Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

What were the bike weights of the Lemond era?

Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

What were the bike weights of the Lemond era?

Old 03-07-13, 03:54 PM
  #26  
datlas 
Beyond Bogus
 
datlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 28,565

Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix

Mentioned: 395 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8747 Post(s)
Liked 127 Times in 78 Posts
Originally Posted by whitemax View Post
Then why have the weights come down so much? Try riding up a 12 mile climb at 6% average incline and I believe you'll find it does make a difference.
As above, it might make the difference of a few seconds on a long climb.

If you are a pro and the difference of seconds matters, fine. For the rest of us, it matters very little.
__________________
Originally Posted by RUOkie View Post
never underestimate the idiocy of BF.
Originally Posted by rjones28 View Post
Addiction is all about class.
Originally Posted by seedsbelize View Post
Better to just stay out of the 41
datlas is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 03:57 PM
  #27  
rangerdavid
Senior Member
 
rangerdavid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Boone, North Carolina
Posts: 5,094

Bikes: 2009 Cannondale CAAD9-6 2014 Trek Domaine 5.9

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by datlas View Post
A few pounds off the bike does not make much of a difference.
I'm calling BS on that one.
rangerdavid is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 04:03 PM
  #28  
mattm
**** that
 
mattm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CALI
Posts: 15,373
Mentioned: 148 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1078 Post(s)
Liked 27 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by IcySmooth52 View Post
Every pro rider blood-dopes these days. That's what changed averages.
not back then?
__________________
cat 1.

my race videos
mattm is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 04:33 PM
  #29  
bikepro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 1,916

Bikes: Look 585

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ferrous Bueller View Post
Sometimes those bikes pretended to be steel, but were actually disguised TVT carbon. Around 18lbs.
1986 -- First Carbon Frame:

http://www.lookcycle.com/en/us/look-cycle/histoire.html
bikepro is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 04:39 PM
  #30  
datlas 
Beyond Bogus
 
datlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 28,565

Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix

Mentioned: 395 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8747 Post(s)
Liked 127 Times in 78 Posts
Originally Posted by rangerdavid View Post
I'm calling BS on that one.
You are kidding, right?
__________________
Originally Posted by RUOkie View Post
never underestimate the idiocy of BF.
Originally Posted by rjones28 View Post
Addiction is all about class.
Originally Posted by seedsbelize View Post
Better to just stay out of the 41
datlas is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 04:39 PM
  #31  
datlas 
Beyond Bogus
 
datlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 28,565

Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix

Mentioned: 395 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8747 Post(s)
Liked 127 Times in 78 Posts
Originally Posted by bikepro View Post
Wrong decade. They had graftek bicycle frames in the 1970's. Too flimsy at the time.
__________________
Originally Posted by RUOkie View Post
never underestimate the idiocy of BF.
Originally Posted by rjones28 View Post
Addiction is all about class.
Originally Posted by seedsbelize View Post
Better to just stay out of the 41
datlas is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 07:46 PM
  #32  
wrote4luck
Senior Member
 
wrote4luck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 577

Bikes: 2008 Cannondale Six 13, 1980 Dawes Super Galaxy

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
19lb average back then. I think the lightest would have been a Columbus Air tubed frame (rare, and somewhat flexy) with drilllium heavy Campy Super Record up to 1985, a 56cm bike with this config with tubulars would probably average 17lbs.) All sorts of ways to skimp back then, just like there are now.
wrote4luck is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 08:51 PM
  #33  
lazerzxr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,204

Bikes: Colnago C59 Italia Di2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rangerdavid View Post
I'm calling BS on that one.
Why, can you tell a huge difference in your bike when the water bottle is full and when it is empty? I can detect a time difference on my local climb (which is about 12km) but it is one of just a handful of seconds. Its not what I call much of a difference and is well within the standard deviation of my times up there anyway.
lazerzxr is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 09:16 PM
  #34  
furballi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 919
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rangerdavid View Post
I'm calling BS on that one.
Average bike and rider is ~180 lbs. Shave 4 lbs off the bike and the mass goes down by 2.2%. That's well with the nominal tolerances of many scientific laboratory experiments. People are obsessed with 4 lbs but then they carry an extra water bottle and fail to take bathroom breaks, which could shave at least 2 lbs.

Also remember that energy is conserved. One the way down, the potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy. Therefore, the 4 lbs advantage on the way up will be partially negated on the way down.
furballi is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 09:25 PM
  #35  
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I was racing back then. A typical racing bike was about 22 pounds. It has always been possible to go extra light, however. There was a builder of titanium frames in Italy (the name was Trecia, IIRC), for example, who argued that a bicycle should weigh 10% of the rider's body weight. He was making reliable 15 pound bicycles. I don't believe any of them were used to destroy opponents in mountain stages of the Tour. Klein was adverting very light bikes as well. I remember a magazine testing their top model and weighing it at 16.9 pounds. There were several others; if you had the money it was simple enough to get one.

The same was true well before I was born. Rene Vietto, a champion in the pre-war era, had special 17 pound aluminum bikes made for him and his top domestique for the 1948 Tour. He finished nearly two hours behind Gino Bartali, who used a typical-for-the-day 23 pound steel bike.

Essentially, once thinwall butted steel tubing became standard in about 1940, bicycle weights did not change significantly until the carbon era arrived in the 90s. Fausto's Bianchi weighed 22 pounds, just like LeMond's Gitane (and Hampsten's Landshark). Yet the average speed of the TdF improved by an average of about .75 MPH per decade - a trend which seems to be continuing even today. So it seems to me that while lighter is preferable, it doesn't really affect the outcome of big races.
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 11:34 PM
  #36  
oldbobcat
Senior Member
 
oldbobcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Boulder County, CO
Posts: 2,966

Bikes: '79 Gios, '80 Masi, '06 Felt, early '60s Frejus

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
I was racing back then. A typical racing bike was about 22 pounds.
Winning, the US monthly of continental pro racing in the '80s, wrote a feature on the Renault-Elf Gitanes used by Hinault, LeMond, Fignon, and the rest. These were not light bikes. I modeled the build of my Gios on these bikes and ended up with a bike that was just a whisker under 22 lbs.

The article didn't go into the frames, but they were pretty much the state of the art in steel for the time--most likely Columbus SL and SP, depending on the size. The gruppo was full Campagnolo Super Record, with steel spindles in the BB and pedals. Wheels had Mavic GP4 rims (400-425g), 32 spokes, 2.0 mm, and Vittoria cotton tubulars (250-280g, depending on the road. Saddles had steel rails--reasonably priced consumer-grade titanium did not become available until the breakup of the Soviet Union. Handlebars were Cinelli, usually Mod 63 or 66, with 1R or 1A stems. Bottle cages were steel. These bikes were built with the primary objective of finishing the race intact. The only concessions to lightness occurred for the time trials when 24- or 28-spoke wheels were substituted. The cool thing about this period was being able to build a pro-grade bike for $13-1600.

Toward the end of Greg's career bikes were getting lighter, mainly with aluminum and thinner-walled steel frames. Also, the titanium finishing bits were starting to come around.
oldbobcat is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 11:38 PM
  #37  
marqueemoon
or tarckeemoon, depending
 
marqueemoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the pesto of cities
Posts: 7,020

Bikes: Davidson Impulse, Merckx Titanium AX, Bruce Gordon Rock & Road, Cross Check custom build, On-One Il Pomino, Shawver Cycles cross, Zion 737, Mercian Vincitore, Brompton S1L, Charge Juicer

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by whitemax View Post
The wheels of course weren't nearly the quality they are today either.
Nah.

Back in olden tymes nobody gave a damn if Joe Consumer could buy what the pros raced and team mechanics built a lot of wheels.
marqueemoon is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 11:59 PM
  #38  
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
For some reason, some folks seem to think that lightweight is a recent invention. Wheels, for instance... It seems to me that many of us are riding heavier wheels now than were common a few decades ago. The aero carbon rims, for instance, seem to typically weigh in the 400 gram range. But 330 gram rims were commonly raced in my day, and before my time the Scheeren rims were popular at 280 grams. I honestly don't know if heavy aero rims are faster than light box section rims. But then, I doubt that today's ceramic bearings roll nearly as well as the bearings of a few decades ago, because the ceramics are so heavily shielded that it takes two fingers to turn the axle. Which is another thread, I guess...
Six jours is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 05:51 AM
  #39  
Sidney Porter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I a missing what different people are arguing about, the links gave the weight of the different tour winners and we say 18-22 until carbon dropped it into the 15 range category. To say weight doesn't matter is I assume that they are saying a 22 lb = a 15 lb bike. Well sure in a saturday group ride it is going to come down to the engine. The 22 year old on the entry level AL bike is going to beat the 40 year old over weight accountant on the $7000 15 lb bike. But if we are talking pro riders they are all in shape and they are all using similar technology and weight. It does matter to them you are not going to see a pro team roll out 22 lb bikes because that is what use to win.
Sidney Porter is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 06:50 AM
  #40  
Trsnrtr
Super Moderator
 
Trsnrtr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 16,930

Bikes: Giant Propel, Gianni Motta, Co-Motion Supremo, ICE VTX

Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6264 Post(s)
Liked 83 Times in 57 Posts
Originally Posted by Cat4Lifer View Post
My 54 c-c Scapin, bought in 1990, equiped with Ultegra 7- speed, Mavic Open 4 CD 32-hole rims was around 21 - 22 pounds. I read that Hampsten's '88 7-Eleven bike weighed about 19.69lb, without pedals.
I'd go with that. My 1985 53cm Gianni Motta with tubular wheels and Super Record ran about 20.5# with pedals.
__________________
Dennis T

Trsnrtr is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 08:10 AM
  #41  
waterrockets 
Making a kilometer blurry
 
waterrockets's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Austin (near TX)
Posts: 26,124

Bikes: rkwaki's porn collection

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sidney Porter View Post
The 22 year old on the entry level AL bike is going to beat the 40 year old over weight accountant on the $7000 15 lb bike.
That depends... I've won plenty of races against the college kids, and I'm too fat for this sport like the rest of us, and on heavier bikes...

I'm an engineer though, not an accountant. Maybe that's the difference.
waterrockets is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 08:53 AM
  #42  
eippo1 
I like beans
 
eippo1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Meffa, MA
Posts: 3,353

Bikes: Tarmac Pro, Bianchi Zurigo, Raleigh Gran Sport, Fuji Del Rey, Ironman Centurion

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'll let you know when I build up my Della Santa.
__________________
You got it buddy: the large print giveth, and the small print taketh away

2009 Dean El Diente Superlite
2011 Bianchi Zurigo CX
2005 Specialized Sworks E5 "Calamity"
2007 Fuji Thrill LT1.0
199? Tommasini ? (pending build)
2001 Della Santa
eippo1 is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 09:11 AM
  #43  
eja_ bottecchia
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,382
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 777 Post(s)
Liked 137 Times in 99 Posts
My 1989 Bottecchia, with Columbus SLX steel, came in at around 20 pounds.
eja_ bottecchia is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 09:12 AM
  #44  
merlinextraligh
pan y agua
 
merlinextraligh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 30,372

Bikes: Wilier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Co-Motion Robusta; Schwinn Paramount; Motobecane Phantom Cross; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Calfee Dragonfly Tandem

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 903 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by furballi View Post
Also remember that energy is conserved. One the way down, the potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy. Therefore, the 4 lbs advantage on the way up will be partially negated on the way down.
Incorrect.

Because wind resistance is a squared function of speed, while that potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy, it's dissipated fighting the increased wind resistance.

So you don't get back in speed on the descent what you lost on the ascent.

Setting aside, that it doesn't much matter if you got dropped on the ascent, or it's a mountain top finish.
__________________
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
merlinextraligh is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 01:21 PM
  #45  
furballi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 919
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh View Post
Incorrect.

Because wind resistance is a squared function of speed, while that potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy, it's dissipated fighting the increased wind resistance.

So you don't get back in speed on the descent what you lost on the ascent.

Setting aside, that it doesn't much matter if you got dropped on the ascent, or it's a mountain top finish.
Go back and re-read my post. I said "the 4 lbs advantage on the way up will be partially negated on the way down". Partially is NOT fully. The potetial energy is mass x gravity x height of climb. If the mass increase is only 2%, then the PE will also increase by 2%...a rather small amount compared to the height of the climb.

For a very steep hill, most of the energy is spent raising the bike and rider to a higher elevation. A small drop of 4 lbs does not significantly alter the potential energy the equation.

Last edited by furballi; 03-08-13 at 01:26 PM.
furballi is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 04:19 PM
  #46  
wheelreason
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 689
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
19-20 lbs, the difference between tubulars and clinchers was more pronounced, and accounted for quite a bit of the difference, steel frames didn't really vary in weight much. My 53 cm Masi Prestige w D-Ace (Record crank) and GL 330s was just under 20. Smoothest bike ever.
wheelreason is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 04:21 PM
  #47  
ultraman6970
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I had a Z-team replica and that thing was darn heavy compared with today's standards.
ultraman6970 is offline  
Old 03-08-13, 05:18 PM
  #48  
JohnDThompson 
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 20,467

Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.

Mentioned: 113 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1731 Post(s)
Liked 80 Times in 57 Posts
Originally Posted by whitemax View Post
That's what I would guess but I haven't read it anywhere so I thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyones knows. That begs the question of how fast those guys could have ridden in the mountains with bikes as light as they are today.
Hmmm, maybe it's not the weight of the bike:

"This analysis examined whether changes in the speed of major cycling races reflect recent anti-doping efforts. Average speeds of 5 (th) place finishers of the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, and Vuelta a España cycling races were obtained for the period 1990-2009. Between 1990 and 2004, the average speed had been increasing by 0.16 km/h per year (p<0.001). In a downturn, since 2004, the average speed has decreased by 0.22 km/h per year (p=0.031). The slowing down of professional cycling races is compatible with the hypothesis that recent anti-doping efforts in professional cycling have curbed the use of performance-enhancing substances."

http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/spee...-mean-cleaner/
JohnDThompson is offline  
Old 03-11-13, 05:19 AM
  #49  
Ice41000
Senior Member
 
Ice41000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson View Post
Hmmm, maybe it's not the weight of the bike:

"This analysis examined whether changes in the speed of major cycling races reflect recent anti-doping efforts. Average speeds of 5 (th) place finishers of the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, and Vuelta a España cycling races were obtained for the period 1990-2009. Between 1990 and 2004, the average speed had been increasing by 0.16 km/h per year (p<0.001). In a downturn, since 2004, the average speed has decreased by 0.22 km/h per year (p=0.031). The slowing down of professional cycling races is compatible with the hypothesis that recent anti-doping efforts in professional cycling have curbed the use of performance-enhancing substances."

http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/spee...-mean-cleaner/
Orrrr..... global warming caused more winds and that changed av. speeds.
Or race tactics. Or route differences. Or races being raced by different people.
Or all of the above.

Average speed is useless in comparing races nad even more in making conclusions about doping.
Ice41000 is offline  
Old 03-11-13, 07:06 AM
  #50  
merlinextraligh
pan y agua
 
merlinextraligh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 30,372

Bikes: Wilier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Co-Motion Robusta; Schwinn Paramount; Motobecane Phantom Cross; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Calfee Dragonfly Tandem

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 903 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by furballi View Post
Go back and re-read my post. I said "the 4 lbs advantage on the way up will be partially negated on the way down". Partially is NOT fully. The potetial energy is mass x gravity x height of climb. If the mass increase is only 2%, then the PE will also increase by 2%...a rather small amount compared to the height of the climb.

For a very steep hill, most of the energy is spent raising the bike and rider to a higher elevation. A small drop of 4 lbs does not significantly alter the potential energy the equation.
Your argument was that weight doesn't matter, in part because you recover part of what you lost on the decent.

The problem with your argument, is that any slight speed advantage on the descent is overwhelmed by the loss of speed on the ascent, 1) because of the squared function of wind resistance, which I already alluded to, and 2) the math of the time lost, i.e. you spend more time climbing than descending and never make up the time.

Hence your premise that weight doesn't matter because you get a portion of the loss back on the descent doesn't hold water.
__________________
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
merlinextraligh is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.