How Heavy is Your Bike?

Was wondering what the ultimate in light weight (probably
road bike) is these days. Are they under 18 pounds or so
now, with the carbon materials? How light is the ultimate
light weight bike? (How much money??)

And how heavy is your bike?

I have four with the lightest one a mostly stock Trek 2000
at perhaps 22 pounds as set up. Mike J probably knows their
stock weight.

But weight isn't much of a factor for me, and my touring
bike is probably a 35 pounder as set up for daily commuting
(can be an 80 pounder for touring).

I have a new Raleigh MTB (Mojave 5.0) that despite its AL
frame, has got to weigh in around 40 pounds with "my stuff"
on it. Not certain why it is so heavy; cheap front suspension
fork? Chinese made tubing with 1/4 inch thick walls; 2.2"
tires??!!! I understand as far as MTBs go, it's not considered
especially heavy in stock form (just seems so to a roadie I
guess).

Whatever, it's my rainy day commuter, MTB and winter standard
commuter and the heavy-weight of my bike stable as I have it
set up.

So...stock versus service weight for me:

Trek 2000 about 21 pounds (??) probably 25 lbs
Trek 520 26 pounds 35-80 lbs
Raleigh MTB about 30 lbs (??) about 40 lbs
Trek 7000 MTB about 25 lbs (??) about 30 lbs

SMH

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:41:27 GMT, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Was wondering what the ultimate in light weight (probably
road bike) is these days. Are they under 18 pounds or so
now, with the carbon materials? How light is the ultimate
light weight bike? (How much money??)

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/

How light is your bike?

Habanero titanium, Campy Chorus, Neuvation wheels, Forte/Look pedals =
17.9 lbs.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:41:27 GMT, Stephen Harding
wrote:

And how heavy is your bike?

2008 Trek Madone 6.9 (60cm) 7.7 kg including pump, bottle cage and
stocked saddle bag.
never weighed the others:
2004 Giant OCR 0, heavier again
2006 Hilbrick Pista (Track) with Road bars and front brake, heavier
again
1988 Custom Reynolds 531 Tourer, the heaviest but still not THAT heavy

Currently I race the Madone and commute on the Tourer.
--
Andre ==================== Speed Thrills!

On Jul 5, 7:41 am, Stephen Harding wrote:
Was wondering what the ultimate in light weight (probably
road bike) is these days. Are they under 18 pounds or so
now, with the carbon materials? How light is the ultimate
light weight bike? (How much money??)

And how heavy is your bike?

I have four with the lightest one a mostly stock Trek 2000
at perhaps 22 pounds as set up. Mike J probably knows their
stock weight.

But weight isn't much of a factor for me, and my touring
bike is probably a 35 pounder as set up for daily commuting
(can be an 80 pounder for touring).

I have a new Raleigh MTB (Mojave 5.0) that despite its AL
frame, has got to weigh in around 40 pounds with "my stuff"
on it. Not certain why it is so heavy; cheap front suspension
fork? Chinese made tubing with 1/4 inch thick walls; 2.2"
tires??!!! I understand as far as MTBs go, it's not considered
especially heavy in stock form (just seems so to a roadie I
guess).

Whatever, it's my rainy day commuter, MTB and winter standard
commuter and the heavy-weight of my bike stable as I have it
set up.

So...stock versus service weight for me:

Trek 2000 about 21 pounds (??) probably 25 lbs
Trek 520 26 pounds 35-80 lbs
Raleigh MTB about 30 lbs (??) about 40 lbs
Trek 7000 MTB about 25 lbs (??) about 30 lbs

SMH

the new bikes are way lighter. now the limit is 14.2 lb and any new
high end bike could break that mark easily with wheels upgrades.
i have a carbon giant tcr advance with toolino wheels at 15.2 lb
a vintage masi 3v volumetrica, at 19 lb
a full suspension rocky mountain in the 32 lb
bikingthings.com

On Jul 5, 8:16*am, wrote:
On Jul 5, 7:41 am, Stephen Harding wrote:





Was wondering what the ultimate in light weight (probably
road bike) is these days. *Are they under 18 pounds or so
now, with the carbon materials? *How light is the ultimate
light weight bike? *(How much money??)

And how heavy is your bike?

I have four with the lightest one a mostly stock Trek 2000
at perhaps 22 pounds as set up. *Mike J probably knows their
stock weight.

But weight isn't much of a factor for me, and my touring
bike is probably a 35 pounder as set up for daily commuting
(can be an 80 pounder for touring).

I have a new Raleigh MTB (Mojave 5.0) that despite its AL
frame, has got to weigh in around 40 pounds with "my stuff"
on it. *Not certain why it is so heavy; cheap front suspension
fork? *Chinese made tubing with 1/4 inch thick walls; 2.2"
tires??!!! *I understand as far as MTBs go, it's not considered
especially heavy in stock form (just seems so to a roadie I
guess).

Whatever, it's my rainy day commuter, MTB and winter standard
commuter and the heavy-weight of my bike stable as I have it
set up.

So...stock versus service weight for me:

* * Trek 2000 * * about 21 pounds (??) * probably 25 lbs
* * Trek 520 * * *26 pounds * * * * * * *35-80 lbs
* * Raleigh MTB * about 30 lbs (??) * * *about 40 lbs
* * Trek 7000 MTB about 25 lbs (??) * * *about 30 lbs

SMH

the new bikes are way lighter. now the limit is 14.2 lb and any new
high end bike could break that mark easily with wheels upgrades.
i have a carbon giant tcr advance with toolino wheels at 15.2 lb
a vintage masi 3v volumetrica, at 19 lb
a full suspension rocky mountain in the 32 lb
bikingthings.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Any new high-end bike" could EASILY be under 14.2 pounds?!? No
freaking way. Saw a custom Serotta with D-A tubeless wheelset on
yesterday's ride and it weighed over 15 pounds. (Maybe even over
16.) Absolutely gorgeous bike, easily $10K, but nowhere near 14.2
pounds.

Bill "boat anchor Madone SL (doubt it's under 17)" S.

On Jul 5, 6:41*am, Stephen Harding wrote:
Was wondering what the ultimate in light weight (probably
road bike) is these days. *Are they under 18 pounds or so
now, with the carbon materials? *How light is the ultimate
light weight bike? *(How much money??)

[snip]

Dear Stephen,

An email pointed out your thread and asked me if I had posted
something about a light bicycle:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...d9776b77581c96

That's a rideable steel bicycle from 1895 with 28-inch wheels,
weighing eight pounds, fourteen ounces (about 4,034 grams).

Solid rubber tires and the huge front wheel made it hard for
highwheelers to achieve such anorexia, but 52-inch production models
managed to sneak under 12 pounds:

http://i30.tinypic.com/w1v7ft.jpg

--p. 25 "Bicycles & Tricycles of the Year: 1889," Harry Hewitt Griffin

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Jul 5, 2:18*pm, wrote:
On Jul 5, 6:41*am, Stephen Harding wrote:

Was wondering what the ultimate in light weight (probably
road bike) is these days. *Are they under 18 pounds or so
now, with the carbon materials? *How light is the ultimate
light weight bike? *(How much money??)

[snip]

Dear Stephen,

An email pointed out your thread and asked me if I had posted
something about a light bicycle:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...d9776b77581c96

That's a rideable steel bicycle from 1895 with 28-inch wheels,
weighing eight pounds, fourteen ounces (about 4,034 grams).


The description of that bike says it was made from
0.016" thick steel tubing, presumably straight gauge
(I'm not even sure butted tubing existed yet then).
That is 0.4mm wall thickness,

To my knowledge, the lightest gauge tubeset that
was regularly available from in the classic-steel-frame
cro-moly era (1970s until now) was 0.7/0.4mm butted,
and this was regarded as a very specialized set for
lightweight riders on occasional-use competition frames.
0.8/0.5mm or 0.9/0.6mm would be much more common.

Even now, True Temper OX Platinum, which is one of
the highest strength air hardening steels that is used
for bicycles, comes in 0.7/0.4mm tubing at a minimum:
http://www.henryjames.com/butt.html

Steel tube in 1895 would have been lower strength and
they probably didn't know as much about minimizing
heat affected zones at the joints.

In other words, I doubt there is anything magic about
the weight of such a frame. I just expect it would not
have lasted very long in use, especially on roads of 1895.
"Light, strong, cheap: pick any two" - Keith Bontrager.

Ben

On Jul 5, 5:07*pm, "
wrote:

The description of that bike says it was made from
0.016" thick steel tubing, presumably straight gauge
(I'm not even sure butted tubing existed yet then).
That is 0.4mm wall thickness,

To my knowledge, the lightest gauge tubeset that
was regularly available from in the classic-steel-frame
cro-moly era (1970s until now) was 0.7/0.4mm butted,
and this was regarded as a very specialized set for
lightweight riders on occasional-use competition frames.

Even now, True Temper OX Platinum, which is one of
the highest strength air hardening steels that is used
for bicycles, comes in 0.7/0.4mm tubing

I have one of these, and I haven't been using it as if it were
occasional use:
http://www.torelli.com/tech/747.html

On Jul 5, 7:51 pm, Robert Chung wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:07 pm, "
wrote:

The description of that bike says it was made from
0.016" thick steel tubing, presumably straight gauge
(I'm not even sure butted tubing existed yet then).
That is 0.4mm wall thickness,

To my knowledge, the lightest gauge tubeset that
was regularly available from in the classic-steel-frame
cro-moly era (1970s until now) was 0.7/0.4mm butted,
and this was regarded as a very specialized set for
lightweight riders on occasional-use competition frames.

Even now, True Temper OX Platinum, which is one of
the highest strength air hardening steels that is used
for bicycles, comes in 0.7/0.4mm tubing

I have one of these, and I haven't been using it as if it were
occasional use: http://www.torelli.com/tech/747.html

Hey, don't blame me just because you're not
strong enough to snap a steel frame in half.

Torelli says their tubeset uses Columbus Nivacrom,
which has a tensile strength around 140 ksi. That is
somewhat higher than plain 4130 cromoly, Reynolds 531,
or Columbus SL, all of which are around 100 to (maybe)
120 ksi. These are the steels I think of as what
people built "classic" steel frame out of in the
70s and early-mid 80s. Then fancier alloys and air
hardening steels came along, which allowed somewhat
thinner tubing and oversized steel tubes without
much of a weight penalty. For ex, Reynolds 853,
various True Temper and Columbus tubes.

In the 531 and SL era, there were lightweight tubesets
make out of the same steels, but they weren't very
common. For example in this Columbus catalog:
http://equusbicycle.com/bike/columbu...cat/index.html
there's SL (0.6/0.9mm) and SP (0.7/1.0mm) tubesets
for general use, but you could also get a Record
tubeset at 0.5mm and a KL tubeset at 0.5/0.7mm.

Columbus described Record and KL as for record attempts
on the track and for time trials on good roads, respectively.
I assume that they meant "Don't expect this to last
forever, especially if you're a Masters Fattie that hits
potholes." There are still about two jillion SL and
SP-framed bikes out there, but not so many KL frames;
of course there probably weren't very many made in the
first place. One can only imagine the fate of a bike made
from 0.4mm tubing with 1895-era steel.

Ben
I just want to know if the 1895 manufacturer
weighed the bike without pedals.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 22:51:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

I just want to know if the 1895 manufacturer
weighed the bike without pedals.

Dear Ben,

The pedals aren't specifically mentioned, but the bike was available
for visitors to heft.

I suspect that the practice of providing bikes without pedals is a
modern custom.

Here's an 1897 example of pedal choice:

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/white/ima...atalogue27.jpg

You get one kind of pedal with bicycle models A & B, the other kind on
bicycle models C & D.

Similarly, the 1898 Victor comes with pedals:
http://www.amoser.ch/christian/quell...ges/page05.jpg

And the 1917 Hawthorne Regal Racer comes with "specially selected Star
ball bearing light weight racing pedals, very light, weighing 6 & 1/4
ounces each" (about 176 grams):
http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/1211.htm

I've browsed a fair number of old bicycling catalogues, and off-hand I
can't remember anything like the no-pedal look of our modern bicycle
ads.

If the 1895 bike had been exhibited without pedals, I'd expect that to
have caused comment from the people who lifted it. (Imagine a weight
for a modern bike that didn't include any seat.)

Clipless pedals were invented in April, 1895, and none of their
variants caught on, so the odds are against them because the drawing
appeared on the cover of the Scientific American, Feb. 9th, 1895.

Below are the details from page 86. Note the comment that racing bikes
were regularly down to 15 pounds. I don't know what kind of steel
forgings were used on all the joints.

"The curiosities of the show [the 1st National Bicycle Show at Madison
Square Garden] included several light wheels [the term then meant
entire bicycles], and we illustrate a real wonder in this line, an 8
pound 14 ounce Tribune bicycle, shown by the Black Manufacturing
Company, of Erie, Pa. It is full size throughout, having 28 inch
wheels and a 43 1/2 [misquoted as 3/4 in "Riding High"] inch wheel
base. It is only on taking it in the hand that its lightness can be
realized. It has 13 ounce [~370 gram] M. & W. tires; the tubing is No.
26 gauge (0.016 inch thick) and steel forgings are used for all frame
joints. The full number of spokes are used for the wheels, 28 for
front and 32 for rear wheel. It has been thoroughly tested by an
average weight rider and is doubtless the lightest full sized wheel
ever made, being a veritable tour de force. Regular racing wheels are
made as light as 15 pounds in weight."

The ~370 gram tires were probably like our modern tubulars, with the
weight including the inner tube.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel