Touring bicycle frame weight - info gathering

[hayers]

Hi

I'm trying to collate a bit of a frame weight database regarding currently (or not so current) available touring bicycles; in part this is due to some recent reviews I have read where many bike get critercised for being too heavy.

I've have seen a few other articles linked to this subject


http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12940290
https://forums.adventurecycling.org/index.php?topic=13220.0
https://www.cyclingabout.com/how-much-does-bike-and-gear-weight-slow-you-down/
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/commuting-touring-ride-reports/how-heavy-touring-bike-before-after-loaded-171503.html

let me know what you have and what is the frame weight please

thanks

perhaps you are also referring to the recent review in the latest CTC mag, where a certain 'Mr Hallett' almost condems the Ridgeback and the Galaxy as being overweight. Well ,Mr Hallett, not all of us can either afford, or 'want' one of your bespoke individual bikes,and I think it is wrong to have a frame / bike builder, to impartially test 'off the peg' touring bikes. Sure he is going to be critical, but they are HD touring bikes, not pretty little 650b playthings. I'm sure whatever bike was tested, it would not be good enough. I'd rather overbuilt, than a face full of gravel any day.

Just re-read that article - no mention I can see of how well (or otherwise) they ride loaded up with panniers etc - which is surely the point...

[pwa]

Gazelle impala Dutch bike with roller brakes, rack, front basket, lock & dynamo about 40 lbs (18.2kg)

Steel frame & wheels

Best to avoid weak bridges.

[Samuel D]

spa audax frame (56cm) 1920 gm, fork (carbon/alloy. uncut 300mm) 582 gm

For the purposes of size comparison, my 54 cm Spa Audax weighs:

• 1892 g frame only (with the two headset cups fitted)
• 609 g uncut fork (with crown race fitted)
• 2501 g total

The built-up bicycle weighs slightly less than 10 kg. Not strictly a touring frame, of course.

[andrew_s]

For my Ti tourer frame and forks are 3kg

I would hazard a guess that 40% of that weight is actually from steel forks.

Steel touring forks, with a 1 1/8 steerer, untrimmed, are generally about 1 kg.
On the other hand, a Ti bike would normally come with carbon forks, even if it says "tourer" on the packet.

[bigjim]

Beyond me how somone can market a Touring Bike with carbon forks that are so vulnerable to damage by aircraft handlers. You blithely ride away from the airport not knowing what damage has been suffered by the fork, as it is hard to see at times, or most of the time. Have they started to make them unbreakable?

[meic]

On the other hand, a Ti bike would normally come with carbon forks, even if it says "tourer" on the packet.

Those that are used as tourers (as compared to being toured on) however normally do not have CF forks because such things rarely accept front low-riders.

Also that weight of 3Kg is higher than expected for a Ti tourer with CF forks. The sort of thing we can work out with all this raw data coming in.

[robc02]

From memory, my 58cm LHT was about 2400g and the fork about 1050g. (i.e. I think the claimed frame weight was 2340g and the fork 1020g).

Again, from memory, my 23inch 531 Woodrup (Audax style frame) from the mid-late 1960s is about 1850g and forks about 800g. It has a sloping crown which probably explains the slightly higher weight than is often quoted for 531 forks. These weights are similar to those of other 531 frames I have weighed over the years.

[fatboy]

For my Ti tourer frame and forks are 3kg

I would hazard a guess that 40% of that weight is actually from steel forks.

Steel touring forks, with a 1 1/8 steerer, untrimmed, are generally about 1 kg.
On the other hand, a Ti bike would normally come with carbon forks, even if it says "tourer" on the packet.

It's from Spa so is a proper tourer. It might be heavy for weight weenies but it's just wonderful to ride and I can't wait to get touring on it (probably hostel based with saddle and bar bag).

1kg sounds about right for the fork weight so about 33% is the fork.

[foxyrider]

I know you can tour on any bike, and you could certainly do it on a Focus Mares. But it is not a "tourer". A tourer is designed with loaded touring as its reason for being, and has very low gears, longish wheelbase and can handle heavy loads if required. The FM (a nice bike with the ability to take on various roles) is a crosser. It is bound to be lighter than a tourer.

Yes it is a tourer - I built it and use it for that purpose therefore it is a tourer, just because it's lighter than you think a tourer should be doesn't change that. My primary touring bike, and i'm talking cyclo camping trips of 2-3 weeks, 1500plus km often with big chunks of 'off road' is a 9kg Airnimal Chameleon - that's 9kg including racks, guards etc and a 3x10 drivetrain. I'm not saying that either of my 'touring' bikes are the universal touring panacea but they work for my touring. (last year's 2000km tour was on my 7.5kg full Carbon sportive bike with a Ti rack and a pair of back rollers - I toured on it carrying all my gear for three weeks. I wouldn't however call it a touring bike - I just adapted it for the trip)

I'm constantly baffled that so many people believe that a touring bike has to be an unresponsive dead weight. I guess we can blame Dawes for that to a large extent with their awful offerings.

I've had, still have steel framed 'tourers' which by comparison to the Mares are complete dogs on anything not perfect in surface - I no longer use them as they are not fit for the riding I do - in fact never were it's just other options weren't so readily available 30 years ago.

[horizon]

I get that. What did you deduce on finding out the weight of your frame? I just can't fathom out WHY. To ME, I am quite happy being oblivious. Is it important?

It's quite useful in proving that there actually isn't much of a difference. There have been quite a few (quite interesting) threads about the real difference betwen an Audax bike and a touring bike and whether it matters. Given that the equipment is largely changeable, it comes down to the weight of the frame which turns out to be not much different as a percentage of overall bike weight.

[bigjim]

Dawes for that to a large extent with their awful offerings.

I've got quite a few bikes. All different. For the first time in about six months I took my 90s Dawes Galaxy out for a run. I was so impressed by the total quality feel of the bike. It just felt so comfortable, stable and well put together. Classy even. So of course I can't agree with that statement. Oh and it didn't feel slow at all. Unlike me.

[Brucey]

I'm constantly baffled that so many people believe that a touring bike has to be an unresponsive dead weight....

well you may tour on it but that doesn't make it a 'touring bike' any more than a set of roller skates with a pannier rack on would be. You can tour on anything but that doesn't automatically make what you are riding a touring bike as most people would understand it.

I like a light bike as much as the next fellow but I'm not fussed about it as I would bother to shave off that much weight, have equipment that is easily damaged/expensive to replace, a frame with that geometry and so forth, not on a touring bike. I'd trade reliability, stability and comfort for a little weight increase, and so would most other folk I suspect. Each to his own.

BTW a 12.5kg tourer adds about 2% weight to the all-up package (you, luggage, bike) vs your modified CX bike and at most will be 2% slower up steep hills. The speed difference on the flat will be barely measurable. That such a machine 'is not fit for the type of riding that you do' is not a very persuasive argument.

More than one person who has actually bothered to measure it has found that their touring bike is as fast cross-country as an ostensibly sportier machine. Slagging off Dawes is good sport but the fact is that the bikes they built -although not perfect by any means- were fairly capable, affordable, repairable and comfortable to ride.

cheers

[pwa]

I know you can tour on any bike, and you could certainly do it on a Focus Mares. But it is not a "tourer". A tourer is designed with loaded touring as its reason for being, and has very low gears, longish wheelbase and can handle heavy loads if required. The FM (a nice bike with the ability to take on various roles) is a crosser. It is bound to be lighter than a tourer.

Yes it is a tourer - I built it and use it for that purpose therefore it is a tourer, just because it's lighter than you think a tourer should be doesn't change that. My primary touring bike, and i'm talking cyclo camping trips of 2-3 weeks, 1500plus km often with big chunks of 'off road' is a 9kg Airnimal Chameleon - that's 9kg including racks, guards etc and a 3x10 drivetrain. I'm not saying that either of my 'touring' bikes are the universal touring panacea but they work for my touring. (last year's 2000km tour was on my 7.5kg full Carbon sportive bike with a Ti rack and a pair of back rollers - I toured on it carrying all my gear for three weeks. I wouldn't however call it a touring bike - I just adapted it for the trip)

I'm constantly baffled that so many people believe that a touring bike has to be an unresponsive dead weight. I guess we can blame Dawes for that to a large extent with their awful offerings.

I've had, still have steel framed 'tourers' which by comparison to the Mares are complete dogs on anything not perfect in surface - I no longer use them as they are not fit for the riding I do - in fact never were it's just other options weren't so readily available 30 years ago.

I don't define a tourer by weight. They happen to weigh a bit more because of what they have to do to be a tourer. Your Mares may have been transformed into a tourer if you built it up yourself. To fit the bill it should be able to carry a couple of full Ortlieb Rollers as a minimum without badly affecting the handling, and gearing should be low. If you have managed that, then you have made a tourer in the accepted sense of the word. If you have shaved a bit of weight off by starting with a Mares frameset, well done. An off-the-peg Mares is a crosser.

My own requirements for a tourer also include the ability to take front panniers, as I tend to carry stuff for other family members. So I do have a more traditional tourer that you would consider a bit dead, but I enjoy its stability on long climbs when it remains steady no matter how slow I go, and on the descents it tracks beautifully no matter how much weight I have transferred from my wife's panniers to my own. I also enjoy light bikes. I like both.

[pete75]

last year's 2000km tour was on my 7.5kg full Carbon sportive bike with a Ti rack and a pair of back rollers - I toured on it carrying all my gear for three weeks. I wouldn't however call it a touring bike - I just adapted it for the trip

All your gear for three weeks? Tent, Sleeping kit, stove, food, spare clothes etc etc?

[peetee]

My 23.5" 753 Nigel Dean touring frame with triple Dura Ace is set up with knobbly tyres and no guards or racks and weighs 23Lb.
I had a 24" 531ST Mercian with Tiagra triple, guards and rack that tipped at 26.75lb and a 24" 531c Audax with Triple Campag Veloche and guards at 25.5lb
I have just built up for someone an 18" Genesis 725 mountain bike with 1058 double group and mechanical disc brakes and no suspension that weighed a whopping 29lb. I was quite shocked at the bare frame weight (I couldn't measure it at the time) but as a comparison my inferior strength 531 custom tubed MTB is 26lb.