vcballbat
Senior Retro Guru
Jan rode a 56.5 c-c road frame, he may have used a slightly smaller track frame. 753 track frames would of course be lighter with shorter chain stays, fork blades and lack of braze on fittings.
Lightest Steel Frame?
- Thread starter Canuk
- Start date
Guinessisgoodforyou
rBotM Winner
I know, what's your point? Only 300 grams heavier than the Raleigh you posted with guards, lights and leather saddle. If it doesn't appeal I'll delete it.
Personally think the weights from around the 50s are surprisingly daft light. Actual weight (what it includes / excludes) and published weights of complete bikes will be down to a bit of debate. Wished I weighed my own frame set to get a concrete number.Back on the earlier posted Alex Singer - 7.9 kg, and note the 4/10 - that is the tubing wall thickness. It is stupidly daft thin and combined with skinny diameters it would make for a very light bike.
The wall thickness actually comes up the average same as the 753 track tubing according to this article - which is mental for something to go touring on.
Said it before, such a period with everything whittled away to almost nothing and riding on a wing and prayer was the way. It was the cutting edge of bicycle technology. Also posted this a while ago - from 1947.
It doesn't leave much to the imagination looking at the uber thin stays, etc. and a smattering of AL anorexia all over the place (usually undersized
) and moreover the physical volume of the parts isn't much at all. Most likely even the steel stuff would be drilled / hollowed / sculpted out where it could. Hell even some of the brake cables are more like todays gear cables Alex Singer is stating this is 11.7 kg today. No doubt it is a much more robust bicycle but heavier than what would have entered very competitive bike trade shows etc. from more than 70 years ago.
https://www.cycles-alex-singer.fr/catalogue/randonneur-sportif.html
pwebb
Retro Guru
I have weighed a 56cm lee cooper built 853 frame at 1.330 kg and 708 fork at 1.05 kg making that frame set under 2.4 kg . This is lighter than the all 753 sbdu frame I also built up this year.
For the absolute lightest Reynolds I believe 931 and 953 allow frame builders to go lighter still, however they are effectively unobtainium like the 853 pro T that was once used by pro teams. Like the posters in this thread, I have heard that Columbus record and various ishiwata tubes enable similarly light results but I would not count them as being mainstream available either. For us mortals I think Columbus and Reynolds are about as exotic as it gets and a huge step up from the average cromoly frame. I would say that the lugs and dropouts in the early 80s frames I mention above were filed right down by the frame builders and that has had as much of a weight reducing effect as the exotic tubes ( plus makes the whole frame look much more elegant) but I doubt they would meet modern standards of durability as a result.
For the absolute lightest Reynolds I believe 931 and 953 allow frame builders to go lighter still, however they are effectively unobtainium like the 853 pro T that was once used by pro teams. Like the posters in this thread, I have heard that Columbus record and various ishiwata tubes enable similarly light results but I would not count them as being mainstream available either. For us mortals I think Columbus and Reynolds are about as exotic as it gets and a huge step up from the average cromoly frame. I would say that the lugs and dropouts in the early 80s frames I mention above were filed right down by the frame builders and that has had as much of a weight reducing effect as the exotic tubes ( plus makes the whole frame look much more elegant) but I doubt they would meet modern standards of durability as a result.
bikeworkshop
Senior Retro Guru
Go too light with steel though and the ride gets noodly, unless you're a whippet.
This is beautiful, have you got a build thread link?
grantoury
Kona Fan
To be fair it is more like self supported ultra long distance riding than touring. These were purpose built, no jack of all trades touring bikes.
Back on the earlier posted Alex Singer - 7.9 kg, and note the 4/10 - that is the tubing wall thickness. It is stupidly daft thin and combined with skinny diameters it would make for a very light bike.
The wall thickness actually comes up the average same as the 753 track tubing according to this article - which is mental for something to go touring on.
View attachment 900480
Said it before, such a period with everything whittled away to almost nothing and riding on a wing and prayer was the way. It was the cutting edge of bicycle technology. Also posted this a while ago - from 1947.
View attachment 900484
It doesn't leave much to the imagination looking at the uber thin stays, etc. and a smattering of AL anorexia all over the place (usually undersized
Alex Singer is stating this is 11.7 kg today. No doubt it is a much more robust bicycle but heavier than what would have entered very competitive bike trade shows etc. from more than 70 years ago.
https://www.cycles-alex-singer.fr/catalogue/randonneur-sportif.html
Have vague memories when the Columbians entered the racing scene in the 80s. I'm sure I've seen a whippet like Luis Herrera who probably lived off coffee and fags like a ballet dancer (big front dinner plate man still) actually undo is rear brake quick release when climbing to stop the brake pads rubbing on the rim.
Sadly for him, he was no real descender, and would "block-up". In retrospective it would be interesting to know if the bike actually tracked well descending.
What goes up, must come down. Two very different criteria for the bike designer and frame builder.
What I find interesting, it's like the mudguard is supporting the weight of the (little) load. It almost feels like a distribution of load and weight where those skinny stays could only support a rider weight properly and no more.BTW: On the above example, they are rare Mavic mudguards.
I understand that Mavic weren't that bad at early AL stuff.
