Retro trail bike frame weights?

[messiah]

Anthony - it was my Lloyd I was riding the other day - even I am not mad enough to attempt that mountain on a singlespeed... although I have middle-ringed the climb once when my granny was bent and the chainsuck made using it impossible

I've never weighed the Lloyd frame but I would think it about the same as the Explosif - although it's fillet brazed from Reynolds 653 skinny roady tubes.

What I was getting at is that for me it really doesn't matter what I'm riding or what it weighs - the fun of getting out and riding is what it's all about.

 

[Andy R]

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.

Edit - I've just measured the wall thickness of the seat tube on my 2006 Blizzard and it's around the 1.6mm mark, as you would expect as it uses a 26.8mm seatpost and the OD is 30mm.

So, not a standard 853 seat tube then - presumably RM are using a standard gauge seat tube in the 2009 Blizzard and can therefore use a 27.2mm seatpost ?

 

[Anthony]

Edit - I've just measured the wall thickness of the seat tube on my 2006 Blizzard and it's around the 1.6mm mark, as you would expect as it uses a 26.8mm seatpost and the OD is 30mm.
So, not a standard 853 seat tube then - presumably RM are using a standard gauge seat tube in the 2009 Blizzard and can therefore use a 27.2mm seatpost ?

Yes, I don't think they've changed 853 much down the years. My 98 Explosif has a 27.2 post (even Kona specify 27.0) and the arithmetic is 28.6 tube less 27.2 post and 2 x 0.6 walls leaves 0.2 which is a good fit.

I'm puzzled by what you say about the 2006 frame though - a 26.8 post is for a 0.8 gauge seat tube and I didn't know they made those in 853. The 30mm OD could be just at the top - the arithmetic of a 12-6-9 28.6 tube is that the extra 0.6 butting is external, to keep the tube parallel inside. So at the top the OD is 28.6 + 2 x 0.6 = 29.8.

OK, all that arithmetic has given me a headache, I think I'll go for a lie down!

 

[Caramba Kid]

1991 19" Lava Dome 5.5 lb
1993 20" Hei Hei 3.5 lb
1993 19" Grisley Team 4.6 lb
All weights taken on kitchen scales.

Not weighed the XLM, RC200F3 or Easton but XLM 'feels' way lighter than Hei Hei.

 

[Tallpaul]

My 19" 2008 Genesis 853 takes a 27.2mm post. It is also a fairly heavy frame, heavier than my 19" 1992 Kona Lava Dome, but it is beefed up to take a 130mm fork.

My 2007 Rock Lobster Tig Team SL frame (made from Easton Ultralite) was about 3.5lb and built in to a 22 - 23lb bike with XT/SIDs/Hope Mono M4's. Unfortunately the frame wasn't a particularly nice ride and the forks were plain awful. Despite weighing 4 - 5lb more, my 853 Genesis is a vastly superior ride (but i really miss those Mono M4's).

 

[Wold Ranger]

Trail Centres

Many bike designs are gravitating toward downhill and big drop offs. XC seems to have faded and even trail riding is on the wain. Although travel has probably reached it's limits and many FS frames are now being more popular around 4 to 5 inch of travel, as opposed to 6/7, but they are building them burlier ,with the trend towards "slope style" rigs short travel, but built for abuse, becoming popular.
I don't feel all in bike weights are getting any lighter tho? Only the really pricey models are sub 25, whereas 15 years ago, many were below, even at lower budgets.

 

[reanimation]

Great replies on here, the comparison to new is interesting also, weight saving is coming back. I think its all about purpose builds exactly the right bike strength/weight ratio, which is why I'm concerend with weight on this retro. Want to keep up with whippets on here and also have antidotes to my heavy modern(s)

I reckon the early trail bikes were just that, all rounder machines for taking rough with smooth, thenwe went through loads of trends and specialisms, and still spinning in those cycles now.

My own issue is I need to spend £100 + to get the Raliegh to be the bike I want it to be; as a light XC all seasoner retro, so it might have to wait or go back together with old bits. uurgh.
Might take another look at that 80's Saracen and see if its easier and cheaper to SS that for now...

and then get my show boat mucky :twisted:

 

[theboy]

no idea on actual weight, as I dont have any scales, but my (admittedly freakishly small) 95 Kona Ku is the lightest frame I have ever owned, and the package it came over from the states in, including frame, box and packaging was 3.3 lbs in total - pretty light no? my Marz bomber Z2 Lights are noticeably heavy in comparison :?

 

[Benandemu]

I assume nobody has seen the recent article in a magazine (can't remember which one - somebody help me out!) where Scott have a £7500 ultralight FS bike. I'm sure it was around or below the 21lb mark, although I've slept since then and could be slightly out on the number.

There is a come back in these machines, and technology has moved on much further now, allowing stronger materials and more capable products for much less weight.

 

[Caramba Kid]

That'll be the Scott Spark Ltd
Evans are selling them at £6851 & claim 20.3 lb :shock: