MTB light frame recomendations

Howdy all

I'm thinking of upgrading my trek 970's frame to a lighter one as i'm
happy with the bike apart from the weight. I've had a look at an Giant
ATX frame at Cranks in North Sydney which goes for $350 however this old
allows for disc brakes on the rear. I would like to get discs one day
but not yet and i don't think i'll bother getting them on the back
anyway. So i don't really want to go for that option unless i have to as
that would force me to upgrade to discs straight away.

Does anyone have any other recommendations for a frame around the 1.5kg
weight range (hardtail) which comes in a larger size (i'm 6ft 3inch).


Also, the guy i spoke to at cranks said it wasn't worth upgrading my old
stuff, does anyone agree with him?

thanks for any advice ppls

orfeo



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

the majority of the weight is very unlikely to be in the frame
seatpost handlebar and BB are probably the cheapest places to start?


"orfeo" wrote in message
...
Howdy all

I'm thinking of upgrading my trek 970's frame to a lighter one as i'm
happy with the bike apart from the weight. I've had a look at an Giant
ATX frame at Cranks in North Sydney which goes for $350 however this old
allows for disc brakes on the rear. I would like to get discs one day
but not yet and i don't think i'll bother getting them on the back
anyway. So i don't really want to go for that option unless i have to as
that would force me to upgrade to discs straight away.

Does anyone have any other recommendations for a frame around the 1.5kg
weight range (hardtail) which comes in a larger size (i'm 6ft 3inch).


Also, the guy i spoke to at cranks said it wasn't worth upgrading my old
stuff, does anyone agree with him?

thanks for any advice ppls

orfeo



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

originally posted by Nicholas & Domi

the majority of the weight is very unlikely to be in the frame seatpost
handlebar and BB are probably the cheapest places to start?


Sorry, i couldn't understand you wording. Do you mean that the frame
wouldn't have a majority of the weight and that i'd be better of to get
a lighter seatpost, handlebar and i'm not sure what BB is?

could you clarify?, the trek 970 i've got is a steel chromium frame
(not the correct termonology i know) which is meant to be a lighter
derivitive of a steel frame but i'm sure it weighs alot more than a
aluminium frame. I'd think i could probably save between 1-3 kg by
swapping frams, how much could i save by swapping handlebars, seat
posts and BBs?

thanks for any more advice on this

orfeo



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

orfeo wrote:

could you clarify?, the trek 970 i've got is a steel chromium frame
(not the correct termonology i know) which is meant to be a lighter
derivitive of a steel frame but i'm sure it weighs alot more than a
aluminium frame. I'd think i could probably save between 1-3 kg by
swapping frams, how much could i save by swapping handlebars, seat
posts and BBs?

I have a large 700C tourer frame with 3/4" stays etc which checks in at
2.4kgs, for frame and forks, steel alloys arent necessarily heavy.

till

orfeo wrote:
Originally posted by Till

I have a large 700C tourer frame with 3/4" stays etc which checks in at
2.4kgs, for frame and forks, steel alloys arent necessarily heavy.

i assume that's a racer bike?, the trek 970 i own is a mountain bike.
and i think the frame would be a bit heavier than a racers frame (i've
very envious of my friend crappy racer which is a hell of a lot lighter
than my bike)

Perhaps there is no point following up your questions, Ill try again to
make sure.

Dont assume its a racer bike, its a TOURER, JUST LIKE I SAID.

The point is; steel isnt necessarily a heavy material for making frames
from, be they road (racers), MTB or tourers. There are differnt grades
of steel. If you do some research, Im sure you will find its pretty
comparable to ali and or whacky stuff like Ti and carbon.

till

sorry - too much shorthand.

I agree with the other poster(s) - you're unlikely to be able to save more
than a kilo or at the outside, a kilo and a half, by changing the frame.
Generally the weight is hidden in the componentry. If you do a bit of
searching you will be able to find the weight of most of your components
without stripping your bike down. BB = bottom bracket; an easy way
manufacturers try to hide weight on a bike.....
Try working out how light you want your bike to be and calculate the
'dollars per gram saved' you are prepared to spend to achieve that weight.
A really expensive bike (dually xc racer) may be upwards of $1/g and a good
xc hardtail may be $0.55/g. That's from brand new. Components may be worth
much more than that rate and so it is often cheaper in the long run to buy a
new bike than upgrade a heavy one.....

Of course you should also think about whether it would be cheaper to lose
that same weight off your own body.
I've already got my bike as light as I can get it (reasonably) and therefore
the body is the only answer left.....

give us a list of components and we'll likely be able to figure out where
the mass is hiding. My guess is the wheels, but that's an expensive are to
start upgrading from. Sorry - I just don't know the bike.

Nick




"orfeo" wrote in message
...
originally posted by Nicholas & Domi

the majority of the weight is very unlikely to be in the frame seatpost
handlebar and BB are probably the cheapest places to start?


Sorry, i couldn't understand you wording. Do you mean that the frame
wouldn't have a majority of the weight and that i'd be better of to get
a lighter seatpost, handlebar and i'm not sure what BB is?

could you clarify?, the trek 970 i've got is a steel chromium frame
(not the correct termonology i know) which is meant to be a lighter
derivitive of a steel frame but i'm sure it weighs alot more than a
aluminium frame. I'd think i could probably save between 1-3 kg by
swapping frams, how much could i save by swapping handlebars, seat
posts and BBs?

thanks for any more advice on this

orfeo



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

orfeo wrote:

Howdy all

I'm thinking of upgrading my trek 970

Hold it right there. If memory serves, Trek stopped making steel-framed
970s in the mid/late 90s. Changing the frame will involve at least a new
front derailleur and seat post, and molto hassle, and you'll still have
the old components.

The bike shop guy is right - it's not worth it. Buy a new bike.

John
Former bike magazine guy.

till:

The point is; steel isnt necessarily a heavy material for making frames
from, be they road (racers), MTB or tourers. There are differnt grades
of steel. If you do some research, Im sure you will find its pretty
comparable to ali and or whacky stuff like Ti and carbon.


Some aluminium frames (especially with straight gauge tubing) can be
almost as heavy as some steel frames, but Ti almost always beats steel
in the weight department. As far as carbon fibre goes, not many can
afford an all-carbon fibre frame, even if one was available.

hey guys,

thanks for all you help on this one, sorry to annoy some of you with my
newbie'ness i just wanted to get my head around this weight problem as i
haven't been completly happy with the trek 970 ever since i got it to
replace my stolen gary fisher marlin.

I had a look on the net and found
http://members.tripod.com/justsaymo/singlespeed/id2.htm which said the
970 frame (1994) weighs in at 2227 grams. I can't be sure if this is my
frame but its probably close enought to it. So that equates to a ruff
800g difference to the Giant ATX 890 frame which was 1400g.

Still, i don't know if i can justify the upgrade as the frame only
allows rear disc brakes (which i'm told are alot heavier than v-brakse)
and hence some of the weight gain would be lost straight away there.

A quick run down of my bike off my memory is this : Trek 970 chrom-steel
frame, Rockshox Indy XC shocks (3.1 lbs apparantly), shimano deore LX
rear derailer, unsure of the front derailer but i assume it matches the
deore lx on the rear, seat is quite good racer one but don't know the
name, peddles are shimano clip ins faily low profile and alot ligher
than some other ones i've got, standard wheels and handlebars i think.

Nick?, How much would i be looking at to upgrade the wheels? i assume
about $100 a wheel? how much weight could i save. If this is all to much
trouble to answer these questions don't worry about it i know i've
been a pest

orfeo



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

orfeo wrote in message ...
...i'm sure it weighs alot more than a
aluminium frame. I'd think i could probably save between 1-3 kg by
swapping frams,

Your steel frame might weigh a lot more than an aluminium frame, but
the frame is a surprisingly small component of the total weight of a
bike.

A fairly average mid-range (or a strong high-end) hardtail mountain
bike will weigh about 13 kg. The frame will typically account for
somewhere between 1.5 and 2 kg of that.

In my case, my forks weigh about the same as my frame. When I take the
bike out of my car and carry the wheels in one hand and the bike in
the other, the wheels are the heavier side.

Let's pretend that your frame weighs 2.5kg, and the whole bike weighs
15 kg. Unlikely, but let's go with it (if a frame was that heavy, the
rest of the bike would almost certainly be heavier...either through
being bombproof or cheap).

So you could upgrade to a high-end 1.5kg (3 pound) frame, for big $$$
(plus all the hidden extras as John mentioned). Losing 1kg (a _huge_
drop in frame weight), you'd still have a 14kg bike. The upgrade
probably would have cost you as much as a new mid-range 13kg bike.

If you're determined to lose some weight off the bike you have, the
frame is the wrong place to look:
* Tyres can vary greatly in weight - up to 1kg each.
* Others have suggested the bottom bracket.
* XT rear cassettes are substantially lighter than lower end units.
* Hubs are heavy things - but they're rather important. Big $ hubs are
lighter than mid $ hubs. It's probably cheaper to lose grams in the
hubs than in the frame

Over all though, the cheapest kgs you can lose off a bike are the ones
on top of the saddle. Ride more. When parts wear out, if you're still
obsessed by weight, replace them with something lighter.

fs