flik9999

Hey so I often hear people make comparrisons of good quality vintage bikes vs £4000 carbon fibre bikes. The usual consessus iv read seams to be that vintage bikes look nicer and are better for commuting duo to comfort and they can survive a crash while a CF bike goes bang and cant be used again even at a low speed crash. Same applies to alluminium to a lesser extent in regards to crash.

Now what im wondering is how would a gaspipe frame (Carbolite 103 for example) compare to your low end alu frame they throw on cheap modern roadbikes.

In regards to weight my bike is a low quality steel frame and weights about 10-11 KG. How come the specialised allez which is an alu frame with a CF fork is only 9.41 kg, thats roughly 1 KG less than a full steel bike made of low quality components.

I have a carbolite 103 which I picked up for £50 how would this compare to a cheap £50ish modern road bike. I dont really even use the gears so index shifting doesnt matter too much. I try to stay in the big ring all the time and can swap my back cogs fairly quickly. My front ring doesn't like to change unless im going at high speed though so I dont like to change that. (Could be a problem with the friction shifter?)

Should I build this bike up by putting new brakes and a more comfortable seatpost (If I decided to upgrade to reynolds 531 in future I would be able to move brakes over). Or try and pick up a second hand modern bike for about the same price?

bulldog1935

ride - the steel flexes, the aluminum can't, or it will break. Some people debate whether the flex is an efficiency advantage.

There are good vintage FD and not so good. There are also good moderately priced modern FD that can replace the old one that is not so good.

2 lbs difference. What are you willing to give up for it? (Also for some people. a 0.7 kg Brooks saddle is a bonus)

The call has to be yours. A lot of people prefer any steel over any aluminum, just as there are people who have a spot for any frame material. I rode a Raleigh Grand Prix 40 years, 3 major rebuilds, and ended up wholesale moving the components over to butted 531 International frame. With my vintage drivetrain, I shift up front more than I do in the rear - at any speed. I live in big hills and do need gears.
And even on the Grand Prix, the drivetrain was wonderful because of its function.

btw, this is the C&V forum.

Kind of an aside, but my daughter's vintage steel bike is 2kg lighter than her modern aluminum bike (atmttedly, the IGH makes a difference in the weight)

Modern 1x drivetrains also have a niche. But for people who don't need to shift a lot, there were also many vintage bikes with 1x drivetrains, and even good pedigrees (Condorinos, British roadsters)

Kevindale

I'm curious what your 10-11 kg steel bike is. Do you have a photo, and is that weight for the full bike, ready to ride? I have a couple of very nice steel bikes, with fairly high-end vintage components, and they both weigh about 10 kg, which is rather light as steel bikes go.

It's hard to respond to your question without knowing what kind of riding you do, what bike you have now, and what bikes you might be considering. Your front derailleur could have many possible problems. Without more info, and maybe a couple of photos, it's impossible to say more. It could just be a simple adjustment of the derailleur, or replacing cable and housing, or . . .

flik9999

My bike was sold as a puegeot "racer", where am I able to find the actual model of the bike.

Frame: Carbolite 103
Fork: Carbolite 103?
Wheels: Steel (Will upgrade to alu soon enough)
Tyres: 25mm tyres with inner tubes.
Brakes: weinmann brakes

My bike is simular to the puegeot "course" as it has the same frame and fork. I havn't been able to actually weigh it but iv gathered my info from here, I am also riding a 19" frame with the seat up high and a stem extender (Not sure if this will weigh the same as if I had a larger frame but its what im working with duo to what was availible)

ACTUAL BICYCLE WEIGHTS

CliffordK

Rumor has it that the vintage Vitus and Alan aluminum bikes had more than adequate flex. Although, perhaps it is the tig welding that can't handle the flex.

Truthfully, I missed most of the aluminum bikes, although I'll ride a Tricross some without it killing me.

As far as vintage low end vs new low end. I suppose it depends on what you consider low-end, but frankly, companies like Schwinn and perhaps Murray put together a solid product, and many Schwinn Varsity bikes are still on the road today, often with many original parts (depending on how much they were ridden).

I have to wonder if the new cheap Tourney level (and below?) derailleurs are lower quality than the derailleurs being made 30 years ago.

On the other hand, most of the bikes have migrated from chrome steel rims to aluminum rims. Stainless spokes, while not universal, are more common. New brakes are at least pretty good. And, virtually no bikes are sold today without indexed gearing (and shift gates/ramps).

I'm seeing specs of about 35 pounds for the Schwinn Varsity.
A good vintage road bike might be 23 to 25 pounds.

So... If your "new" cheapo is < 25 pounds, that is a significant difference.

CliffordK

Most of those bikes listed aren't "low end bikes". At least they weren't when made.

Look for weights of bikes like Schwinn Varsity. Noted here at about 35 lbs.
A variety of Huffy bikes
A variety of Murray bikes.

This lists the top of the line Huffy Aerowind at 31 pounds.

Here is a good Motobecane spec sheet.
https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/mot...becane0010.jpg

Top of the line Team Champion Steel comes in at 21 pounds.
It looks like there is an aluminum "ProLight" rated at 19.9 pounds.
The Mirage is a good lower quality bike listed at 28 pounds.
And the City-Becan is listed at 32 pounds.

bulldog1935

it's no rumor Clifford, but the question was about modern low-cost aluminum.
Also, no one can duplicate those vintage aluminum frames today because of the legal liability.
The problem first arose on first-gen aluminum mountain bikes. No, they didn't all break but if ridden aggressively as intended by large people, they did.
(The blue bike is a Trek 8500)


I think the Puegeot would be worth rescuing.
I'm wondering if the actual question is it better to rebuild the Puegeot or buy a new cheap aluminum bike.
(and if it's purporting a new low-cost aluminum bike is better than a vintage steel bike, it's trolling on this forum)
Everybody has to answer that question for themselves.

When my daughter was 11, putting her on the aluminum IGH bike was good to get her anticipating shifting on our hills.



Three years later, she built her own steel bike on a vintage frame.

flik9999

Im comparing my bike to a bike with the same frame (Carbolite 103) is that the correct way to estimate weight? It feels light when I pick it up.

Im wondering how my bike with a low quality frame (103) will face up against modern low quallity alloy. My hybrid which is a specialised sirrus feels heavier than my road bike and that has alloy wheels and frame as well.

bulldog1935

If you review some of the current threads on other forums (not C&V), there is discussion of why aluminum frames, particularly cheap ones, are no weight savings over a good steel frame. They have to build them intentionally rigid and strong enough to sustain a crack without breaking catastrophically.

Everyone has seen it, but here's what I did to my old Grand Prix, and rode it 1500 mi/yr, up to 40 mi at a time (up to 2500' climbs) - about the same as I put on my other two bikes (also steel).

DMC707

Whats low end now?

I had this discussion with a buddy 2 days ago --- When the entry cost for a "race bike" is now 4k, and climbs to 10k and more for a top of the line machine --- It seems like the manufacturers can gas light us a bit by ramping up the cost of aluminum , but with the stratospheric cost of carbon, it still has the illusion of looking like a bargain

The same buddy was dismayed though when he test rode another guy's Allez Sport he was contemplating buying and put it on a scale and it was 23 lbs ---- which was the same weight as his hot-rodded (and very magnetic) Centurion Ironman in a big 60c size -- He naturally figured the modern alloy bike would be light years lighter-better-faster etc and twas not to be

3alarmer 

...I'm sorry I can't answer your question, because apart from materials, there are so many variables between what you have and what you might buy new in terms of design, geometry, and components as to make it virtually unanswerable.

I will say that those new, cheap aluminum bikes you looking at as a comparison usually fail relatively early in life, but it's often a component failure (like the BB). Carbolite is not the worst steel from which bikes have been framed.

If you decide to keep it and rework it, put some money in your wheels, although some of the Peugeots from the Carbolite 103 era had perfectly acceptable hubs and rims. Good luck in your endeavor.

bulldog1935

I don't think estimating the weight is near as important as how the bike rides and functions.
Wheels and tires improve any bike.

If you don't like function of your drivetrain components, there are good vintage components as well as modern components that you can upgrade with.
I have a modern index wide compact double on my upright bike, and Campy Chorus on my road bike, but this is still my favorite, with c. 1978 Suntour Cyclone GT rear derailleur and Shimano 600 EX front derailleur.

*Scuba 

Another thing when considering steel and aluminum is their strength to weight/density ratio.

I scuba dive, so I am going to use that as an example. If you take two scuba air tanks that are the same dimensions, but one is aluminum and the other one is steel, the steel one would be lighter.

The reason being that steel is stronger than aluminum, so an 80 cubic feet tank made of steel would use less material than an aluminum one if they were both rated for 4000 psi.

Aluminum is lighter (less dense) than steel for the same one pound chunk of metal, however, that one pound of steel would be stronger. Essentially, a metal tube made out of steel could have thinner walls than one made out of aluminum, if their outside diameter were the same. That is why aluminum bike frames typically have wider tubes to allow for thinner wall tubes to be drawn.

Therefore, aluminum is not really lighter than steel, it depends on the application of the materials and the engineering that goes into the design. I have seen some real boat anchor "new" no name brand aluminum road bikes.

sunburst

Who makes that compact crank? Never seen one with such a small chainring. Is it square taper?

HTupolev

It's not a compact, it's a triple. Half-step plus granny.

Kevindale

You might be as much as 3-4 pounds off with your estimate of your bike's weight. Especially with those steel wheels! That said, for most bike uses, including road bicycling, a few pounds isn't meaningful except to fairly elite riders. Unless you're comparing a 30# bike to a 20# bike, leave weight out of the equation.

You're also comparing a hybrid to a road bike, which is apples to oranges. My modern aluminum hybrid (if you count 2008 as modern) was about 25 pounds, and it was far from a cheap hybrid. It was built like a cross between a mountain bike frame and a road bike frame, and so was very sturdy, and it had heavier components.

Finally, if you want to know what bike you have, and get meaningful opinions on whether it's worth investing in, let us know the serial number and post a few photos. You'll have it ID'd in no time, likely also with suggestions about what you should do about the problems you're having shifting.

At the end of the day, most casual riders will feel much more difference between different quality/sizes of tires, or differences in bike setup, than they ever will in frame material (steel vs. aluminum).

KonAaron Snake 

You're reading a whole lot of non-sense on this thread...

1. Talk to anyone who really understands and makes bikes...they'll tell you that the "aluminum fatigues" argument you see made here is completely misunderstood, at least as far as bikes. The reality is that aluminum frames are so over engineered that they'll last several generations. Additionally, the "steel doesn't fatigue" argument assumes that steel frames aren't regularly subject to flex past the limit that will shorten its life.

Real world - most steel and aluminum frames will outlive you if not abused. (And ask anyone who rode a vitus about aluminum frame flex, it's the tubing diameter...not the material).

2. Low end bikes now come with aluminum rims...which is a huge improvement over steel rims on most entry level rims from the 70s. The tires are also a lot better.

3. Manufacturing standards were more variable during the boom.

4. The parts that come on lower end bikes today are far more functional than the turkey lever/suicide levers on stuff from the 70s.

There are thousands and thousands of cannondales, kleins, etc. that have seen an awful lot of miles. I do think steel rides more comfortably because of the flex, but it depends on what you're looking for.

bradtx

flik9999, Most of the gas pipe bikes I remember, in 23"/58 cm, were about 28 lb. and more. My '81 RRA was originally ~30 lb. Replacing the steel bits brought it down to ~27 lb.

In the late '80s most of the higher end steel and aluminum bikes were 20+ lb., my '89 Cannondale spec'd at 22 lb. Modern(ish) components has dropped the weight to just under 20 lb.

At this time CF is the darling material for a bicycle, but it also has differences in grades that can affect frame weight. Except for some niche bicycles such as touring bikes, steel isn't used much (a shame) and the aluminum frames are not as engineered for light weight as when aluminum was widely used for top tier racing bicycles.

Low end today is similar to low end of the past in that the least expensive items are used to meet a price point. The good thing is that even low end drivetrains and shifting schemes are better now, in particular for the casual cyclist that just wants a bike, no frills.

Brad

bulldog1935

Hi friend, that's a cyclotouriste triple - TA and Stronglight originated this design as triples in the mid-50s (though the basic crank design goes back to prewar with Stronglight 49).
The ring stack is TA, who currently makes rings in even tooth count from 26T to 54T.
Those crank arms on mine are SunXCD

TA Pro5Vis, Stronglight 49D, and Zeus made 50.4mm BCD crank arms.
The chain rings are 6-arm 74mm BCD.



you use a half-step plus granny (like mine) with a widely-spaced freewheel. Mine is 46/42/26T (freewheel is 12-30t)
With a narrow-range freewheel, you would set it up as a sequential triple - e.g. 48/38/28T

oops, yes, square-taper BB. Jan Heine says you can use the vintage crank arms on JIS taper, but I think they will last longer set deeper on ISO taper.
(with Sun XCD crank arms, yes, JIS taper)
Below is the BB requirement drawing. These cranks can be set up as single, double, or triple.
For triple, the BB needs a 122-123mm asymmetric spindle. You can hunt down an old TA BB/spindle as one option to get this

I did it with a 121mm SKF BB and 2.5mm drive-side spacer (4mm spacers are also available). In order to get proper chainline, the bolt-heads on the ring stack should clear the chainstays by just a couple of mm


this drivetrain costs a modern cheap aluminum bike - I would rather have this on an old steel frame than half-a-dozen modern cheap aluminum bikes (N+N)

T-Mar

I'd take a modern entry level road bicycle from an X-Mart store over an early 1980s Carbolite Peugeot. I know that's heresy on this forum, that that's the way I see it.

The Peugeot will have 27" steel rims, while the X-mart will have have aluminum 700C rims. So, the wheels are lighter and fitted with a tyre size with a much better selection.

The Peugeot will have a Simplex, horizontal parallelogram, friction shifting rear dearailleur while the X-Mart bicycle will have a a superior shifting slant parallelogram rear derailleur that is indexed.

The freewheel on the Peugeot will be a six speed and most likely be a problematic Helicomatic, while the X-mart will almost certainly have a superior shifting, Hyperglide compatible freewheel with 7 speeds.

The Peugeot with have a double chainring while the X-mart will probably have a triple chainring, with much wider gearing.

The brakes are probably about equal in stopping power but the X-Mart bicycle will stop better in most conditions due to the aluminum rims. The X_mart bicycle's brakes will have a lighter feel and provide more control through better modulation. It will also have aero cable routing.

The X-Mart bicycle will also use more aluminum in tertiary components such as handlebars and seat posts.

Finally, the X-Mart bicycle will have modern, standardized component sizes and threads versus the French standards of the Peugeot which can make replacement parts harder to find and more expensive.

So, in terms of function, a modern X-mart bicycle wins hands down, in my opinion. It will shift and stop better. It has more gears and a wider, more useful range for most entry level riders. The wheels are lighter. It is much easier to source replacement parts for the X-Mart bicycle and they are available in a far wider selection.

So, about the only category where the X-Mart bicycle may not be a clear winner is the frame itself and that is arguable depending on your preferences. Personally, French bicycles have always been my least favourite. They tend to emphasize a resilient, comfortable ride and I find them slightly whippy, with less predictable handling, especially when pushed hard. Much of this is due to the smaller diameter metric tubing. I'm much happier on a stiffer frame, which I would get on a modern, entry level, aluminum frame.

Daveyk15

Depending on the size of the steel frame a 21 inch/53Cm high quality bike can easily come in at 22lbs if you run tubulars you can get below 20lbs.

This one (Reynolds 531 pro) is around 19lbs though it uses tubs and has a very light 6 speed alloy block, my touring bike is around 23 lbs though the frame is bigger.

AlexCyclistRoch

OK, let me state the obvious: If you have a straight-gauge frame bike with steel rims, their ain't no way that your bike weighs only "10-11kg". No freakin' way! 13kg, minimum. You should re-check your scale.

markk900

@T-Mar: your post convinced me to go look at what is available at the wally mart (which BTW I do not patronize for anything), and it is astounding what you can get for very little money. I was shocked how much better the entry level bikes have become.

When I was growing up you got your first bike at either Eatons, Simpsons, or Canadian Tire. I clearly recall paying nearly $100 for my gas pipe Chiorda (my first 10 speed) in 1970/71. They did have lower level bikes (for say $60-70) but I had to have an Italian racer . That's between $350 and $600 in today's money. For $250 (CAD) wallyworld has a decent Mongoose ATB with everything you describe and a none-too-bad frame.

Not that I want one. I am very satisified with my motley collection of old steel. But the bar has certainly been raised from when I started.

Now, if the question really is "invest in upgrading the vintage steel" vs. buying a new entry level bike, of course I would upgrade the vintage bike because that's what I like to do. In terms of what you get for your money, it would be a tough choice though, especially if you are new to cycling.

The one caveat - if (and I doubt it would happen) I were to buy a new X-mart bike, I would absolutely take it apart and reassemble correctly. No way I would trust the kid in the store to do it correctly.

exmechanic89

I agree. 30+ lbs is likely.

bulldog1935

If you take the same money and put it into making your steel bike better, 20 years later, you still have a good bike.
I don't think you can say the same about the low-cost aluminum X-mart bike.