As a rider of tall bikes, I'm curious about this question of size vs weight as well. Other cyclists have suggested that size doesn't make much difference in weight -- they claim a few extra cm makes little difference because the tubing is so light. Yet in the "my bike is lighter that yours" comparison, I've always felt inadequate.
The lightest on-topic vintage bike I've owned is my 62cm Art Stump at 20.8 lbs:
http://www.wooljersey.com/
Next closest vintage and KOF bikes are:
20.5 lbs -- 1997 Waterford 1200 -- 63 cm seat tube c/c 21.8 lbs -- mid 80s DeRosa -- 64 cm seat tube c/c 22.0 lbs -- 1975 Argos time trial bike (now owned by Gabriel Romeu) -- 62 cm seat tube c/c 22.2 lbs -- 1990 Celmins -- 63 cm seat tube c/c 22.5 lbs -- circa 1982 Colnago Super -- 62 cm seat tube c/ 22.5 lbs -- circa 1987 Chuleewah -- 65cm seat tube c/c 22.3 lbs -- circa 1980 Cuevas -- 65cm seat tube c/c 22.8 lbs -- 1981 Lotus Super Pro Aero -- 62 cm seat tube c/c 22.9 lbs -- 1977 Richard Sachs -- 64 cm seat tube c/c 23.0 lbs -- early 70s MKM -- 64 cm seat tube c/c 23.3 lbs -- circa 1990 Colnago Master Piu -- 63 cm seat tube c/c
I've just bought an off-topic 2009 Specialized Roubaix (all carbon) @ 64 cm. I expected ultra light-weight. Yet it turns out to weigh in at a robust 18.3 lbs. Yes lighter than all the above, yet for all the much-touted benefits of modern materials -- not all that much lighter. And I hear other folks make much lighter claims about their modern bikes.
So my impression is that vintage or modern -- large bikes like mine are considerably heavier. (Or am I simply a wimp in the weight weenie wars?).
David
David G. White Burlington, VT
Kim Carney wrote:
> What size frame is referenced when discussing weight of the bikes mentioned
> thus far or any frame/bike for that matter? I'm also curious as to how
> much weight is added for every cm increase in size of say a full Renyolds
> 531 frame?
>
> Kim Carney
> Davis, CA
>
>
>>>> Can ANY CR members name an on-topic catalogue bike that tipped the
>>>> scales in the 18 lbs range ?? That's an interesting question for the
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>
>>> I can name two. Rene Herse and Alex Singer. During the trials in
>>> the late 40's and early 50's in France, the constructuers would try
>>> to build the lightest bike. Some of them weighed under 17 lbs.
>>>
>> Those weren't catalogue bikes. If by catalogue bike, you mean a
>> production bike, then it might be hard - you'll have to look at Alans
>> and such. Caminargents were production bikes, and their claimed
>> weights were very light. However, I never have weighed one that came
>> in under 19 lbs. So the advertising claims have to be treated with
>> some circumspection.
>>
>> If you just mean a custom bike with production components (rather
>> than modified ones, such as used by the technical trials machines),
>> then you still have quite a few options among the French makers, and
>> probably many others.
>>
>> Rene Vietto rode a Barra in the 1948 Tour de France that weighed 17.6
>> lbs. with a steel seatpost, steel-railed saddle and totally stock
>> components. (Blatant ad: The bike is featured in our new book "The
>> Competition Bicycle.") Replace the saddle with an alloy-railed Ideale
>> and alloy seatpost, and you'll get below 17 lbs. And any customer
>> could have bought one like it from Barra.
>>
>> Jan Heine
>> Editor
>> Bicycle Quarterly
>> 140 Lakeside Ave #C
>> Seattle WA 98122
>> http://www.bikequarterly.com