Touring bicycle frame weight - info gathering

[Chat Noir]

chat noir wrote:
Donald, at BJ, smiled at this story when I took the bike in and commented about the difference between steel and carbon, ie carbon wouldn’t have made it round

Which is something that he can not possibly know. There are plenty of people who deal in CF bikes who would say that about steel.
The evidence is reversed from the result and is no evidence at all. No matter what happens steel will be declared the better.

Steel fork breaks therefor CF would have been smashed to bits.
CF fork breaks therefor CF forks are fragile and steel fork would have survived.

Those pictures of crashed bikes with a broken frame but intact CF forks after running head on into something, rather spoil that little idea.

Well, yes, probably not a surprise that Donald said that he thought steel would have survived better than carbon in the same circumstances. His business is building and repairing steel bikes, and he probably knows more about steel bikes, accident damage and the like than most people posting on here.

I didn’t make a judgement about steel being more resilient than carbon. I wrote an account of how this steel bike had been resilient after sustaining damage. I like old steel bikes but I also like the ways bike technology continues to develop and evolve. I like MTBs, and have an alu bike with excellent disc brakes and suspension forks (which is heavy to tour with but gets you to places nothing else will). I have a good carbon bike, a Focus, comfortable on rough road surfaces, complete with a modern dura ace groupset and this bike gets me up hills faster than anything else I have because it’s lighter at 16.5 lbs all up. I have toured with this, for example in the Dolomites, complete with Carradice bar and saddle bags. Great on the flats and the ascents (I fitted a triple for the trip with a bottom of 30 / 28) but the geometry meant I found the long and sharp descents too fast and twitchy for comfort (think going down the Stelvio!), unlike a long wheel-based bike like the Dolan, so I tend not to tour with it.

Back to the Bob Jackson: it was the frame that was damaged, and the forks simply pushed out of true. This enlargement from a poor photo at JO’G shows the damage to the lug, visible crack where you can see lube has seeped out and, if you look carefully, you can just about see that the top of the lug has parted from the head tube.

What we can’t know is how a carbon frame / forks would have coped with the same accident (on the final gentle left bend, after the hairpins, at the top of the Bealach, a motor home was coming down and didn’t take the bend wide enough meaning that the back of the vehicle pushed me off the side of the road), nor how it would have coped with riding another 400 miles on the harsh surfaces of northern Scotland had it sustained damage. All I know is that I was impressed that this lightweight bike got me round, I’m pleased that the forks can be straightened and the head tube / lugs replaced so that I’ll be able to ride it again.

In terms of the original post, suspect we will all continue to have our own opinions about what works best for us and why, some touring happily on lightweight road bikes, like me, and some on purpose built tourers. Given the sort of rides I do, all else being equal, I want the bike and gear to be as light as I can get it, whether with my ‘heavyweight’ touring bike at 24.5 lbs or my lightweight at 22 lbs. If it’s really lightweight touring (ie credit card) and / or I’m going with a group that is fast then it’s the carbon (Focus), the concession to touring being stronger wheels and a saddle bag. If it’s off road touring, the MTB with Thule rack and other bits, probably 27 lbs, but I haven’t weighed this bike since I packed it for the airport last year and with MTB trips weight is rather less important than ability to get through the toughest conditions, which is probably true for any long distance touring with changeable terrain.

This is an interesting thread. Not sure whether a consensus will be reached!

[meic]

This is an interesting thread. Not sure whether a consensus will be reached!

It doesnt have to be, the data is the axiom from which we start. It just means we can start from real data instead of guess work, sometimes guess work which is used to support the beliefs on which it was based.

[Brucey]

....Those pictures of crashed bikes with a broken frame but intact CF forks after running head on into something, rather spoil that little idea.....

I may be pointing out the bloomin' obvious here, but there is virtually no way (economically or practically) to determine whether a CF fork really is 'intact' after a prang, (or after any significant period of use, come to that).

If I'd shunted the bike badly enough to trash the frame, CF forks would be headed for the bin, regardless of what they look like.

cheers

[elPedro666]

....Those pictures of crashed bikes with a broken frame but intact CF forks after running head on into something, rather spoil that little idea.....

I may be pointing out the bloomin' obvious here, but there is virtually no way (economically or practically) to determine whether a CF fork really is 'intact' after a prang, (or after any significant period of use, come to that).

If I'd shunted the bike badly enough to trash the frame, CF forks would be headed for the bin, regardless of what they look like.

cheers

This is the real issue for me when it comes to carbon; the uncertainty. As buying new is something I very rarely do, a material that you cannot assess by eye or simple tools really doesn't fit my needs. I wonder if we'll ever reach the point where lbs are equipped with small X-ray machines... I'm betting they aren't cheap bits of kit!

And don't get me started on fakes...

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[RJC]

Spa Cycles 57cm titanium tourer with headset cups & some foam wrapping 1916gm (frame weight ~1.8-1.85Kg)
Spa tourer steel forks uncut 1128gm
I did investigate Condor steel touring forks which were claimed to be 800gm but turned out to be slightly heavier than the Spa forks..

[steady eddy]

I have come to this a little late in the day but here are my comparisons for what they are worth. My 631 framed Galaxy with a rear rack, Shimano triple chain set, mudguards and 28mm tyres weighs 14.5 kgs.
My 631 framed Pilgrim Audax bike with a Campag triple chain set, a slightly skinnier rack, a Brooks saddle, 28mm tyres and mudguards, weighs in at 10.5kgs, a saving of 4kgs. The difference in the ride is noticeable.

The difference is due to each of the components on the Pilgrim being lighter and I guess the wheels and tyres show the biggest weight saving and probably make the most difference to the weight saving.

[PH]

I did investigate Condor steel touring forks which were claimed to be 800gm but turned out to be slightly heavier than the Spa forks..

I also have that Tange fork, bought for geometry and fittings, on my kitchen scales it comes in a a couple of grams over 1kg with the fork cut down to 300mm. Condor did have it listed at a lower weight (They've corrected it now) I would have been surprised if it was right, a steel fork made for front panniers is going to weigh that much +/- an insignificant amount.

[amediasatex]

I may be pointing out the bloomin' obvious here, but there is virtually no way (economically or practically) to determine whether a CF fork really is 'intact' after a prang, (or after any significant period of use, come to that).

It's even worse than that, you can't even tell when it's brand new

And 'cheap' Carbon fibre parts externally can be indistinguishable from quality parts. Sometimes there are tell-tale signs if you can inspect internally (non-destructively) but even then it's hard to even the trained eye.

Which leaves the average consumer in somewhat of a pickle in terms of trust...

I've suffered my fair share of breakages of steel, ti, aluminium and carbon components. And my carbon failures have run the gamut from 'catastrophic and unexpected snapping' right the way through to 'slow and gradual safe failure' and a few in between.

<anecdote alert>

A couple of examples at extreme ends of the spectrum.

1> I had a Bontrager carbon seatpost fail on me, within a week of purchase. It was fitted correctly, not over-torqued/pinched and then one day as I mounted the bike to leave for a ride as I sat on the saddle the post just snapped. It had suffered no impact under my ownership, and it snapped about an inch above the seat clamp, ie: not at the obvious place of *just* above the seat-clamp like most of them when they go. I was lucky as I was just setting off I managed to put a foot down and stopped my self from acquiring a few carbon splinters in the unmentionables.

2> I had a (also) Bontrager carbon handlebar that actually didn't fail! In an XC race a year or so back I took a tumble during a river crossing, and unknown to me the handle bar had impacted a rather pointy rock while underwater, the impact was hard enough to actually punch a small hole in the handlebar, there was a small section/flap in the middle of a (larger) visible dent that was loose when poked, it also caused some local cracking and delamination around the hole. The impact site was about 5-10mmm to the side of the stem clamp so quite a highly stressed area. At the time the damage wasn't visible as it was nicely obscured by my number board so I carried on for the rest of the race, 4 laps, hard offroad including a number of drop-offs with flat landings. After the race when I moved my number board I was shocked at the damage! The bar had remained intact and there was no noticeable difference in feel/stiffness when tested.

I think if it had been an aluminium bar then it would have been very deeply gouged at least, certainly enough that I would have retired the bar even if it were Alu as deep scratches/gouges that close to the stem are a cause for concern. I had to replace the faceplate on the Alu stem due to that being damaged as well.

Later when I removed the bar from the bike I decided to non-scientifically test it to see just how much it would take before snapping. Suffice it to say it was quite difficult! I did finally get it to fail by clamping the other end with a bench vise and then using an *additional* 0.5m bar slipped over the other end jumping up and down with all my weight repeatedly (and this was after repeated prior attempts without the extra bar and several beatings with a lump hammer). At that point the bar finally folded but not at the impact site and in a fairly graceful way rather than a clean snap.

I don't intend for people to draw conclusions from either anecdote or to try and extrapolate them to other situations, just two examples of carbon performance at opposite ends of the spectrum.

EDIT - I may have pictures of the seatpost and bar somewhere if anyone is interested...

[fatboy]

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...

I've also re read the article and it's whole premise is nonsense. The Dawes Galaxy weighs 13.7 kg which is what they've weighed for at least 10 years. So unless recently means in the last 20 years the report in uneducated, prejudiced nonsense. Now there is a separate argument about what's the best bike for touring but touring bikes have been the same weight they for ages.

[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.

Any chance of a photo fully loaded? Been thinking of using 20 inch wheels for my next tourer?

Sorry for delay - took a bit of working out how to reduce the file size but here is my Chameleon in Holland last September carrying full camping gear.

[fastpedaller]

Maybe I'm not entering into the spirit of the discussion, but for my 2d worth.......
As others have said the frame is a small part of the total weight, I'd also add that if a frame is (say) 1kg lighter than another example, that when it's built up into a full bike it will still be only 1kg lighter if the same components are used to build both bikes. The discussion is worthless in isolation!

[CJ]

Just the other day we collected the frame and fork for my wife's new touring bike from Spa Cycles. Frame: 1580g, fork 600g. Is that a touring record? I should mention that Helen is a petite 157cm (5'2) and 50kg (8st), so by rights it ought not to be more than two-thirds the weight of a frameset for yer average bloke!

Yes it really is designed for touring - by yours truly - to fit 37-622 tyres with generous mudguard clearance in a frame only 42cm size - and NO toe overlap! Up-to-the-minute and ground-breaking features include the new 'flat-mount' brake fittings, thru-axle dropouts, a very short tapered headset, and a unique low-profile fork crown with internally routed brake pipe and dynamo cable emerging through it.

Why a titanium fork? Because the head angle is 70, which requires a correspondingly longer offset than any ready-made fork has. Plus they all (even the few that do boast enough clearance) have unnecessarily deep crowns, the undersides of which are stupidly square to the steerer rather than intelligently tangential to the tyre. So the fork also had to be custom-made, preferably in the same material as the frame, and now that steerer tubes can flare out to inch-and-a-half at the bottom, that solves the problem of excessive flex that has hitherto hampered the development of Ti forks.

This unique frame and fork took about a year for me to design and have made, thanks to John Pocklington's contacts in China. The process involved some 100 emails between myself and the Chinese manufacturer and a dozen iterations of the frame and fork drawings, before they'd drawn close enough (in both senses of the phrase) to my original concept. So you cannot imagine how relieved I was to find that the finished article also measured close enough to those final drawings! The build-up is now under way. Pictures may follow, but that probably merits a new thread.

[elPedro666]

Wow, I can't wait to see that! Please take plenty of photos along the way, sounds like a fantastic labour of love.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[meic]

Maybe I'm not entering into the spirit of the discussion, but for my 2d worth.......
As others have said the frame is a small part of the total weight, I'd also add that if a frame is (say) 1kg lighter than another example, that when it's built up into a full bike it will still be only 1kg lighter if the same components are used to build both bikes. The discussion is worthless in isolation!

It may be incomplete or imperfect due to its isolation but it is far from worthless.
For sure adjustments will need to be made when making up a frame to a bike.
CF forks will need an additional weight for their expansion nuts instead of a starfangled washer.
Quill stems will probably weigh more than an Ahead stem.
However it is a first approximation and people can refine from that point, instead of starting from nothing.
Just as you can look at the weights of the various frames you can look at the weights of the various, mudguards, wheels, saddles, chainsets etc etc.
Most of us start building the bike around the frame.

[Brucey]

Just the other day we collected the frame and fork for my wife's new touring bike from Spa Cycles. Frame: 1580g, fork 600g. Is that a touring record? ..... Pictures may follow, but that probably merits a new thread.

sounds very interesting, looking forward to seeing pictures.

cheers