Weight

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
cycle tramp
Posts: 943
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Weight

Postby cycle tramp » 28 Jun 2014, 9:26pm

al_yrpal wrote:AND, a lighter bike is more pleasant to ride, it feels livelier, its easier to handle and thus a lot more fun. A bit like riding a thoroughbred rather than a nag. My Mercian is a lively pleasure to ride , so is my very lightweight Cannondale MTB, my touring bike, the Vaya is my trusty Dobbin :D, it handles the weight of my gear but its no way an exciting ride .
Al


...currently still riding a bicycle with a second hand thorn frame and the heaviest hub gear i could find, on the plus side the other road users have seen fit to give me all the excitment i can handle :lol:

Brucey
Posts: 41366
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Weight

Postby Brucey » 28 Jun 2014, 10:32pm

cycle tramp wrote:
CTC forum chosen to set maths questions for exams,
Part A.....


-please may I be excused?

My brain hurts..... :wink:

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

robc02
Posts: 1739
Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 7:12pm
Location: Stafford

Re: Weight

Postby robc02 » 29 Jun 2014, 8:09pm

It's never been sold as a heavy tourer in the same way say a LHT has.


I'm curious about this! According to the specs from Salsa and Surly, in 58cm (the size I'd be interested in) the head and seat angles, fork rake, effective top tube and BB drop are virtually identical and they are both about the same weight - suggesting similar tube thicknesses. So why are they not both equally suitable heavy tourers? Is it just a question of marketing? The only thing I can see that might make a difference is the 1cm longer chainstays on the Surly.

I am (casually!) looking for a secondhand frame to replace my decidedly heavy Raleigh "gas pipe" example that currently serves as my tourer (weight is not the only issue here, I might add). The Surly seems to appear secondhand reasonably often, but I have been put off a little by reports of its harshness etc. - but then the Salsa doesn't attract the same comments. So is the harshness really noticeable when ridden unloaded? I should add that I am 6ft and just a shade over 10 stones (I think I can ignore the comments earlier in this thread about losing body weight before thinking about bike weight :wink: ), and would want the bike to cope with lightweight camping - just two universal panniers, handlebar bag, tent strapped to rack.

The weight penalty of both of these frames over a decent quality steel frame (e.g. 531) seems to be about a couple of pounds maybe less, including forks.

David_S
Posts: 43
Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 7:44pm

Re: Weight

Postby David_S » 29 Jun 2014, 8:42pm

CTC forum chosen to set maths questions for exams,
Part A

i) If rider A climbs a 15% hill measuring 5 km in length, on a bicycle which has a mass of 10 kilograms at a steady 10 km/hour what is rider A's potential energy at the top of the hill (show workings ) ?

ii) Using the potential energy figure arrived at, in answer to question i, what would be the mass of rider A's new bicycle if rider A wanted to reach the top of the hill, five minutes faster than they would have done in Question i (show workings) ?

iii) Working from question ii, the new bicycle that rider A has purchased is £750. Rider A earns £9.60 per hour. How many times would rider A have to cycle the hill (listed in question i) in order to save the time that rider A has used earning money for their new bicycle ?

iv) If the new bicycle wears at 5% of its cost every thousand miles whilst climbing the hill, how many extra hours does rider A have to work for ?


Is the answer pie

Part B
explain the simple equasion below;

(time spent travelling + (time spent earning money to cover the cost incurred of wear and replacement of parts, and financial depreciation (+ fuel if its a motor vehicle)) divided by distance = speed

Why do you think that car advertisers don't use this equasion?[/quote]

Brucey
Posts: 41366
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Weight

Postby Brucey » 29 Jun 2014, 9:18pm

robc02 wrote:
It's never been sold as a heavy tourer in the same way say a LHT has.


I'm curious about this! According to the specs from Salsa and Surly, in 58cm (the size I'd be interested in) the head and seat angles, fork rake, effective top tube and BB drop are virtually identical and they are both about the same weight - suggesting similar tube thicknesses. So why are they not both equally suitable heavy tourers? Is it just a question of marketing? The only thing I can see that might make a difference is the 1cm longer chainstays on the Surly.


if anything this

http://surlybikes.com//uploads/downloads/SURLYLongHaul.pdf

says 58cm LHT is 2.34 kg (5.15lbs) vs the salsa frame weight in your link of 2.42kg.

but..... the Salsa is a disc frameset. This means if it is the same weight as a non-disc frameset, it could be, nay will be heavy in different places. So the Salsa could be significantly lighter built in the main triangle in order to allow for the weight of the disc mounts, the increased strength parts near the disc mounts etc.

The weight penalty of both of these frames over a decent quality steel frame (e.g. 531) seems to be about a couple of pounds maybe less, including forks.


which 531 are you thinking of? But anyway I agree, if their figures are right you are looking at about 7.3lbs for frame and fork which means they are not especially heavy framesets by any stretch of the imagination.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13195
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Weight

Postby 531colin » 29 Jun 2014, 9:50pm

I have never had a Vaya to play with, but my own observations suggest there is little difference in tube diameters between disc and rim braked LHT frames and forks.
LHT steering geometry is 72 deg head, 45mm offset, this is just about the most common steering geometry there is. The LHTs famous stability loaded is therefore either just a story, or its down to a 28.6mm top tube and a 31.8mm down tube keeping it all pointing in the same direction.
Perhaps the Vaya owners would oblige with the diameters of their bikes' tubes?

reohn2
Posts: 40129
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Weight

Postby reohn2 » 29 Jun 2014, 10:26pm

robc02 wrote:
It's never been sold as a heavy tourer in the same way say a LHT has.


I'm curious about this! According to the specs from Salsa and Surly, in 58cm (the size I'd be interested in) the head and seat angles, fork rake, effective top tube and BB drop are virtually identical and they are both about the same weight - suggesting similar tube thicknesses. So why are they not both equally suitable heavy tourers? Is it just a question of marketing? The only thing I can see that might make a difference is the 1cm longer chainstays on the Surly.

The Surly seems to appear secondhand reasonably often, but I have been put off a little by reports of its harshness etc. - but then the Salsa doesn't attract the same comments. So is the harshness really noticeable when ridden unloaded?

I don't know anything about the LHT other than what I've read,the harshness of the unloaded ride does seem to remarked on a bit by some.The Galaxy I mentioned up thread was like that,loaded it was fine,unloaded it was a real plank and dead.
I can't say I find that with the Vaya and it has a straight bladed fork.I've two Vayas one is the early bronze coloured one the other is 2014 light blue one.I've checked both over and the later one has an oversize 31.8mm toptube compared with the earlier one which is 28.6mm,both downtubes are 31.8mm.There's some slight differences to the rear dropouts on the later one which look to be a little stronger and it has a replaceable rear mech hanger compared to the earlier one which is integral,much like any steel frame.
Both bikes are built up with identical gruppos,wheels/tyres,etc and weigh 13kg with mudguards fitted.
The newer one feels a little tighter,I'm reluctant to say stiffer because it doesn't feel like that when putting power down,just slightly tighter handling somehow :? .
Both are very comfortable,but a lot of that comes from the very supple tyres (700x37c(35mm actual) Vittoria Voyager or Randonneur Hypers ).
I don't ride the bikes loaded with anything more than a day bag of 2to3kg.
I too am 6ft,and mine are 57cm size which are big enough,I ride 175mm cranks size 46 shoes(47 in winter)with almost 20mm of mudguard clearance with no toe overlap and ride with the ,bars 30mm higher than the saddle and find there's plenty of room in them,though I do have the saddle a loonngg way back(nose 90mm behind the BB).



would want the bike to cope with lightweight camping - just two universal panniers, handlebar bag, tent strapped to rack.

Have you read this:- http://pathlesspedaled.com/2012/12/sals ... surly-lht/
They rate the Vaya as a tourer that's a nice ride unloaded and the LHT as a heavy tourer and mention the unloaded harshness

The weight penalty of both of these frames over a decent quality steel frame (e.g. 531) seems to be about a couple of pounds maybe less, including forks.

Are you comparing like with like?
I think you'd find a 531st touring frameset would weight about the same.My Galaxy(531st throughout) weighed about the same as the Vaya with similar build but obviously it had lighter canti brakes.

EDIT:- I just thought :!: ,I do know something of the LHT as I have an LHT disc fork on my Kona DewDrop,bought to increase tyre clearance as the original P2 fork would only take a 32mm with m/g's.It a stiff piece of steel despite being curved in the traditional fashion.
Last edited by reohn2 on 30 Jun 2014, 8:42am, edited 2 times in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5225
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Weight

Postby RickH » 29 Jun 2014, 10:46pm

Of course if you want a really light bike you could try this one

Image

weighing in at...

4.26kg (9.39lb if you prefer)! :D (it would also lighten your bank balance by £11k too)

Poshbikes, who built it up, reckon they could get the weight down to 3.5kg!

Rick.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 12348
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Weight

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 29 Jun 2014, 10:50pm

Hi,
Luv to ride that for about 20 miles flat out........but would the wheels be in line after and would I break the frame.............. :)
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

Brucey
Posts: 41366
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Weight

Postby Brucey » 29 Jun 2014, 10:54pm

RickH wrote:
weighing in at...

4.26kg (9.39lb if you prefer)! :D (it would also lighten your bank balance by £11k too)

Poshbikes, who built it up, reckon they could get the weight down to 3.5kg!

Rick.


it has got no pedals.... I wonder what they would leave off next to get the weight down a bit more.... :wink: :roll:

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

reohn2
Posts: 40129
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Weight

Postby reohn2 » 29 Jun 2014, 11:06pm

Brucey wrote:
it has got no pedals.... I wonder what they would leave off next to get the weight down a bit more.... :wink: :roll:

cheers

Mudguards,rack,saddlebag,anyone can cheat :? :mrgreen:
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13195
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Weight

Postby 531colin » 30 Jun 2014, 8:40am

So if we stick with the facts the Vaya has either the same tube sizes as the LHT, or bigger in the newest incarnation, and the geometry is very similar.
The Vaya has a disc fork, but then the rim brake LHT fork is no lightweight, and I can't tell the difference between a disc and rim brake LHT fork.

The trouble with bike reviews is that one reviewer finds a bike "dead" or "dull" or something like that.....subsequent reviewers expect to find the same, and guess what, they do.
I think its just about as reliable as manufacturers quoted weights.

reohn2
Posts: 40129
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Weight

Postby reohn2 » 30 Jun 2014, 9:21am

531colin wrote:So if we stick with the facts the Vaya has either the same tube sizes as the LHT, or bigger in the newest incarnation, and the geometry is very similar.
The Vaya has a disc fork, but then the rim brake LHT fork is no lightweight, and I can't tell the difference between a disc and rim brake LHT fork.

Have you seen my edit above?
Comparing the LHT disc fork to the Vaya's there's not much in them,the LHT under certain conditions can just ever so slliigghhttyy judder usually at a slow speed when it's wet,but nothing that concerns me.

The trouble with bike reviews is that one reviewer finds a bike "dead" or "dull" or something like that.....subsequent reviewers expect to find the same, and guess what, they do.
I think its just about as reliable as manufacturers quoted weights.

I agree,when someone's being paid to ride bikes and report on them usually,though there are exceptions,unless the bike's a complete dog,they don't want to upset anyone and some reading between the lines is needed.
It's one reason I prefer to read owner/user reports.The one I linked to above seems a fair test over quite distance,and for the Vaya IME rings true,their comparison to the LHT isn't something I can comment on but,the LHT has an enviable reputation as a 'take you round the world kitchen sink an' all' expedition bike.
The Vaya doesn't seem to get that kind of reception,loaded touring but not heavily loaded touring yes.Unladen nimble fun to ride bike,IME it doesn't feel at all like a 13kg bike.
A true Jack with a bit of extra something that's hard to actually put a finger on,but secure handling on and off tarmac and a feeling of almost boringly reliable point and shoot handling with no vices.
I've said before on here I've had the feeling of being in it rather than on it and at risk of sounding New Agey a oneness with,it fits the roll perfectly,for me anyway :) .
When I came to buy the second Vaya frameset,I looked closely and gave the Fargo a good coat of staring at,but came to the conclusion it couldn't take me anywhere the Vaya couldn't.
I wouldn't fit 2inch knobbles as they'd kill the pleasure of any tarmac riding,I looked around if anything else filled the bill so I would have a change of ride,I didn't fancy anything I looked at, it had to be a second Vaya.
I don't think I've made a wrong decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------

mrjemm
Posts: 2933
Joined: 20 Nov 2011, 4:33pm

Re: Weight

Postby mrjemm » 30 Jun 2014, 9:33am

Interesting thread in places, but lost track of most of it's alleyways... So many diversions.

I'd suggest a ride of the 58cm Vaya before committing to it, Rob. At just under 6', my 57cm was, I think, a bit too big for me, so my replacement was the 56cm, and I feel it works better for me. R2 at 6' is probably bang on, so I'd guess 58 a tad large. But then, I am always 2nd guessing my fit and constantly adjusting bits'n bobs.

Guess I must be a philistine too, cos I simply don't feel huge differences between the frames I ride. I couldn't say what's 'exciting' or 'dull', but I know my Vaya is a lot of fun. Of course that could just be that it's better set up than I let myself believe, and lets me just get out there and have nice rides. Though I also really enjoy riding my P7 thingy.

The Vaya forks are straight, but on bumpy stuff I can see them wiggle back'n forth in a springy manner, though I couldn't say if that's the forks flexing, or the frame. I've not toured so much on the newer one, but with the original (an early bronze one also) I could see the frame twist a fair bit under load (exertion + carried), which I've not observed on the newer, smaller one. It carried a full load over a good few miles without incident though, and was only ruined by my own stupidity with the toolbox. I haven't ridden an LHT far (bar a spin on a mate's), but they look more 'solid' somehow. The Straggler forks though, despite being curved and not super stocky, are not exactly svelte, and appear a bit sausage like to my untrained eyes.

As for weight... Not something I really give a poo about. I tend to ride with a pannier full of gubbins, and carry a waist that's slimmer than it was, but is still over the ideal by some margin. And my frame is not standard Vaya, so rather heavier than those, but being the philistine I am, wouldn't notice. Must be the oversized (and odd coloured) bell... It takes a few rides after a break, but am soon climbing happily, if sweatily, despite the kryptonite D, kryptonite cable, 2 bottles, phone, gps, spare batteries, jacket, fleece, hat, sunnies, maps, kindle, 2x multitools, spare tube, patches, tyre levers, lights, groceries, kitchen sink...

Edit, just seen R2's last post. I like the Fargo, but the P7 is close in purpose, for me, despite being 26". The Vaya fills a role for me much like it does him, I believe. When I chose it, I'd never even heard of Salsa (or Surly for that matter), and came across the model quite by chance, ordering the frame on spec, before any reviews that I was aware of. A gamble that truly paid off!

robc02
Posts: 1739
Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 7:12pm
Location: Stafford

Re: Weight

Postby robc02 » 30 Jun 2014, 9:42am

Have you read this:- http://pathlesspedaled.com/2012/12/sals ... surly-lht/
They rate the Vaya as a tourer that's a nice ride unloaded and the LHT as a heavy tourer and mention the unloaded harshness


That was one of the articles that initially raised my question! With the information available it doesn't seem logical.

Are you comparing like with like?
I think you'd find a 531st touring frameset would weight about the same.


I'm probably not, but then my choice would be between a mid-heavy weight tourer vs a lighter weight tourer. My experience is mainly with 531C frames weighing under 2kg and forks around 800g. I seem to remember figures for 531ST frames around or slightly over 2kg - all in my size or thereabouts. I'd be interested to know the weight of something like a Bob Jackson World Tour in 631 OS compared to a LHT.

I just thought ,I do know something of the LHT as I have an LHT disc fork on my Kona DewDrop,bought to increase tyre clearance as the original P2 fork would only take a 32mm with m/g's.It a stiff piece of steel despite being curved in the traditional fashion.


I would have guessed that any noticeable harshness would come from the fork, but the Vaya fork is the same weight give or take a few grammes. A 531 fork is quite a bit lighter.

but..... the Salsa is a disc frameset. This means if it is the same weight as a non-disc frameset, it could be, nay will be heavy in different places. So the Salsa could be significantly lighter built in the main triangle in order to allow for the weight of the disc mounts, the increased strength parts near the disc mounts etc.


True, but then the Vaya has a sloping top tube which would result in weight saved so going someway towards compensating for the disc brake fittings. Whichever way you look at it there doesn't seem to be an obvious large difference in weight or construction to justify the claims that one of these gives a much harsher ride than the other. - I'm not saying it doesn't, just that I can't see why.


EDIT: I was comparing the 58cm sizes in both for a direct comparison in terms of weight and effective top tube length. A 57 would be slightly better but is not available in the LHT. I would be secondhand buyer so wouldn't have the breadth of choice, or access to test rides as a new buyer. My concerns about weight are more to do with its effect on handling and ride than on the additional load!