and effective bike. Before 1950, various European groups held rough, tough, trials over long distances with no support allowed. The bikes were scored on weight and durability and these guys had bikes under 20#. But that is not a bike you take to the outer wobegones.

Additionally, lowering the rotational weight may not have the desired results of gaining the greatest cruising speedLook at my avatar and guess what I'm about to point out... ;)


If you have to accelerate from a stop repeatedly on your commute, it's nice to not be packing more rotational weight than is really called for. I guess it's a classic trade-off of what you want to optomize for.

To help your cruising speed, if you can make do with a rear rack and a racktop bag instead of panniers, and go without fenders (or at least the narrowest fenders that'll clear your tires), then the reduction in air drag should help your static cruising speed. If you can find space to plunk a Syntace C2 aero bar onto it, and your route makes it practical to use it, that can be worth 2mph boost.

That said, even my dolled-up Cannondale full-touring bike with road tires and aero road-racing rims is still not anything like the road rocket that my 18-pound Fuji Team was, no matter if I strip all the racks/fenders off it or not. How I miss my Fuji... :(

I remember drooling over a litespeed blue ridge; expensive though. I agree that there is a lamentable lack of sturdy but reasonably light touring bikes. Extra braze-on's and longer chain stays should not weigh that much.

I understand this. Some of the extra weight on these touring bikes IS the frame however. The reason for this is that instead of using a light weight, high quality steel such as Reynolds or Columbus, the bike will be built with a good grade of CroMoly steel. One advantage is that if you crack the frame you can weld it back together in the middle of nowhere. Also, the touring frames will have longer chainstay lengths.

Aside from that, don't make exceptions for Cannondale. I won't make any exceptions for any bikes just because they have a following. What's the nickname given to cannondale? Was it Cannonball? Crack n' Fail? Are they nice bikes? Yes. Do Fuji, Scott, Felt, Trek, Raleigh, and Giant make nice bikes? yes they do.


Lite is not always right. I read parts of a book about bicycles by an engineer from MIT. Way over my head, but it has some ineteresting information. The book pointed out some ineresting aspects of rider weight vs. total bike weight and as mentioned above rotational weight. Given the average rider here, most of us are not TDF participants, who is of average weight, etc. there is little to nothing to be gained by going super lite. Racing has been popularized by Lance Armstrong the bike manufacturers followed with high end carbon racing bikes and lots of advertising and hype. Additionally, lowering the rotational weight
may not have the desired results of gaining the greatest cruising speed, which the book makes the case that choice of tires and road surface can have a greater effect than one would think on overall cruising speed and the effort it takes to cover the distance.

When I go into a LBS these days all of the young sales people can show me are expensive race inspired bikes. Non of which were designed with comfort or utility in mind. A good touring bike is not going to be lite weight and I would not want one.

The reason for steel vs. aluminum (Cannondale is an exception and their bikes are quite nice) or carbon is strength to weight and good ride qualities. The ride qualities of steel combined with the geometry of a touring bike give it strength and a much more gentle ride than a racing bike. Most mountain bikes geometries are very close to some of the best touring bikes. Give a mountain bike solid fork and you have a good all around bike.

I ended up with a Novara Randonee as a result of the best compromise of finances and intended use. If I could afford it I would prefer to have a Rivendel Atlantis, Bruce Gordon or a Vanilla. Non of which are lite when compared to a full carbon race bike. Heh, the bikes at Wally World weigh in at over 37 pounds.

A super light TDF bike reviewed in an Austrailian mag clocked in at a cost of $ 818.00 per pound!

I'm wondering why it matters if it weighs 22 or 28 lbs.
I can drop the difference in body weight in several weeks if 6 lbs actually made much of a difference. Much cheaper.

I'm too new at biking to even kid myself in to believing I have an understanding of the whole bike weight thing. But I can tell there is a HUGE difference in feel to my bike when I put the rack and loaded trunk bag on it versus the feel with nearly identical weigh in my back pack on my back. Total bike plus rider wieght is about the same but it sure feels different. Maybe is sprung weight versus unsprung weight, maybe it's my imagination. :shrugs: That said I prefer the feel of the lighter bike as far as ride goes. Yet, I use the rack because it's hot and sweaty under the back pack. :-)

I also know from car racing schools that feeling faster often does not mean you are going faster. In fact it often means exactly the opposite when talking car racing.

Couple of lighter sturdy bike suggestions - hardtail cross country racing bikes are very light, very sturdy and can be made even lighter by swapping out the front forks for some rigid ones. The geometry on these is all over the place but you can find bikes in this class that feel almost road bike like. Put on some slicks, clip on fenders and a strap on or clamp on rack and have fun commuting. I just bought a used one - a titanium GT Xizang that weighs 22 pounds on my bathroom scale. My thought is occassionally commuting on it and occassionally trail riding on it.

Cyclocross bikes too fit the sturdy light weight bill. They are more road bike like to start with.

IF you really need light, it's the litespeed blue ridge or nothing.

a lot of touring bikes built 35 years ago were lighter than the touring bikes today. wonder what THAT's all about?

I've got a 520 and a Surly Long Haul, and the more i ride them both, the more versatile i find them. and sprightly. why do the bikes have to be lighter again?

but my 'light' one of the bunch weighs in at about 34 pounds, unloaded but with a few 'extras'.... i just put the fifth water bottle on my light tourer tonight, ready for a blitz off the beaten path.

I'm sure its a tradeoff between weight or durability - for me, i like things bomber. i'll save weight in gear and keep the bike tough, thanks.

When you talk metal frames understand that no matter what you alloy a base metal with, and no matter how you heat treat it, the modulus (STIFFNESS) is unchanged. It might be stronger, but flex under given load at a given cross section and dimension is unchanged. If you are going to hang racks and 50-100# on it, I do not care what you paid for your racing lightweight, it becomes a noodle. Try herding that contraption down a hill in a rainstorm. Touring frames are not heavy just because someone selected crap metallurgy. They are heavy because a sensible designer selected thicker butts or larger cross-sections. This was required to provide the stiffness required to accept high loads and wide section tires. My touring frames are just as premium in alloy as any fancy racing frame out there. They are heavier because they need to maintain alignment under high loading. The bike weight difference, overall, is not great. The whole package needs a A719 or equivalent rim...it ain't low tech or quality....it needs a 32 wide tire.....again not cheap or crap construction....and it needs a seat post that will not turn into a carbon fiber suppository in lower elbonia.....pretty soon yah got 28#. Yes I could spend another 2 grand and get titanium frame and save what 2#????? why? Now if you can accept lighter loading and if you stay to paved roads and can reduce wheel weight......then you can have a lighter tourer.....go for it! That is how my commuter is built.

Stolen from the Surly website - not specifically about touring bikes, but the point remains the same:

Some people have been saying that 1x1 frames are heavy. Let's compare our 1x1 frame to some "really light" frames on the market.

For the below comparison I will ignore the obvious price-to-weight ratio differences.

For the below comparison I will ignore the obvious life expectancy differences.

For the below comparison I will ignore the obvious differences in ride characteristics.

For the below comparison I will ignore the obvious differences in intended use.

Keep in mind published weights are almost always B.S.

* 1x1 small (16" c-t) frame weighs 4.415 lbs. on our very accurate scale.
* 1x1 medium (18" c-t) frame weighs 4.960 lbs. on our very accurate scale.
* 1x1 large (20" c-t) frame weighs 4.995 lbs. on our very accurate scale.
* Merlin's medium "Standard" Ti frame weighs a "published" 3.5lbs.
* Ibis's 18.5" double-butted "Ti Mojo" weighs a "published" 3lbs.
* Ibis's 18.5" butted aluminum "Alibi" frame weighs a "published" 4lbs.
* Ibis's 18.5" double-butted cro-moly "Mojo" frame weighs a "published" 4lbs.
* Ritchey's 19" P-20 frame weighs a "published" 3.4 lbs.

Wow, I guess the 1x1's ARE heavy!! But wait a minute, lightweights, racers and pretentious egomaniacs...

Again, price/weight ratio, ride characteristics, intended use, and durability aside...

If you build up a 18.5 lb. Ritchey P-20 single, you can build up a 20.06 lb. 1x1. If you build up a 18.1 lb. Ti Mojo single, you can build up a 19.66 lb. 1x1.

If you don't have a bunch of stupid-light parts and your mundane steel Ibis Mojo single weighs a whopping 24.5 pounds, your mundane, boring, stupid, heavy 1x1 single-speed bike will weigh a whopping 25.46 pounds. Waaaaah! Better get a Ti post, braaah!!

Get over it, people, the 1x1's ARE heavy, but you can still make a damn light bike out of one should you choose. Of course your Kevlar™-beaded 1.7" semi-slick tires won't look real good between those gaudy, over-manipulated chainstays, but what do we know?? And for the third time, I won't mention the RIDE, the LONGEVITY, the PRICE, or the INTENDED USE.

This is true, and trust me Columbus steel bikes are anything but weak. The racer I work with has had many aluminum bikes which he cracked after a year... every one. He bought one bike custom made with nice light high grade steel and he never had a single problem.

Now, the bike I have is NOT a touring bike, and I don't carry 100 lbs of gear on it. i carry my school books and a load the adds up to maybe 50 lbs. The bike has no problem taking this. I stil don't see why touring bikes can't be made of a better quality steel FOR THE PRICE YOU PAY. When's the last time you were hearing about how weak that Reynolds 531 is? It's strong and light, so why not? Now, I'm not advocating carbon fiber seat posts or forks. I sure don't have either on my steel bike. It's just not that hard to make a bike that is strong and not a tank. 28 lbs is on the lighter side of most touring bikes. Many are 30, 32, even 35 lbs. It's hard enough toting my extra load up a big hill. I'd hate to add any more unnecessary weight.

the weight difference between a frame made of Reynolds 531 and a frame made of 4130 is probably less than a pound: i.e. who cares for a commuter?

Those seat tube stickers sure are nice, though.

I sure don't have either on my steel bike. It's just not that hard to make a bike that is strong and not a tank. 28 lbs is on the lighter side of most touring bikes. Many are 30, 32, even 35 lbs. It's hard enough toting my extra load up a big hill. I'd hate to add any more unnecessary weight.

With racks? With fenders? You don't give a point of reference for this.

Sure some of them will be 35 pounds with both racks on, or with a brooks, two racks, and fenders. Hell, so would a hell of a lot of "racing" bikes.

For the money a touring bike will be more versatile and last longer than a racing bike. It will also most likely be more comfortable over long distances. If that is not what you want, don't get a freaking touring bike and stop *****ing. They aren't made to be lightweight because that is NOT WHAT TOURERS ARE LOOKING FOR.

Manufacturers save money whereever the difference will be least noticed in the product. For a touring bike, one of these areas is (to a certain degree) weight. Tourers want a bike that is not going to break down on them. They want strong wheels, a solid frame, and components that will last them through anything. They know they are going to be adding racks, fenders, and quite often a heavier seat/pedals once they get the bike (if it doesn't come with them) and that they will be loading the bike with 20-100+lbs of gear. This makes them unlikely to pay extra money for a pound or so savings in weight. In fact they may pay more for things (like a Brooks or sturdier wheels) that weigh MORE. If they want weight savings they can get it with lighter gear and a lighter rider.

Litespeed Blue Ridge. I think they might have discontinued it, but litespeed will gladly add rack eyelets to their other frames where appropriate, or even do full custom work. Titanium frames will last a lifetime, ride similiarly to steel, and Litespeed has no rider weight limits!

I think that one other flavor to this issue is that the manufacturing of double and triple butted tubing requires a large machine, expensive tooling, and experience with the alloy at hand. The end result is that it is difficult to justify extruding larger section or thicker butted tubing out of a boutique alloy for the touring market. In sizes appropriate to an unloaded sport or racing bike, the economy of scale drives the market. Maybe we will see something coming out of China in termes of a 6/4 Ti touring frame or some such but there doesn't seem to be the market in the US or Europe.

Modern 4130 tubesets are normally double-butted.

Hi,
you talking about lite touring, where you stay in motels, or loaded touring where you carry tent, stove, sleeping bag, etc?

It makes a big difference. I do lite touring, and my bike weighs about 25 pounds. But it wouldn't be hard to drop a few pound off that, that includes rack and fenders and speedo and leather saddle.

It's Gunnar Sport, btw. But many 'sporty' bikes would do just as well. It's a cousin of the RS22 someone mentioned.

This also depends heavily on the budget. I use a Tubus Fly rack, for example, it
is about the lightest real rack you can get at 12 oz; but it cost about $100 now.

There is a saying... light, tough, cheap, pick 2 out of 3

A very nice touring frame is made by Burley. It has real touring geometry, and
costs about $700. If you do lite touring, I have a few suggestions for parts that are light and tough.

I'm not talking about touring at all. I'm talking about commuting. The thing is that touring bikes have the rack braze-ons while road bikes do not.

It sounds like you might want to build up an older road frame, many of them have braze-ons for racks and fenders, are made of fancier steel, and have sportier geometry than anything you can buy for a reasonable price these days. Or save your pennies and go custom.

Unless you're a 77 pound woman, 28 pounds isn't heavy no matter how you look at it. Even the lightest racing bikes if fully equipped would weigh mid 20's.

I believe Flyod Landis's TT bike was only 7.8bls

I'm not talking about touring at all. I'm talking about commuting. The thing is that touring bikes have the rack braze-ons while road bikes do not.


Checkout Cyclocross bikes...they're made to be "all-in-one-ers"

I believe Flyod Landis's TT bike was only 7.8bls

But it comes with about 4,500 pounds of support vehichle, driver, mechanic, spare bikes and components following him down the road :p

I believe Flyod Landis's TT bike was only 7.8bls


KG, maybe.... the UCI does not allow bikes lighter than 6.8kg to be used in races. Additionally, aerodynamics are much more important than weight in TT bikes, and I believe a lot of them come in over the limit (i suspect that all bikes used in mountain stages weigh 6.8kg and not a gram more).

KG, maybe.... the UCI does not allow bikes lighter than 6.8kg to be used in races. Additionally, aerodynamics are much more important than weight in TT bikes, and I believe a lot of them come in over the limit (i suspect that all bikes used in mountain stages weigh 6.8kg and not a gram more).

You'd probably know better than I :-) I just wanted to make the point that the statement of "lightest racing bikes being in the ~20lbs" wasn't entirely accurate.

If the bike has eyelets on the rear dropouts, that's enough to mount a rack on it using a center strut to the brake bolt. Four-point mounting is preferable if you have significant loads, though... I just installed a couple of RivNuts on my old GT's seatstays today for that reason. The cyclocross route could be the answer, but you could also roam the bike shops and see what sport-racing bikes have rack eyelets on the rear dropouts.

I commute on a medium weight club style road bike, one with plenty of tyre clearance and fender eyelets. I had some rack eyelets brazed onto the seatstays for more secure rack attachment. It is good balance between weight and durability.
Many modern steel tourers emphasise strength and durability. You simply dont need expedition loadcarying for a commuter. My Bob Jackson 531 tourer is probably not as capable as an expedition bike as many modern versions but works well as an all rounder.

(1) Thorn (www.sjscycles.com) make tourers out of 853 and 531 (at least on their higher-end bikes). Have a look at their xTc or their Audax - man, do they look nice!

(2) Most touring bikes are built strong to carry heavy loads. However, have a look at this:
http://www.bright.net/~mziegler/BeforeAfter/bikepacking.htm (although note that he is on a 33 lb MTB)
or this:
http://www.mile43.com/peterson/MonoLog/MonocogLog.html

If you want to go lightweight, cut out all of the extraneous stuff from your load, then you can have a lighter bike without it breaking (or more realistically flexing and shimmying) under the load.

PS. The only problems I've had are with wheels rather than frames.

Checkout Cyclocross bikes...they're made to be "all-in-one-ers"

No, some are all-in-one (eg. Sury Cross-check or Kona Jake) and some are race bikes (eg. Kona Jake the Snake). I looked at getting a Jake the Snake on a recommendation from a LBS junior until the LBS senior pointed out the ultralight stays which he thought would eventually break under load (is that where most frames fail?).

In answer to the original post, yes, there are lots of 531 touring frames - I have two - and they can be had for very cheap. Also, lots of older roadbikes have eyelets. I have a Gazelle Trim Trophy, a 531 road bike weighing about 22 lbs, from the mid 80's, and it has eyelets from and rear, so I could fit a rack that would be plenty strong enough for commuting.