Can some one point me to that thread where people put up pics of their lightest C&V bike along with the weights...

I'm trying to educate my bro in law...Mr. Carbon Aluminum... he's sceptical of the lightness of steel

TIA

andy

Andy,

He'll never believe you, anyway.

Just nod and continue to exude an air of superiority.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...hlight=weenies

Haha!!

Thankyou!!

What is the lightness of steel?

He just has this notion that all steel frame bikes must be heavy i guess.... was trying to show him the "light"

andy

It would depend on his idea of light. An average weight of a high end lugged steel vintage racing frame/fork with a ready to ride, but minimal build (no seat bag, pump, cheap tubes, or boat anchor wheels) is around 20-21 pounds. High nineteens, if the build used some of the lighter parts of the day or the frame was lighter than most. The same frameset built with current high end parts would be around the low 19's. With top of the line, but not necessarily weight weenie parts, (SR11, Deda/3T cockpit/post, higher end wheels), you would likely be in the mid 18's. To get a 17 pound bike you would want good full CF threadless fork, and would have done well to use a light frame to start with. Any lower than 17 pounds (and likely well before that point) and you would have to be seriously counting your grams. That's not cheap.

In contrast, there are few models of CF frame available right now that you could build up the high 14's with fairly common, middle of the road parts, and no serious weight weenie garb, for less than It will cost you to build the high end 18 pound steelie. That's a big difference, especially in cost.

Here's a thread that might interest you in your study:

https://weightweenies.starbike.com/fo...hp?f=10&t=8627

Keep in mind that many of lower weights listed are in regards to custom modern fillet brazed (ie lugless) frames.

When you're not racing around the countryside for big$$ &/or world recognition, it gets to the point of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
For most if not all of us that aren't professional racers, the cheapest way to go faster is to get in better shape. I'm a long way from ditching my 25lb. steel bikes in an effort to shorten my commute times; my first priority would be to seek solutions to obstacles (e.g. weather, schedule) that keep me from commuting on a given day (hence getting more fit). I know this doesn't exactly addres the OP; but I really do question this weight weenie stuff for the vast majority of us, except as a status/bragging topic.

^^ Same here. By the time I finish losing the last of my "that time that I died" weight I'll be riding 3 or 5 pound bikes. While lighter is nicer, everything but the wheelset is pretty much irrelevant unless you're going up a hill... which, in Virginia, he may be I suppose. It may be easier to convince him that he doesn't really NEED the lightest bike there is. I still don't understand why people don't "train" on a 50 pound Schwinn.

Because it isn't fun.

Who says? It is when you are beating the Lycra shorts off of everyone on a descent and you are topping 50mph and they are lucky to nudge 40mph.

Couldn't be more rewarding!

Being overly concerned about the weight differences between steel and other materials is, in my view, missing the point.

If i can chase down a guy hunched over his $5k tri-bike & catch him, I figure the weight of my vintage bike is not that important. I just love doing that!

It's all about the engine.

Long have I listened to the lament of lightness. And often has that lament been powered by good old imagination, often time, run a muck. With that in mind, I now weigh every bicycle I offer for sale or write about in MY "TEN SPEEDS". If anyone is interested in actual weights of vintage road bicycles, please visit

And the one thing you will notice, the lightest bike is not steel.

It's the inverse of its density, but you have to factor in the density of the rider. Especially dense riders often get it wrong.

Eloquent, sir.

The color twelve, or the Buddha nature of a pie tin.

I have a 20 year old Waterford Paramount. I've replaced the fork with CF, the threaded headset with threadless, and have Kysrium wheels. But it weighs 18.2 lbs with cages and SPD-SL pedals.

Get what wrong, exactly?

The Unbearable Lightness of Steel...

I just lifted up a CF bike yesterday and couldn't believe how light it was. Let's face it, they are definitely lighter, by quite a bit. But ol' retro-nerd here is still happy with steel.

I think some of the people (not referring to you, kroozer, btw) who replied to my original post may have thought i was debating with my BIL over steel being lighter than those OTHER materials... i wasn't. Just wanted to show him that there are some 17# steelies out there and of course that is very rare and expensive...

The quality of the ride and the uniqueness of having a bike over 5 years old with DT shifters, more than makes up for a few pounds of additional weight. IMHO

Steel bikes , IMO, ride better, look cooler and are alot more fun too look at and talk about.

andy

Just for the record, I understood what you were asking initially. I was trying to quantify what your idea of a light bike was. For many, 17 pounds is sort of the upper limit what they think an especially light bike is. I like steel bikes quite a bit, myself.