kehomer

Instead of spending relatively big bucks on a lightweight frame, you might try paring a few pounds off the engine. Some of us, me included, could stand to lose a few lbs. Or, if you are happy with your present body weight, spend those extra bucks on light weight wheels/tires. You'll benefit more by saving X pounds from wheels/tires than X pounds in the frame.

squirtdad

remember apples to apples... that is 8lbs frame and fork. 5.6 frame and 2.35 fork most weight quotes are for frame only.... and it is tange tubing, infinity

miamijim

Big bucks? These frames/bikes are dirt cheap....but I suppose that's all relative to what ones interpretation of 'cheap' or 'inexpensive' is. I think $200-300 is inexpensive. Almost any bike with Tange Prestige or Ritchey Logic tubing will have good quality lightweight wheels out of the box. Both my Paramount and LOOK are/were spec'd with essentially 700c road rims but in 26" sizes. What exactly are you going to upgrade those wheels to?

Nice frames handle better, feel better and have overall better ride qualities than inexpensive hi-ten offerings. Do we all go through life buying the least expensive item available? Hell no.

krobinson103

Agree. Tange Prestige tubing makes a massive difference. Its the difference between 'boat anchor' and 'sweet ride'. If I want a cheap commuter an aluminium hybrid/mtb does the job fine. If I want a fun ride that begs me to ride all day I'll take Good quality steel.

Fred Smedley

Tange Prestige came in different butting thus some are heavier than others, IMO 26" wheels suck on the Road and are also lacking in the dirt IMO given a choice. A DB steel frame is fine mated to a quality light tire & wheel choice and will make more of a difference than "Tange Prestige" .

miamijim

Since the OP was looking for a bike with low stand over height the options are limted. 26" wheels help considerably with stand over height and early 90's small mtb bikes help because they have sloping top tubes....sure, 26" wheels may not have ideal rolling resistence but triathletes use them so they cant be all that bad. but that's not what the OP was looking for was it?

You go ahead and ride your 1010 steel frame and I'll ride my high quality cro-mo frames. Enjoy.

Fred Smedley

What a asinine comment , I said DB tubing, that's double butted for the quick to read , slow to understand, not "1010 stell" Ever read the comparison of 5 Columbus framesets in a blind test? The "best" thin-walled heat treated frame was not the standout.
BTW I was not responding to the OP was I ?

Case in point since you are sold on MTB frames . 1989 Bridgestone MB1- Prestige , 1993 MB3 - Logic supertubing, plain old DB tubing, guess which frame was livelier , more responsive?
I just love a internet know-it-all. Enjoy!

neo_pop_71

The Barracuda fan site spoken about is a good source for finding Barracudas for sale in the "Marketplace" thread in the forum, though at times it's not always current since the ads are posted by members of the site. I should know, I'm one of the two moderators for the site. The only "Colorado" made Barracudas were made late '92 through mid-'96 and only the higher end models were US made with the rest coming from Taiwan. The two owners of the company sold out to Ross Cycles in mid-'96. Ross continued to make higher end Barracudas in Farmington, NY. Any Barracuda that has a matching logo on the head tube and seat tube is a Ross made Barracuda. The earlier Barracudas came with a "Trees Amigos" decal on the seat tube.



I'm not surprised you couldn't keep them in stock, the owners sold plenty of bikes, it's a shame they couldn't keep their finances in order! Heck, even rock stars dug Barracudas!



The only problem is finding an A2V or A2E (or any other higher end model), most for sale are low end to mid-level 'Cudas with an occasional Dos Equis XX Team model or Comp popping up.

kehomer

I admire your knowledge of Peugeots but your reading comprehension skills need some work. The only reference to low quality 1010 "stell" frames were yours. Now I suggest you read this carefully; A quality steel MTB frame available at <$100 (there are many available in a wide variety of sizes and designs) is relatively less expensive than a Tange Prestige or similar steel frame.

On the subject of wheels; MTBs that used the very lightest steel frames were built and, for a large part, used for competition. The wheels on these racing bikes didn't usually last very long. If you want a good light set of wheels for your frame, you are going to have to dig some. I don't want to get too far into the obvious light wheels vs light frame argument but buying a used set of wheels and rebuilding them or building a set from new components are your alternatives.

I know that you know what I have stated is correct. Distorting what others have said is a transparent and sometimes rude habit

miamijim

Well, I happen to have a bike, sitting a few feet from me, that's constructed with Tange Prestige 'short butted' tubing, with a complete Deore group. Wheels are Araya RM-20 built with stainless steel double butted spokes. This bike has fair market value of $250-300, it's complete, ready to ride and factory stock. Bikes like this may not show up on CL every day but they're not hard to find either.

I didn't know that $250-300 was expensive?

miamijim

Speak for yourself.

kehomer

Thank you for proving my point.

LesterOfPuppets

Don't have to spend big buck for a light bike. I can get 25 lb MTBs on the CL for $75 pretty regularly around here. Then definitely go after wheel weight. Even a lot of 25 lb MTBs have 1.75 pound tires on them. Should get sub-500 gram knobbies or sub-400 gram slicks if riding mostly road.

Also, if riding a lot of road or dirt road I go after the gearing next. 48x11 isn't too bad, but bigger is better, IMO.

My Mongoose came with 44x11 high so I put a road crankset on it for mixed surface riding (long road ride out to the dirt, long dirt ride, then long road ride back.

Rode it like this in an STXC race Monday before last. Thinking about getting a 40T single ring up front for the rest of the season, then putting the 53 back on after for long dirt road rides (probably put the drop bars and Ultegra Brifters back on also).

kehomer

[QUOTE=LesterOfPuppets;16902258]Don't have to spend big buck for a light bike. I can get 25 lb MTBs on the CL for $75 pretty regularly around here.

Not around here - N. Georgia. Nice looking Mongoose you have. Man, I've done enough nitpicking for today. Think I'll go do some thing significant like sharpen my lawnmower's blade. Or should I wait for another slimy remark from miamijimbo something?

miamijim

It's too hot to cut grass this time of year.....isn't there someone you can pay to do it?

kehomer

Ah yes. So predicktable(sp).

Fred Smedley

Wut?

krobinson103

Personally I prefer a 48-38-26 triple. There are few occassions when I want a 50 or 53 big ring and if I want to go faster I can up the cadence. 48x11 at 90-100rpm gives plenty of speed. At any rate any speed over 40kmh without drops is like riding into a fierce head wind anyway.

Clyde1820

Lots of great ideas, everyone.

For those who have offered up possible frame options out there on the market, many thanks! (The bummer of having been out of the bike market for 20yrs is that I just don't know many of the good frames that have come and gone.)

Low standover height, ~26lbs or so, ability for full fenders and racks, preferable suspended front fork (w/ lockout) and seat for medical/comfort reasons, in a quality steel.

Keep the possibilities coming. I'll be thinking about each of them.

Thanks, all.

oddjob2

Not impossible, but highly unlikely you'll find a high grade steel road bike under 26 lbs, with suspension fork, a spring loaded seat post, and a thickly padded seat too. Definitely not lugged frame either.

But good luck!

Clyde1820

I know. Sub-28lbs is fine, about my max on a built bike. Would go with somewhat better-built but lighter wheels, tires. Would ultimately go through all components from stem to stern to get the weight down.



EDIT:
My goal is the compliant ride quality and feel that a great steel affords. But technically, I'm not averse to carbon or other materials. Given my "older" history with cycling, what I remember for great compliance and elimination of NVH was the great steels and decent build quality.

I have no frame of reference for considering, say, some of the mid-90's carbon MTB/hybrid type frames. Some in the right size can be downright featherweights, some approaching 23lbs for a full bike (in MTB rims/tires). Have seen a couple such bikes on CL for ~$150-300 or so, but I know so little of the material or build quality from ~15yrs ago.

Either way, a softer road compliance, low standover height, ability to have full fenders and rear rack ... those aspects are what I'm shooting for. Am starting looking at the great steel frames, to begin with.

balindamood

A couple of thoughts.

1). You will have a hard time finding both an older steel frame AND a suspension fork at under 30 lbs. Even if you do, the fork will not preform as well as current models, and you will not likely be able to upgrade if it has a 1-inch fork.

2). I LOVE first generation hybrids (Trek Multi track mentioned, but also look at Schwinn Crosscut/Crisscross, Novara XR's, Bianchi, Jamis, everyone will say bridgestone, but these will come at a considerable premium and most are 26-inch wheels), but getting a 28-inch stand over will be hard with the 700C wheels. This leaves older MTB's (except Bridgestone, see #1 regarding weight)

3). There are some good mixties out there. I have a mid-80's Shogun made from Champion #2 which is fantastic. A good option (with a lousy drivetrain...sorry Francophiles) is an '84 Trek 420...the only mixtie the real Trek ever made, and it was a light-tourer to boot. Good ones will be hard to find, but if this is what works, you can find them with some searching and if you are patient. The other nice thing about these is that they were almost all buit around 27-inch wheels with lots of room for rubber and fenders. Modern 700c wheels do quite nicely with them. The down-side is that they are not as rugged as traditional diamond frames.

Clyde1820

I appreciate that rigid fork examples are what will be the lighter variants, in a quality steel frame.


Yes, I understand this basic limitation. Generally speaking, if a frame wasn't initially designed with a suspended fork in mind, I'm not going to worry much about imagining it can be made into one. Not a problem. Was simply identifying the range of frames I'd consider and where I would prefer to go. A suspension fork isn't vital, it's just preferred.

Don't mind sticking with a "standard" 1in steerer tube format, but going with a more contemporary fork with greater performance and compliance. On many frames, it might well be the only option, beyond the original fork.


The 26in variants seem to have more examples with lower standover height.

Any example, whether 26in or 700c, would be preferable to me in a step-thru or mixte format. Not vital, so long as standover is sub-28", but preferred.

Example: The earlier Specialized HardRock also came in a couple sizes of step-thru; and the Lotus Excelle and Challenger road bikes had a couple sizes in a mixte version.

Have seen a couple of the Trek Multitrack hybrids around. Am definitely keeping an eye out for these. The 1995 vintage 970 and 970 SHX, for example. Lightweight True Temper OXiii steel, 23lbs in the 970 and 26lbs in the 970 SHX. It'll come down to standover height, with these sorts of choices.


Hadn't heard of the Shogun. I'll review it.


Hadn't head of the 420. I'll review.


I have no problems with finding a road-worthy (if old, clunky) bike that's basically got a great steel frame and fork, then updating the components as I go. Or, even starting with a bare frame/fork.



I appreciate that.

About the only preference issue I have with the mixte or other road frames is the typically skinnier-wheel and -tire setup. In a more-modern Trek FX, say, I much prefer a 700x38 to 700x45, instead of a more typical 700x32 or 700x35. But, this can be rough to stuff into many of the older "traditional" frames as there just isn't much space on some of those. Am comfortable with going the route of a 26in wheeled MTB, hybrid or touring type frame, because of this. 700c will be fine, though preference is for a bit wider rubber than typical 27x1-1/4 allows.


Fun, to be on the learning curve.

oldskoolwrench

Personally, I think you're going to be hard pressed to find something that meets your criteria short of going the custom built route. I'm 5' 4", with a 27" inseam and a long torso. All of the bikes I have owned in the last 30 years, including a custom built frame that was built based on my measurements, give me negligible top tube straddle clearance, if any at all.

Sometimes, you have to draw a compromise between straddle clearance and the overall fit of the bike.

ofgit

The mid to late '80s Centurion and especially the Univega Mixtes are very nice riding bikes with touring bike geometry and butted cromo tubing. The Univegas have unusual and interesting colors and the most (700c) tire clearance. One of my Univega mixtes, pearl Periwinkle colored, is set up with a 6 speed grip shift on a Dove/priest style bar that you can get 2 or 3 different hand positions on. The rider position/reach can be 'customized' with the choice of bar, stem, saddle and crankset. Have not weighed these bikes so can't say whether they meet the stated weight limit but they surely are pleasant to ride and to look at.

I really like my '97 Trek 730 that only the stem, bar, levers,saddle tires and pedals have been changed on. Has very nearly the same geometry of the 520 touring model but with more tire clearance!