RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


relatively, how heavy is 4.5 lb frame 1.5 lb fork, steel? nm(29 posts)

relatively, how heavy is 4.5 lb frame 1.5 lb fork, steel? nmJs Haiku Shop
Nov 9, 2001 12:38 PM
6 lbs.jtolleson
Nov 9, 2001 12:41 PM
about 1 3/4 lbs. more than a 3 lb. frame and a 1 1/4 lb. fork.

Not to be sarcastic, but I'm baffled by your question.
is this frame and fork heavy compared to others? average? nmJs Haiku Shop
Nov 9, 2001 12:42 PM
Some comparisons.....Len J
Nov 9, 2001 1:00 PM
Lightspeed Ghisollo frame only is 2 lbs 7 Oz
Lightspeed Classic frame only is 3 lbs 6 ounces
Lightspeed Vortex frame only is 3 lbs 0 oz
Trek 5200/5500 frame OCLV 120 frame only is 2 lbs 6 oz
Trek 2300 frame only Aluminum is 2 lbs 11 oz

Reynolds Ouzo pro fork is 360 grams which I think is about 13 ounces.

Hope this helps.

Len
Trek 2300 frame?Tig
Nov 9, 2001 3:20 PM
I've never found the weight of this frame published. Is it really that light? The heavy Icon fork, cheap stem, seatpost, and bars must be what makes mine weigh so much. I don't care about the weight as much as the less than comfy ride.
Found weight on Trek web site.(nm)Len J
Nov 12, 2001 3:57 AM
trek frame weights and concernsfuzzybunnies
Nov 12, 2001 8:49 PM
Sure enough the scale confirmed the weight of the trek 2300 in a size 56. Only one problem, we were able with a little thumb pressure to lightly push in the side of the down tube(not enough to leave a dent) much like people do with a tin can when bored. I have to agree with some of the others that argue that a 4lbs frame doesn't make that much difference. Both my Carrera(finally finished and pics coming soon) and my Derosa with couplings both weight 4lbs with 1.5lb steel forks. The geometry make the bikes lively and great climbers allowing me to climb and stay with anyone at my skill level with ease. At the same time I find the ride to be enjoyable and not at all twitchy. I start to worry when some of the newer frames come out saying that you can't sit on the seat tube. -Russ
I'd say it's about 2.7 kg!Rusty McNasty
Nov 9, 2001 1:18 PM
But, in all fairness, the thing is a tank! What's it made of? Unbutted lead pipe??
re: relatively, how heavy is 4.5 lb frame 1.5 lb fork, steel? nmguido
Nov 9, 2001 1:19 PM
Let me guess, CRMO 4130 all steel, lugged frame, ca. 1975-1990? Built up with modern components, that would make a bike weighing 22-24 pounds, not bad. You'll catch 'em on the downhills.
Math is a little off..Len J
Nov 9, 2001 1:28 PM
I have a Trek 5500 that weighs 17 lbs with a frame and Fork that weight 3.5 lbs. therefore all other components weigh 13.5 lbs (17-3.5). If I add that 13.5 lbs to a 4.5 frame & a 1.5 fork I get a bike weighing 19.5 lbs. Add .5 lbs for threaded vs threadless and you are at 20 lbs.

What am I missing? How do you get to 22-24?

Len
heavy components=heavy bikeguido
Nov 9, 2001 2:04 PM
Well, that's the heaviest it's likely to be, built up. You mean I can build up my old "tank" with modern components and I'll have a 20 pound ride? Hmmm, that might be the key to jousting with these local hammerheads. But as the guy with the Colnago said of my 22 pound relic, "It'll make you strong." That's what I've sort of been relying on, especially when I'm getting dropped two thirds of the way up the hills.
re: Math is a little off..metonymy3
Nov 9, 2001 4:30 PM
I don't think that guido was planning on this old 6 lb. frameset being built up with 2001 Dura Ace 9spd, like on your 5500. Probably 105/Ultegra is more what he's thinking of. Even with Ultegra (and some other slightly lesser quality components, like bars, stem, seat post, etc.) There would be a 1.5 lb. difference from your 5500, and with 105, even more. That would bring us up to 22 lbs. easily. Not everyone rides a 5500!

Chris
aaah. the mercx.colker
Nov 9, 2001 1:59 PM
buy it,build it. ride it stare at it.
......aaah. the mercx........Js Haiku Shop
Nov 9, 2001 2:06 PM
and put it in the trunk of my car to get it up the mountain. or not? i could have asked what this frame and fork might weigh with chorus and open pros and estimate the rest,...maybe i shoulda!
frame weightcolker
Nov 9, 2001 3:49 PM
is the least important weight on a bike. even though light is always better than heavy,i would rather ride a heavy frame with great geometry and ride characteristics than an ultra light uncomfortable twitchy thing that would hurt my back and made me crash at high speed.
lighter wheels, cranks seat post, saddle, stem, bar matter more than frame weight. 4.5 pounds is ok for a large road frame but i wouldn't build that brain os frame with chorus! it's a daytona/ veloce level bike.
you could: take that paint scheme to a custom builder or buy a scandium merckx. (it's sick).
Getting up the mountain on the merckx........guido
Nov 10, 2001 2:43 PM
A 22 pound bike is not so heavy as to be difficult for a common mortal to push up a climb, as long as he is patient, and willing to do the work. Eddy himself climbed mountains on 22 pound bikes. What is most important is how the bike works with your pedaling efforts. 3 or 4 pounds of extra dead weight will certainly slow you down, but won't defeat you.

I came up Mt. Wilson, NW of LA, 5000 feet in 18 miles?--on a 22 pound bike, pushing 44-22, my lowest gear, suffering the whole way, 2 and a half hours. 10 miles before the top, I didn't think I could make it. But the bike responded, and kept responding with each painful pedal stroke, as if to re-assure me, "C'mon man, you can make it." A good bike will do that. If you can lift it up to your shoulder with one hand, you can confidently push it up a hill with both your legs.

If it's a good stiff frame, it'll be a great ride, even if it is "heavy." Leave the car at the bottom.
that's a nice ride....CT1
Nov 11, 2001 9:24 AM
Especially when you've got a 16# with a 39X26 low..... hahahaha....... ;-)

Sorry I just couldn't resist. Actually, the last time I did that course (to the observatory) I just flew up the hill with my bike (as described) above. TRUST me, a super light bike with good gears makes this type of climb realllllly fun! :-)

OH, and I DON'T subscribe to the theory that heavy bikes make you stronger. They just get you dropped sooner.

ride on
JohnG
The truth hurts. Ow.guido
Nov 12, 2001 2:00 PM
Yeah, and I got dropped again on the Sunday ride, by all these punks on their Litespeeds. Would you believe it, THREE Lightspeeds?

I have to say, the second time I did this Mt. Wilson climb, a week later, I made it up without difficulty, I mean with a lot less difficulty, er, it wasn't quite as hard as the first time. Whew. One can live in denial only so many years. Yes, bikes have gotten lighter. Yes, lighter bikes climb faster. And yes, light bikes will also make you stronger!
It's not about the bike, it's about the ride.MB1
Nov 9, 2001 2:29 PM
Lots of riders ride bikes in the 20-25 lb. range. By the time you add a few tools and tubes, waterbottles and a rider you are looking at a total machine weight including engine of 175-200 lbs. So if your frame weighs 2 lbs more than someone elses it is 1%. Not a big deal.

Now think about the ride qualities and durability. Your wheel, tire, air pressure and frame design choices make a much bigger difference than a 1% or 2% weight difference.

I always opt for choices that get me the ride I am looking for. My only light bike is our Ti Santana tandem - about 18 lbs per rider set up the way we normally ride - total bike weight with engines 270 lbs.

Now what and why were you wondering about frame weight again?
African or European?grzy
Nov 9, 2001 2:55 PM
Laden or unladen?

For an "average" size 6 lbs. for frame and fork is a bit on the porky side by modern standards, but not that unreasonable for all steel. A decent ti (Merlin, Seven, Serotta, etc.) frame puts you in the low 3 lbs. range and carbon will get you into the low 2 lbs. arena (Trek, Calfee, etc.). You can get an all carbon fork down in the mid 300 gram range - about 1 lb. So a 6 lbs. steel frame & fork is almost twice as heavy as the current superlight stuff, but not nearly as pricey or fragile. All it takes is money or stronger legs.
Eddy is a tough taskmastergtx
Nov 9, 2001 4:26 PM
I think I ride faster on my Merckx than I do on my other, lighter bikes, cause you feel lame riding slow with Eddy.
re: relatively, how heavy is 4.5 lb frame 1.5 lb fork, steel? nmDaveG
Nov 9, 2001 4:52 PM
My Columbus Brain tubed Marin weighs about the same. Its a matter of relative to what. Compared to a C-40 its heavy but its still no more than 2-2.5 pounds heavier than the very lightest framesets on the planet. If you just a recreational rider like me what's the point of losing sleep over bike weight? Is it really going to substantially effect your ability to enjoy riding? Besides, if you are a mere mortal rider on a C-40, Vortex, or other high-zoot bike and you get dropped then everyone will know that you are slow. If, on the other hand, you getted dropped on your 22lb steel bike then you can always blame the bike. Also, it feels real good to drop that C-40 rider on your "heavy" steel bike!
Not the least bit heavy at all...Sprockets
Nov 9, 2001 7:41 PM
It weights a mere 200 grams or so more than a Carrera Volans Genius (a $1400 frame with Nivachrome tubing), 500 grams more than a $1855 Litespeed Classic. (Differences disregard fork weight). It could probably be considered average for a lugged steel frame weight wise. I would not compare it to cheap, stiff, Al frames which are not as durable and do not have the same ride quality.

Geometry is probably a more important consideration. The Merckx is great if you ride alot (which Eddy recommends by the way). If you do not have the proper position over the pedals a few hundred grams of weight savings won't mean much. Consider too that there may be power losses with certain Ti frames.

Probably the best way to put this into perspective would be to weigh out some water equivalent to the "weight gain" with the Merckx. Try riding your current bike up a hill with and without the water. I doubt if you will be able to tell the difference.

As far as components go, people have been building up these frames with C-Record, Chorus, Record, Croce, etc for the last decade and one half or so. The frame is more or less an updated SL/SLX Merckx that no one was ashamed to ride in any race. I would buy the components when opportunities arise via sales, close-outs, eBay, etc.

The Merckx could make you a faster rider because it will inspire you to ride further and faster because of its excellent ride characterisics and its panache. Nice lugged frames are becoming somewhat exotic and unusual, its nice to have a ride which stands out in the crowd. Anyone can run out and buy a tig welded flavor-of-the month frameset, its fun to track down a NOS classic, especially when it is less expensive, and probably more beautiful and durable.
re: relatively, how heavy is 4.5 lb frame 1.5 lb fork, steel? nmmackgoo
Nov 9, 2001 9:19 PM
I had a 55cm Bianchi TSX-UL. I think it was around 3.5-4lbs, the fork was probably about the same about 1.5lb's. So not heavy, not light.
quite heavy compared to a 3# frame/fork. nmCT1
Nov 9, 2001 10:42 PM
re: relatively, how heavy is 4.5 lb frame 1.5 lb fork, steel? nmVictorChan
Nov 10, 2001 8:34 PM
Is HEAVY. I don't own any exotic bike. Just a Raleigh R600. I weighted the frame with the headset installed. 3.75lb. The fork is a full carbon one and it weights about 14oz.
Get real folksNessism
Nov 10, 2001 8:53 PM
While a 6 lb. frameset can not be called light by modern standards, it is far from the boat anchor some think it is. Using a modern build kit it would be no problem building up this frameset into a 19 lb. bike.
I would rather have a sturdy solid frameset compared to some of the fragile ultra light stuff being touted as state of the art these days.
Get real folksgrzy
Nov 12, 2001 2:18 PM
Hmmm, perhaps I could interest you in using galvi pipe? Think of how many frames $100 would buy. Pipe threads are a breeze to work with.

Actually my point is that any one can build a light bike, and anyone can build a solid bike, but it takes real skill to build a light but solid bike. I question your statement about building a sub 19 lbs. bike when starting witha 6 lbs. frame and fork and not using the best and lightest components available. It was work to get my ti bike down to 18.2 lbs - I used an all carbon fork, DA/Ultegra parts, Special K wheels, and really paid attention to what went on the medium sized bike. It started life over 21 lbs. and shedding almost 15% really made a difference. If and when I get another frame it certainly won't be heavier.
real numbers on a hillDog
Nov 12, 2001 7:28 AM
The difference between a 3 pound frameset and a 6 pound frameset, all else equal, is this:

3 pounds = 1.36 kilograms difference
Assume:
80 kilogram bike and rider
6 percent grade
200 watts power
4000 meter hill
sea level, average pavement, average frontal area

The lighter bike and rider would climb the hill 15.71 seconds faster, and be ahead by 59.9 meters.

Down the same hill, same assumptions, the heavier bike would be ahead by 1.33 seconds, and 25.18 meters.

The net over the up and down is the lighter bike ahead by 14.38 seconds and 34.72 meters. This assumes no braking down the hill, of course.

There you have it. You can plug in your own numbers, too:

http://www.analyticcycling.com

Doug