Chrome vs. Paint
 

So the question has come up among my co-workers as I've talked about chrome bikes regarding weight.

I've assumed that the chrome on a bike is able to be applied much thinner than paint and clear coat. Is there a difference in the weight between the two?

(i know that some bikes where fully chromed, then painted underneath. some high end bikes are done this way. so i'm assuming the weight isn't a problem.)

I mostly ask this to settle the argument going on in my office.

Chromed bikes are heavier.

...but the difference is negligible compared to just about anything else.

in my head the sheer volume of paint required for the finish might add up enough to equal the weight of the thinner coating of chrome.

I know when i've finished guitars the weight seems to double.

Richard Schwinn, in his Paramount history section of the Waterford website, says this about chrome plated frame weight:

"During the 60's, Schwinn began chroming the dropout and fork tips of all road Paramounts. For an extra charge, riders could order a fully chrome plated Paramount. Plating wasn't favored by the racers since plated bikes weighed more than painted bikes."

surface area x density of plating material(s) x thickness of plating

Don't forget the copper plating under the chrome.

You must have mis-typed here. The paint goes over the plated layers, not "underneath".

yes. typo near the end of work. hopefully it's excusable.

The layers are so thin that the overall weight increase is negligable.

OK, line up two identical bikes, one painted, one chrome.

Get two riders who weigh identical amounts, and put one on each bike.

Tell the one on the painted bike to spit.

Now they weigh the same.

The person riding the bike that is totally chromed, and then painted is going to win, just for the psych factor of having the “deluxe” finish. It's like wearing Yankees pinstripes. My lightest bike frame is fully chromed and then main triangle and head tube painted. Chrome is, it must be said, an environmental scourge.

I think chrome plated bike is faster because chrome is more aerodynamic!:p

By my guesstimation the chrome plating weighs on the order of one ounce.

Weight weenies!:p

Chrome is lighter than most paint, excepting white maybe.

Dam, half my bikes are white. I'm screwed.

Regardless of the weight issue, the real problem with chrome is hydrogen embrittlement, if not done properly. It's not the sort of thing you want on a thin walled tube.

Spit twice, you'll be even.

You know this is why so many times just the lugs were chromed. Engineers can't come to a decision.

Didn't the Falcon forks have a problem with that, or was it something else?

Well, I did have a buddy who broke his Falcon in the middle of the down tube and it was completely chromed. In my experience, most frame failures, outside of abuse, involve chrome plating. Hydrogen embrittlement can be relieved by baking but it's a bit of a black art. There's disagreement over the temperature, duration and how quickly it should be implemented after plating. I was involved in Quality Engineering for some military contracts and even the military specs weren't convinced it completely alleviated the problem. It's just the sort of thing that can cause serious batch problems in a poorly controlled manufacturing environment. Given the amount of chrome plating on vintage bicycles and the differences in opinion over the baking control, I 'd be surprised if there was a vintage brand that hadn't experienced hydrogen embrittlement failures.

Back off, sucka! I resemble that remark!

The decision was made a long time ago - paint is the way to go.

I don't think I've ever heard of a chrome fork failure.

See.... that's the problem with you engineers. Taking the easy way out. Us architects want a pretty chrome bike. A good engineer would've found a solution by now. (I say this in jest, I could've/should've been an engineer. i didn't like homework. have no problems with engineers. do however like chrome bikes.)