Retro trail bike frame weights?

[Anthony]

Yes indeed, but why not have gears? I know, because it makes it too easy. As far as the actual thread subject is concerned, may I suggest that the two relevant facts are firstly that your frame weighs 4.25lbs - for a size 18 - and secondly that it once snapped.

I actually don't think the two things are linked, although Kona-deniers will perhaps scoff. 4.25lbs is fairly light, but Columbus Max is a fairly sophisticated tubeset, utilising heat-treating and bi-ovalising ahead of its time. Some of them did snap, but it was actually the dropout that snapped and nothing to do with the lightness of the tubes. I assume that it was a faulty design of dropouts that Kona used for a while and they would still have snapped even if the frame had weighed 5lbs. But that won't stop some people thinking that it snapped because it was light.

 

[WD Pro]

From the frame listings :

1990 ish (non afterburner rear stays) Marin. Tange double butted. Oversize down tube. 17.5” (center to center) frame size. Zolatone paint. No forks but with DX steel headset cups. 2.5Kg / 5.51Lb

Not the lightest thing around then ...

WD

 

[silverclaws]

I wondered about that, my current aim, to get my '90's bike as light as I can, is this still done, the modern bikes, do people still go for lighter and lighter products to shave grammes off the bike weight ? How much lighter are modern bikes, they being mostly alluminium, are they much lighter than steelies, or about the same.

The only thing I am so far avoidng is the refractory material titanium and the carbon fibre products, ti, is still too expensive and carbon fibre, having no experience of it, I am wary of.

I remember my old Saracen was 26 pounds in weight, I was happy with that, no idea how heavy this one is, but make sure it is covered in silicon to stop mud adding to the weight.

As to where I take my bike apart, not the kitchen floor, but in my bedroom, cleaning stuff in the bathroom, tubs of 'Gunk' and vinegar for treating yukky parts.

 

[perry]

the new alloy stuff isnt as light as people think , the tubing has to be thicker negating any real benefits . it is however cheap stuff to use now

add all the suspension and other stuff , lights , gps , coffee maker etc and they become quite porky

only really light stuff is the weight weenie gram counters hell bent on one upping each other or the light race stuff . but for the most part the bikes normal people ride over normal stuff theres not a lot in it

only tittyunobtanium and crabon fibber on my bike is an slr seat . the gram to £ ratio often just leaves you light in the pocket

 

[silverclaws]

Yesterday, whilst purchasing tools in my local bike shop, 'The Bike Cellar', I saw a super expensive and high tech Trek FS cycle, it in comparison to my Saracen was a monster, it looked like it needed an engine, but it was streamlined and attractively painted, I can see the attraction, but light it did not look. The price tag was scary too, something over 1500 squids, if I had that amount, I would get a Yamaha XVS 125.

All I have in titanium, is a MSR cup and pan for back packing, I succumbed to the ti rush, but they in reality are not much lighter than ally and the strength isn't needed, a waste of money really.

 

[hondamatic]

the new alloy stuff isnt as light as people think , the tubing has to be thicker negating any real benefits . it is however cheap stuff to use now

add all the suspension and other stuff , lights , gps , coffee maker etc and they become quite porky

only really light stuff is the weight weenie gram counters hell bent on one upping each other or the light race stuff . but for the most part the bikes normal people ride over normal stuff theres not a lot in it

only tittyunobtanium and crabon fibber on my bike is an slr seat . the gram to £ ratio often just leaves you light in the pocket

You have to understand too that a modern dual suspension bike is probably built thinking that the rider will be riding it harder and faster.

I have a friend whose backup DH bike is a Cannondale Prophet. He'll hit up to a 5' - 6' drop on the thing, and he's a big guy at 6'5" and 230 lbs. I wouldn't be surprised if the manufacturers beefed up their 'trail' bikes just to limit warranty claims from people (mis-)using them to ride DH and hit jumps. I know people who hit similar trails on all-around bikes like the Santa Cruz Blur LT, the Santa Cruz Heckler and the Giant Trance X.

I do agree that bikes haven't gotten appreciably lighter since the mid-'90s, and that it's not necessary to way overbuild an alloy frame for singletrack riding. That said, a 'standard' bike has come to be a 4"-5" dual suspension bike, and some people are now using those to haul ass over rocky trails, jumps and drops. Manufacturers are building the bikes accordingly.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Current Rocky Mountain Blizzard 2008 (steel hardtail frame) is 4.5lb for 18" (claimed)
but you now have a disc tab, higher front end, so I assume longer actual top and down tube. Also I assume the front area has to take the extra leverage force that the 100mm fork total length can create compared to the 2"/rigid fork of the early 90's

 

[W W Biffta]

do people still go for lighter and lighter products to shave grammes off the bike weight ?

yup some ppl do. thing is its been out of fashion for a while cos of dh and trials, with the premium on stregth, so theres not been alot of main stream light stuff to buy. all the stuff i got for my build was from last century, nos or used.
ive noticed it seems to be coming back tho, the new sram noir and xtr stuff is all carbon and ceramic so some of it is lighter than the older stuff.
other than that you got all the chinese/korean stuff from kcnc and trigon etc or stuff from germany and italy where its always been popular.
you can probably build a bike down to maybe 6.5 - 7kg with fairly off the shelf parts i reckon. wouldnt like to vouch for how long it lasts tho.
im looking to build a nice retro steel frame get it down to maybe 8kg. its a compromise

 

[Andy R]

Current Rocky Mountain Blizzard 2008 (steel hardtail frame) is 4.5lb for 18" (claimed)
but you now have a disc tab, higher front end, so I assume longer actual top and down tube. Also I assume the front area has to take the extra leverage force that the 100mm fork total length can create compared to the 2"/rigid fork of the early 90's

I think that weight (4.5lbs) is a little on the optimistic side and certainly can't include paint. The 2006 Blizzard frame is a gnat's cock under 5lbs and is very noticably heavier than my '95 Explosif frame of the same size (probably about 12oz heavier in fact, which is quite a lot...) Just tap the frame tubes and you can hear the difference too.

I can't imagine that the 2009 version will be any different, although the seatube is 0.2mm thinner wall I believe, so maybe a few grammes lighter?
They do seem a pretty bulletproof frame (I hope so, as I'm using 130mm Phaons on mine.. :roll: ) but just feel a little "dead" to me.

 

[Anthony]

FluffyChicken usually knows what he is talking about, but I was surprised by 4.5lbs as well. The Blizzard has never been a particularly light frame. It's a go out into the wilderness and get back bike, not a racer.

I'm also surprised by the seat tube getting thinner. As far as I know, Reynolds only make 853 seat tubes in 9-6-12, and that is pretty much a standard profile for high-end mtbs. The 853 Pro Team seat tube is a 6-4-8, but Pro Team is for road bikes and I'd be very surprised if RM uses a road tube on the Blizzard.