Comparable steel weights?
 

Kind of a broad question, but I'm curious. What's the average weight of an average sized 531 frame vs. columbus slx vs. chro-moly vs. tange, etc.? Not gas-pipe, obviously. Are we talking as much as a pound or more, or more like a quarter of a pound?

I'd like to build up a nice steelie for weekend rides, so I'd like to able to target something close to 20 pounds build weight. If it were just a commuter, like my Specialized Sirrus, then I wouldn't bother as much with weight.

Is it more of a question of size and gauge when it comes to weight? Is it more about the ride quality from one steel tubing to another? I mean, steel is generally steel, but I'm wondering if I should drop 5 or 6 hundred on a Merckx frame, or are there some nice frames in the 100 to 200 range that would satisfy this itch?

I would probably build it up with modern stuff, Campy Centaur, decent wheels, etc. But nothing like carbon bars or carbon railed seats made from kangaroo leather or anything like that.

Oh and I'm posting here because it will most likely be older steel. I'd like to stick to classic styled, lugged bikes.

6#

Here's some data points from Columbus steel you can use for comparison http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html, and subjective input for part of your ride quality question.

Yes, there are low priced steel frames with good ride quality; I have one.

Good luck with the 20lb target without carbon or an exotic light weight item or two.

suprisingly we are talking ounces and grams indifferences between 'quality' frames. I used to get teased about how heavy my Max was. in reality the difference was simply my 36hole MA40s. with nice tubulars it was comperable to the smaller geurciottis and Rossins in the crowd.

I don't think going for a super light sub 20lb steel bike wil give you what your looking for. if you want a bike to ride smooth and turn heads build a nice SL ot full 531 frame with some old 36hole tubulars.

if you want something under 20lbs stick with your carbon frame, wheels, crank, seatpin and bars

20lbs. should be easy. Even my Ritchey Breakaway cyclocross bike is only 20 lbs. and it has HEAVY mavic aksium wheels. . And this is not a terribly light frame and has the weight penalty of it's two-part construction.

20lbs is possible with light wheels and light-ish components, assuming the frame isn't a tank. I don't think either of my bikes are much heavier than that and I didn't really attempt to keep them light, I just used quality parts where I could.

I got sick and tired, of never being able to find that incredibly light vintage road bicycle, that lots of people remember owning, when they were younger. You remember, the bike you could pick up with your tongue. Horse hooey!

I weight all of my bicycles, these days, and I get at least a hundred vintage road bicycles each year. Rare, and I mean bloody rare, is it that I run across a vintage bicycle that comes in under the twenty pound mark. The only two I have owned were both aluminum, a Vitus and an ALAN. Have a look at my page on Bicycle Weights so that you can get an idea of what a really good vintage road bicycle does weigh. And stop listening to all of the Bull about how incredibly light old bicycles were.

You have been given good advice. Forget the twenty pound mark. It will be expensive to achieve. And, for what this is worth, when working on my Vitus, I had to be really careful with bolt torques. A wee bit too much torque, and there goes a crank ring bolt, or some other aluminum fitting that was so light that it was actually weak.

Just an old fella's opinion.

Wow that question was the exact one I have had since I started searching for my first "real" not entry level road bike.

What can some of you people say about how each feels? Not subjective like this is good that is bad, but rather more objective observations such as say hardness or softness of the ride.

Maybe for another thread, but I have wondered what a lightweight classic parts list would consist of, e.g., Jubilee, Gel 280s, etc, and how light one could put together a bike with a good quality classic lugged frame and NO BROOKS :-)

This thread is completely uninteresting because:
1. It's starts with weight weenieism, which has been done already, since time immemorial in cycling. Go look it up.
2. It proceeds with "how does X tubing 'feel' compared to Y and Z?" which is a topic with so many variables, so few facts, and based so much on utter subjectivity that it's meaningless.
3. Most of all, there are no pictures!

Both of my recent builds (Batavus Pro and Titan Thron) came in at exactly 21#. The Batavus is SLX and the Titan is, well, Thron. The Titan has a full threadless CF fork and similar components (when weighed)...so I assume there is a decent difference (.5#+) in the frames...both are 59/57.

The Gilmour I just finished feels slightly lighter...we shall see...I highly doubt it would break 20 though.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=181694http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=181695http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=181696

This old fella agrees 100%.

I just disassembled a 54cm 1972 LeJeune Tour De France/F-5 Deluxe Touring model. This was a lower to mid level offering from LeJeune. It has SAUVAGE "Alliage" tubing instead of Columbus or Reynolds 531. The bike weighed 30lbs before I stripped it down. The components were steel cottered crankset, Mafic Racer brakes, Simplex Presitge derailleurs, Normandy hubs and steel wheels.

Stripped down, the fork weighs 1.75lbs and the frame only is 5.5lbs. If you compare that to the habcycles article above that is about 1lb more than the least expensive frame/fork and less than 2 over the most expensive. Stating nothing about the quality of the article's frames or mine, the components are where you will save weight.

Buuuuttt, ....if you are looking for a head turner that will cause rubbernecking, then dump the modernization plan and take Bianchigirll's advise instead.

I think it is hilarious that people who know nothing about bikes always use the "you can lift it with a finger" as a measure of quality.

a guy at work had his latest uber light carbone something or other in to show off. one of the other guys immediatly grabbed it by the TT and hefted it. something in his head made him decide it was a 'good' bike weird

20 lbs??? Maybe a fixed or single speed, which eliminates most of the components :twitchy:

My Merckx (57cm not sure on the tubing) is 19lbs 15oz with mostly 9 speed Dura Ace. My Duel (58cm believe it is Brain) is 20lbs 5oz with 10 speed Centaur. My Puch (58cm SLX) weighs 20lbs 13oz with Chorus and Veloce and pretty hefty wheels. You can see all three in the link in my signature below.
None of these have any real weight weenie parts except the saddle. I could get them all under 20lbs with some different wheels.
I am building up an 853 frame with threadless carbon fork right now. Veloce/Centaur mix and I believe it will come in at about 19.5lbs

Jake

I've got modern 10-speed Campy carbon derailleurs and crank on my International, and it's not even close to 20#. I can't imagine you could even get under 20# unless you left off the seat and handlebars, especially with vintage parts.

Maybe those faded memories were of drillium bikes?

Wow, thanks Jake. This is what I was kind of looking for.

Geez, I should have known better than to mention weight in the C&V forum. Did I say under 20 pounds? No, I said around 20 pounds. I've done a little footwork on the subject. My carbon Roubaix weighs a good 20 lbs. It has standard 2006 105 drivetrain and wheels and an FSA carbon crank. Nothing too fancy.

My Sirrus weighs like 24.5 pounds, but that's with some hefty wheels and a comfort saddle. I'm sure with a different alloy seat, seatpost and lighter rims, I could knock off nearly 1 pound plus. And the simplicity of the 80's era 105 stuff is decently light by even todays standards for a groupset. But this is my commuter bike, so I want to more or less leave it as is. It lives with a 5 pound rack+bag combo anyhow.

A reasonably good frame, like a Merckx, with decent wheels and the 09 Centaur stuff (As I mentioned in my previous post. Not looking for a straight 20 pound vintage bike, here) should produce a decently light bike. No, not an 18 pounder, but somewhere around the 20 pound mark. This is all I asked.

Not to dismiss all the other great advice in this thread. I agree that if you're looking for something well under 20 pounds, you're not going to do it "on the cheap" with steel. I agree that chasing some elusive 18 or 19 pound steel build for less than a grand is asking a bit much and would also advise against such a pursuit.


Anyhow, with that said, what are some other brands/frames that might come in at around this 6# number for frame+fork combo that might be out there for less than a more desirable frame a la Merckx or De Rosa?

True enough and many people, perhaps me included, assumed that close includes under the twenty pound mark. That said, take another look at the weights of my vintage bicycles. How many do you see that tip the scale at less than 21 pounds? Or 22 pounds?

And, in defense of the weight weenies, it is thanks to them that we have seen the bicycle blossom, in part, into what it is today. A mechanical marvel that is constantly bombarded with creative people seeking ways to make the tool better. If lighter is better, so be it. And, as a retired millwright, or industrial mechanic, a light tool is much nicer to handle than a heavy one. Hour after hour, or, mile after mile.

Yeah, I guess the better question is what frame+fork combos in the 6 lb range can be had for a decent price. The build details will be up to me in the end. I'm definitely not looking to scan CL and pick up some magical 20 pound vintage bike for 2-400 bones. That's just silly talk. Especially in North Texas.

OK... Just weighed the Gilmour...as pictured in previous post...still sans tape...19.12#...nice riding, light feeling bike...obviously a little less cush than some others at this weight/tubing choices. Bike will lose a slight bit more weight when the rear wheel is either re-laced with cx-rays or switched to a matching Nucleon.

FWIW...

As I just posted a moment ago in another thread, my 56cm Park Pre with Tange Prestige II weighs in at 4.27 lbs. for the frame, 5.62 lbs. with Tange Fusion fork (original to frame).

http://i850.photobucket.com/albums/a...e/IMG_1694.jpg

I'm far from a vintage expert, but I think old Japanese frames and bikes are often undervalued. A non-collectible mark can be had cheap on CL. My Nishiki has an SL frame. 62cm, with clinchers and a Brooks, it's 23 pounds, which is fine with me. It came with a mix of Superbe and NR components, only needed tires, and only cost $140, from CL.

The 2 pounds between 20 and 22 are some of the most glaring & expensive in steel cycling.
Mark Allen once said it was a lot easier and cheaper to lose 2 lbs than shave it off the bike.

I'm like Jake; having "made it" sporadically under 20, and only with one steel Ironman.

With me, it's always the package: wheels/group/saddle, etc. I've added back weight with steel forks after trying CF replacements.

I'm faster in short TT's with my 16-lb Kestrel, but anything over 25 miles, hectic-paced, I'm the same on any of my bikes.

Miss enough shifts, it stops mattering.

As far as bikes go, though, I lighten up via 1) Wheelset 2) Crankset 3) Calipers/RD, and 4) Saddle.

On 3 of my bikes, the difference between 20 and over is the pedals, but I like old Looks.

+1 to Randy and Grand...my Merckx is Reynolds 753...which is among the lightest lugged tubesets made (maybe the lightest?). It was ridden professionally in the Tour de France. Current weight is 23.5 pounds and I doubt it was much under 20 when it was raced. People seriously exagerate vintage bike weights.

My Merlin butted ti with 9sp Dura Ace isn't much under 20 lbs. I think I last weighed it at 18.9. Granted tubulars would shave it further.