Lightest steel retro frame set

[ferrus]

I called Joe Breeze about those frame weights, and you are correct, the D'Fusion tubesets were the lightest and it was for those frames that I quoted the weights. However, the earlier frames weren't really very much heavier.

Those weights are getting down towards the road frame area!

Was D'Fusion a variant of Tange Prestige like Ritchey Logic Pat?

No, D'Fusion tubing was made by Hodaka I believe, to Joe's specification and is heat treated.

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

My 1996 Waterford 2400 made of Reynolds 853 tubing with Henry James lugs and dropouts tipped the scale at 3.49 LBS. It's a size 16, which could be considered a smallish medium.

Probably the lightest steel bike I've had on my scale

 

[ferrus]

wow, that is light!
Why is it that 853 frames seem to vary so much?

 

[Anthony]

wow, that is light!
Why is it that 853 frames seem to vary so much?

There is a fair choice of different size tubes, which obviously have different weights. Depends on what kind of frame you want. But I think an 853 frame below 4lbs is probably made of 853 ProTeam, which is the road version.

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

wow, that is light!
Why is it that 853 frames seem to vary so much?

There is a fair choice of different size tubes, which obviously have different weights. Depends on what kind of frame you want. But I think an 853 frame below 4lbs is probably made of 853 ProTeam, which is the road version.

That would not surprise me, as Waterford is more known for their road frames than their mtb frames. The 2400 is their only mtb frame, and they have not made them for years...though I'm sure one can be special ordered.

I recently sold that frame on ebay...I shouldn't have :?

 

[Anthony]

Waterford is more known for their road frames than their mtb frames. The 2400 is their only mtb frame, and they have not made them for years...though I'm sure one can be special ordered.

Not changing the subject too much I trust, but I'm surprised that 853 was used for any lugged frame, especially in 1996 when 753 was much more readily available. 853 is very similar to 753, but was developed because 753, which was designed for brazing, couldn't withstand the higher temperatures of TIG welding without excessive loss of strength.

As I understand it, lugged frames are inherently heavier than non-lugged, because of the weight of the lugs, even though they do allow you to get away with using lighter-gauge tubes. I assume that it is especially the butts that can be thinner in tubes used for lugged frames, because the lug withstands all of the forces and the tube is only lightly brazed in order to secure it. 853 has substantial butts, which are obviously needed so that even after the loss of strength following TIG welding, the tube near the joint is still strong enough for mtb strains and stresses. So I'd guess that Waterford would have used ProTeam for a lugged frame, especially if they had experience of it already on road frames, as ProTeam has thinner butts and the mtb tube wouldn't be needed.

None of this gets around the essential issue that a frame as light as that would normally be too whippy to make a fast mtb though.

 

[GoldenEraMTB]

Waterford is more known for their road frames than their mtb frames. The 2400 is their only mtb frame, and they have not made them for years...though I'm sure one can be special ordered.

Not changing the subject too much I trust, but I'm surprised that 853 was used for any lugged frame, especially in 1996 when 753 was much more readily available. 853 is very similar to 753, but was developed because 753, which was designed for brazing, couldn't withstand the higher temperatures of TIG welding without excessive loss of strength.

As I understand it, lugged frames are inherently heavier than non-lugged, because of the weight of the lugs, even though they do allow you to get away with using lighter-gauge tubes. I assume that it is especially the butts that can be thinner in tubes used for lugged frames, because the lug withstands all of the forces and the tube is only lightly brazed in order to secure it. 853 has substantial butts, which are obviously needed so that even after the loss of strength following TIG welding, the tube near the joint is still strong enough for mtb strains and stresses. So I'd guess that Waterford would have used ProTeam for a lugged frame, especially if they had experience of it already on road frames, as ProTeam has thinner butts and the mtb tube wouldn't be needed.

None of this gets around the essential issue that a frame as light as that would normally be too whippy to make a fast mtb though.

It was plenty fast, but also fragile. The lugs henry james lugs appeared to be lightweight, and were not very clunky/chunky. I'll post pics of the frame with upclose shots of the lugwork and tubing, in a little bit.

 

[Tallpaul]

Just dug out my 19" 1993 Kona Explosif frame, it weighs 1850g or 4.08lb. The 1993 catalogue claimed the same size frame weighed 3.9lb.

 

[gump]

My 1997 Kona Explosif and my 1991 Rocky Mountain Altitude, both 20", are both 4.6lb

Which feels quite light but I know the Altitudes became a lot lighter in the following years, for 18.5": 1993 = 1770g, 1994 = 1750 g (claimed weights)

Agree on the RM Altitudes, both the 93 and 96 frames have been weighed by me at 17xxg.
And yes, the 93 was fragile. The downtube after a seasons racing was dented to shit.

 

[FluffyChicken]

My 1997 Kona Explosif and my 1991 Rocky Mountain Altitude, both 20", are both 4.6lb

Which feels quite light but I know the Altitudes became a lot lighter in the following years, for 18.5": 1993 = 1770g, 1994 = 1750 g (claimed weights)

Agree on the RM Altitudes, both the 93 and 96 frames have been weighed by me at 17xxg.
And yes, the 93 was fragile. The downtube after a seasons racing was dented to shit.

To be fair to Rocky Mountain, that is what they where designed for. Same with all these super light weight frames I would have thought, be light for racing a season. As you'll get the new on next year.