Very lightweight road bike
Joakim Majander
about the most lightweight rideable road bike with atleast 2x9 gears.
The winner was Harri Muukkonen (who made my 9,5 kg bike 11 years ago)
with 5390 g. The frame was Olmo (aluminium) and it was modified by
Harri to weight only 899 g. Handlebar, crank-arms, fork and rims were
carbon fiber. Most of other parts were modified Campagnolos. Only one
other competitor's bike was under 7 kg. One of the ~7 kg bikes had
already been ridden over 10 000 km.
Joakim
Jon Isaacs
>with 5390 g.
In the US, the lightweight bike of interest is Richard Bryne's Ti Holland that
weighed 4840 grams last year when I saw it. Supposedly it has lost a couple
more hundred grams.
It was completely rideable with 10 speed campy and was sized to fit someone
over 6 ft (1.83 m) tall.
Jon Isaacs
Qui si parla Campagnolo
someone
over 6 ft >>
Very small point, it was Campag 9s, I modified the right lever to 9s from 10s
as the casette was lighter and a 10s carbon lever set was easier to find..
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl ST.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
GramPa.
Jon Isaacs
>as the casette was lighter and a 10s carbon lever set was easier to find..
>Peter Chisholm
Interesting.
Personally I think I could break such a bike but I could be wrong.
jon isaacs
greg
GramPa. wrote:
> so what is all this in LBS?
For the metric challenged there is 1000 gms in a kilogram. One
kilogram weighs about 2.2 lbs.
Matt O'Toole
safely rideable. Its frame is a Carbonframes Tetrapro, and the fork has a
threadless carbon steerer. It has 9sp Dura Ace, light but not exotic
wheels, a carbon seatpost, and Flite saddle. It has Ti spokes, but mostly
because they have a neat anodized color fade, and look cool. It might have
lightweight hubs, but I don't remember. It feels great when you first get
on it, but after riding awhile, I don't think the weight makes much
difference. Cycling is mostly aerodynamics, legs, heart and lungs anyway.
Matt O.
"Joakim Majander" <Joakim....@fortum.com> wrote in message
news:f66f0b2d.0111...@posting.google.com...
Chris Ho
sew-ups)! I ended up selling it after I quit racing, but never forgot about
the magic of carbon fiber. Even though I don't race anymore, I just bought a
Trek off of Frankie Andreu, and it seems to be about 17 lbs (according to a
not so trustworthy scale, so I will have to verify this)!
I'm waiting on a stem right now so I haven't even taken out for a ride yet,
but I have the feeling that it should be every bit as enjoyable as the Calfee
bike was! One thing seems clear to me, (for racing at least) steel is dead!
-Chris
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Not because of any practical reason or due to steel's performance.
Manufacturers put racer's on carbon and aluminum cuz that's what is fashionable
and in aluminum's case, making some really huge margins for the manufacturers.
Steel isn't sexy, some will talk of the weight 'penalty'(BS) but most frame
makers will tell you(if they are willing to talk to you and not sell you
something) that steel's ride is still the benchmark for what frame makers
aspire to with other materials...
Todd Kuzma
Campagnolo at vecc...@aol.com wrote on 11/24/01 9:24 AM:
> Steel isn't sexy, some will talk of the weight 'penalty'(BS) but most frame
> makers will tell you(if they are willing to talk to you and not sell you
> something) that steel's ride is still the benchmark for what frame makers
> aspire to with other materials...
This is true. I've talked to a number of builders at trade shows about
their frames, and they can be quite honest when the marketing folks aren't
around. One builder who sold aluminum frames that weighed just over 2
pounds told me that they are great for pro racers: folks who weigh under
150 pounds and get a new bike every year. People who weigh 200 pounds and
want a lifetime frame should look elsewhere. This builder also felt that
these frames should not even be available in sizes 59 or larger since if you
need a frame that large, you weigh too much for the frame.
Another told me that their aluminum frames "rode like crap" compared to
their steel models, but that was what the market wanted. I asked another
about the function of the carbon seatstays on some new models. Did they
reduce weight, improve ride quality, provide lateral stiffness? No, he
replied, they just look cool.
In each case, these builders offered frames that they felt were not ideal.
However, they make them because that's what the market wants.
Todd Kuzma
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL 815-223-1776
http://www.tullios.com
Raleigh-Specialized-Diamondback-BikeE-Heron-Hoffman-Co-Motion
David L. Johnson
>
> in article 20011124102407...@mb-dd.aol.com, Qui si parla
> Campagnolo at vecc...@aol.com wrote on 11/24/01 9:24 AM:
>
> > Steel isn't sexy, some will talk of the weight 'penalty'(BS) but most frame
> > makers will tell you(if they are willing to talk to you and not sell you
> > something) that steel's ride is still the benchmark for what frame makers
> > aspire to with other materials...
>
> This is true. I've talked to a number of builders at trade shows about
> their frames, and they can be quite honest when the marketing folks aren't
> around.
But they still are paid by the company. There is an incentive for any frame
builder to dissuade you from buying an aluminum frame, and encourage you to
buy their steel, or titanium, or carbon frame instead. The aluminum frame
these days will fetch far less in the market. They make more for each steel
frame they sell than for the aluminum one. You have to consider the source of
your information, especially when they say things about the "ride" of the
frame.
> This builder also felt that
> these frames should not even be available in sizes 59 or larger since if you
> need a frame that large, you weigh too much for the frame.
Or for any other 2-lb frame, of course. Most aluminum frames are considerably
overbuilt, and strong enough for anyone.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. --
_`\(,_ | Michael Crichton
(_)/ (_) |
Jon Isaacs
>Manufacturers put racer's on carbon and aluminum cuz that's what is
>fashionable
>and in aluminum's case, making some really huge margins for the
>manufacturers.
>Steel isn't sexy, some will talk of the weight 'penalty'(BS) but most frame
>makers will tell you(if they are willing to talk to you and not sell you
>something) that steel's ride is still the benchmark for what frame makers
>aspire to with other materials...
For many racers, aluminum, Ti or CF makes sense because those materials can
provide an acceptably durable bike that is significantly lighter that a steel
bike of identical durability.
For those of us who do not consider weight and issue, then steel can be used to
make a great frame. Such riders ought to be riding 36 hole wheels as well.
The reality of the bicycle marketplace is that most riders do not choose what
is the most durable or will provide the best service for their intended task.
Most riders choose what appeals to them. In the automobile marketplace, the
same is true.
But realize that for durability and service, a road bike is generally not the
best choice anyway.
Touring bikes, cyclocross bikes, modified MTBs are bikes that fit most riders
needs better than the average road bike, be it aluminum, steel or titanium.
So when you say that steel is not popular because it is not "sexy', please
remember that whatever the material, the market is driven by what is "sexy."
------------------------------------------------
Personally I think a nice looking steel road bike is far sexier than a CF
creaker that will croak in a few years.
Jon Isaacs
Tim McNamara
<david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> But they still are paid by the company. There is an incentive for any frame
> builder to dissuade you from buying an aluminum frame, and encourage you to
> buy their steel, or titanium, or carbon frame instead. The aluminum frame
> these days will fetch far less in the market. They make more for each steel
> frame they sell than for the aluminum one. You have to consider the source of
> your information, especially when they say things about the "ride" of the
> frame.
Why are steel frames more profitable than aluminum frames?
Tim McNamara
<joni...@aol.com> wrote:
> For many racers, aluminum, Ti or CF makes sense because those
> materials can provide an acceptably durable bike that is
> significantly lighter that a steel bike of identical durability.
My 61 cm Ritchey Road Classic with Campy Chorus 9 sp weighs 19.5 lbs.
I might be able to build up an 18 lb bike with an aluminum, Ti or CF
frame- the latter two of which would cost much more than I paid for my
current bike. Of the three options, Ti would be "acceptably" durable
but the Al and CF probably less so. But then, "acceptably durable"
means different things to different people. In my case, I expect a
bike to last at least 10 years and probably longer.
IMHO steel is still the best combination of costs and benefits.
> For those of us who do not consider weight and issue, then steel can
> be used to make a great frame. Such riders ought to be riding 36
> hole wheels as well.
Weight is an issue, but saving 50 grams is not.
> Touring bikes, cyclocross bikes, modified MTBs are bikes that fit
> most riders needs better than the average road bike, be it aluminum,
> steel or titanium.
The "average" bicyclist probably would be best served by a Raleigh
three speed.
Frank Jaworski
you pay for. Most racers can be enticed by a flashy paint job, the latest
unobtanium frame material and standard shimano road grouppo. Of course it
looks very attractive at the "bundled" price. Most of the big companies
don't make "quality" steel frames. If you're going to compare steel to
another material at least compare a well built one like a Serotta, Ritchey,
or IF. I don't think you'll find a better ride than the Serotta CSI and
it's plenty sexy.
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011124102407...@mb-dd.aol.com...
David L. Johnson
> Why are steel frames more profitable than aluminum frames?
Because aluminum is viewed as a cheaper material, thus it fetches less.
High-quality steel is now the more esoteric material reserved for fancier (or
at least fancier-priced) frames. How things have changed.
The market is flooded with aluminum bikes; Cannondale leads the pack in terms
of numbers, but there are many others. Something about classical economics
may apply here.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
_`\(,_ | certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
(_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein
Tim McNamara
<david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > Why are steel frames more profitable than aluminum frames?
>
> Because aluminum is viewed as a cheaper material, thus it fetches less.
> High-quality steel is now the more esoteric material reserved for fancier (or
> at least fancier-priced) frames. How things have changed.
Aluminum probably *is* a cheaper frame material since it is available
in such abundance and is more easily worked than steel. A large
portion- indeed, probably the majority- of aluminum bikes sold
throughout the world come out of about two factories in Taiwan, which
is where the economies of scale come into effect. The only difference
is the stickers.
> The market is flooded with aluminum bikes; Cannondale leads the pack in terms
> of numbers, but there are many others. Something about classical economics
> may apply here.
The market used to be flooded with steel bikes, until the public
realized that a pound of steel is heavier than a pound of aluminum.
Now they want aluminum bikes which approximate the ideals of "infinite
stiffness" and "infinite lightness." Never mind that aluminum's
fatigue characteristics make it a less-than-ideal material to make bike
frames from. It's a marketer's delight.
Jon Isaacs
>realized that a pound of steel is heavier than a pound of aluminum.
>Now they want aluminum bikes which approximate the ideals of "infinite
>stiffness" and "infinite lightness." Never mind that aluminum's
>fatigue characteristics make it a less-than-ideal material to make bike
>frames from. It's a marketer's delight.
>
>
Pound for pound, a properly designed aluminum bike will be stronger and have
better fatigue resistance than a steel bike.
Rather than the "scale of economy" the reason is really the "geometry of
scale."
Those big tubes are advantageous.
How a particular manufacturer decides to balance the lightweight and the
fatigue strength has more to do with the intended application than with the
properties of aluminum.
If one wants to buy a superlight bike that has a finite life span, certainly
aluminum is the material of choice. Likewise, if one wants a stiff, sturdy
long lived bike, aluminum also can be the material of choice.
Just make sure that the bike that you buy is designed with your needs in mind.
Jon Isaacs
Tim McNamara
> Pound for pound, a properly designed aluminum bike will be stronger and have
> better fatigue resistance than a steel bike.
That certainly files in the face of most of the information
I have ever seen about the metallurgical properties of Al
versus steel or Ti.
There is another problem with your assertion, which of course
is that it's not "pound for pound." The point of using Al as
a frame material is to build a bike lighter than can be
readily done with steel.
Jon Isaacs
>I have ever seen about the metallurgical properties of Al
>versus steel or Ti.
Not in the least, check out the fatigue life of most aluminums. It is about
35% of yield for half a billion cycles. This is 15 years day and night at 60
rpm. Compare this to the endurance limit for most steels. It is a similar
percentage.
The point is that proper design can address these issues.
Check out that German test of frame fatigue. While I do disagree with the
test, it certainly shows that under some circumstances an aluminum frame can
show superior fatigue properties to steel or Ti.
This is all in proper design with a given material.
>There is another problem with your assertion, which of course
>is that it's not "pound for pound." The point of using Al as
>a frame material is to build a bike lighter than can be
>readily done with steel.
I clearly addresses this issue. And I point out that an aluminum frame can
still be superior in fatigue to steel and be lighter, but again this is a
question of the choices made during design.
jon isaacs
Brillig
news:251120011541505662%tim...@bitstream.net:
> The market used to be flooded with steel bikes, until the public
> realized that a pound of steel is heavier than a pound of aluminum.
..and a foot of aluminum is longer than a foot of steel?
--
~
Brillig
Change yipee to yahoo to reply
peter.kidwell
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011125191303...@mb-bh.aol.com...
> >The market used to be flooded with steel bikes, until the public
> >realized that a pound of steel is heavier than a pound of aluminum.
> >Now they want aluminum bikes which approximate the ideals of "infinite
> >stiffness" and "infinite lightness." Never mind that aluminum's
> >fatigue characteristics make it a less-than-ideal material to make bike
> >frames from. It's a marketer's delight.
> >
> >
>
> Pound for pound, a properly designed aluminum bike will be stronger and
have
> better fatigue resistance than a steel bike.
Alluminum has no Fatigue strength repeat ZERO FATIGUE strength bend it once
and its failed
It has tensile strength completely different to fatigue
PK
Jon Isaacs
>and its failed
>It has tensile strength completely different to fatigue
Interesting bit of hogwash here. First you say aluminum has no fatigue
strength and then you say bend it once and it's failed.
Fatigue is about cyclic loading in the elastic regime. Aluminum can be bent
many times elastically without failing from fatigue.
For example it requires half a billion cycles at 23 ksi to cause failure in
7075 T6. The yield on 7075 T6 is about 73 Ksi so this factor is just about a
third.
Your comment about bend it once and its failed is also clearly incorrect.
Aluminum is a ductile material and exhibits reasonable elongation about 11% in
the standard test.
Compare this to 4340 steel which is a reasonable match for bicycle steel, the
4340 tempered at 400F will have a yield of 270 ksi, its fatigue strengh will be
only at million cycles at 107,000 ksi and it elongation in 2 inches will be
that same 11%. (Bicycle tube steel will normally yield about 200 ksi.)
From this data, it appears to me that the aluminum has better fatigue
properties than the steel, it will handle about 1/3 yield for half a billion
cycles whereas the steel will only handle it for a million cycles.
Also note that the specific strength of the 7075 is only slightly less than
that of the 4340.
The part of a bicycle that is normally bent and fails is the rear derailleur
hanger. Fortunately steel bikes use softer material for the rear dropouts
which allows them to be successfully bent back. Hard dropouts on steel bikes
do suffer this sort of failure.
An important factor to realize is that because aluminum rear dropouts are much
thicker than steel ones, when they are bent, the stains are much higher. This
is why modern bikes with aluminum rear dropouts most often use replaceable rear
derailleur hangers. Since it is really not possible to use a soft dropout
like is done with steel bikes, a replaceable hanger is a great solution.
jon isaacs
(Data is from the CRC Handbook of Materials Science Vol II.)
Trevor Jeffrey
--
Trevor M Jeffrey
Eat your greens before email.
------
Tim McNamara
<snip>
> For example it requires half a billion cycles at 23 ksi to cause failure in
> 7075 T6. The yield on 7075 T6 is about 73 Ksi so this factor is just about a
> third.
<snip>
> Compare this to 4340 steel which is a reasonable match for bicycle steel, the
> 4340 tempered at 400F will have a yield of 270 ksi, its fatigue strengh will be
> only at million cycles at 107,000 ksi and it elongation in 2 inches will be
> that same 11%. (Bicycle tube steel will normally yield about 200 ksi.)
>
> From this data, it appears to me that the aluminum has better fatigue
> properties than the steel, it will handle about 1/3 yield for half a billion
> cycles whereas the steel will only handle it for a million cycles.
You'll have to clarify something here, since it looks like you are comparing
apples and oranges. You state that Al requires 500,000,000 cycles at 23 ksi
to cause failure, but that steel requires only 1,000,000 cycles at 107,000 ksi.
From this you conclude that Al has better fatigue properties than steel.
Looking at the numbers you provide, steel withstands 7,391.3 times the load in
ksi than does aluminum, but withstands that load for 1/5 as many cycles. For
someone that doesn;t have a background in materials science, it certainly looks
as though steel will withstand loads that would make a cheap beer can out of
aluminum.
What would the comparison be if the steel was loaded at 23 ksi like the aluminum
was in your example? Would aluminum still look better that steel?
Jon Isaacs
>What would the comparison be if the steel was loaded at 23 ksi like the
>aluminum
>was in your example? Would aluminum still look better that steel?
I believe I addressed this issue but not directly. The point here is that it
is necessary to use the specific strength. (Yield stress/density)
This is because aluminum is about 1/3 the density of steel sop that on a per
pound basis, that aluminum 7075 has about 75% of the fatigue strength of the
steel.
But notice, the aluminum was measured at 500 times the nubmer of cycles, half a
billion as compared to 1 million.
So at 75% of the specific fatigue strengh of steel, this aluminum will handle
500 times the number of cycles.
Better data should be applied to this but I was only rebutting someone who
claimed that alumimun had not fatigue strength.
There reason aluminum frames are stronger per pound is that the lower density
allows thick walled tubes which are resistant to buckling and thus thte tubes
can be larger in diameter which geometrically makes them stronger.
jon isaacs
Bluto
only wonder whether or not I would break every single part on it!
Probably the shifters, etc., would still be OK after I wasted the
frame, fork, wheels, bars, BB, seatpost, and pedals.
Chalo Colina
joni...@aol.com (Jon Isaacs) wrote in message news:<20011123095236...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
Mark Hickey
>I don't have to wonder a moment whether I would break such a bike... I
>only wonder whether or not I would break every single part on it!
>
>Probably the shifters, etc., would still be OK after I wasted the
>frame, fork, wheels, bars, BB, seatpost, and pedals.
I don't think you'd get through that entire list before YOU break,
though (especially if the fork fails). Ouch.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Jon Isaacs
>though (especially if the fork fails). Ouch.
And I think he might surprised how much effort it took to break the bike. NO
matter how much he weighs, those components are light but quite strong. Other
than the wheels, it would probably be tough to break this bike.
jon isaacs
Bluto
super-duper-ultra-light road bike, but I don't think I'd have to sweat
long. Just because components are expensive and exotic does not make
them somehow stronger than the regular, heavy metal kind, which I'm
quite able to destroy already.
Some of the not-light but quite strong parts I've broken or bent
beyond use, while riding rather than crashing:
Cannondale MTB and touring frames
Schwinn lugged steel road frame
Raleigh cantilever-style 26" cruiser frame
Every stock fork ever supplied on any of my bikes, except Surly 1x1
Every CrMo unicrown fork with 1" steerer I ever used
Tange Switchblades triple-clamp rigid fork
Avid Tri-Align canti brake
Shimano Deore XT square BB spindle
Other Shimano square spindle
Shimano Uniglide chain
Sachs freewheel cogs (used with 44t ring)
Zoom "Brahma" handlebar
Kalloy Uno O/S MTB stem
Lots of rear axles, seatposts, saddles and pedals
Kudos to Bontrager forks and Sachs chains for not making the list
despite zillions of miles. I had an Easton Hyperlite bar that stood
the test, too, though I get the willies when I think about it.
Chalo Colina
joni...@aol.com (Jon Isaacs) wrote in message news:<20011128091432...@mb-mb.aol.com>...
Jon Isaacs
>super-duper-ultra-light road bike, but I don't think I'd have to sweat
>long. Just because components are expensive and exotic does not make
>them somehow stronger than the regular, heavy metal kind, which I'm
>quite able to destroy already.
They are made from different stronger materials and more carefully designed so
they can be both amazingly strong and lightweght at the same time.
Bicycles are already quite carefully designed but using modern materials and
putting the material where it will be most effective can reduce the weight
without reducing the strength of a part.
Jon Isaacs