racing bikes, weight of the steel frame alone

[DiTBho]

• considering *only* racing road bikes
• if possible, let's only consider 540mm and 560mm frames
• only frames where the size of the horizontal tube corresponds to the size of the vertical tube
• only classic frame-design

how much do the various frames weigh?
I would like to understand how much steel technology has improved from the 80s ...

[tatanab]

Not complete frames (i.e including lugs etc), here is Reynolds tube set information. Note this is all oldish tubesets, not including 653, 853, 953. As I recall, the lightest in the 1980s was by Ishiwata.

https://equusbicycle.com/bike/reynolds/ ... ochure.jpg
https://equusbicycle.com/bike/reynolds/ ... ochure.jpg

[TheBomber]

Remember that while modern bicycle steel technology has improved in strength, its density and modulus (weight and stiffness) is basically unchanged. To make use of the improved strength in reducing the frame weight requires changes to the frame design: oversized tubes with thinner walls, carefully targeted ovalising (eg Columbus Max), tig welding and dare I say sloping top tubes. Though that last one could be achieved with older tubes, just not off the shelf lugs of the day.

[rareposter]

• considering *only* racing road bikes
• if possible, let's only consider 540mm and 560mm frames
• only frames where the size of the horizontal tube corresponds to the size of the vertical tube
• only classic frame-design

Have you got anything specific in mind? Reason I ask is that it's difficult to find any actual "racing" road bikes in steel and certainly not traditional horizontal top tube designs. And what is "classic frame design"?
Lugs, horizontal TT, 1" headset, rim brakes...?

Ribble for example have a couple of steel "road" bikes in their line up:
https://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/bikes/ro ... oad-bikes/
but they're branded as all-road / endurance bikes, good all-rounders rather than a "racing " geometry. If that makes much difference to your question, I don't know...

Genesis have had the excellent Equilibrium in their range for years:
https://www.genesisbikes.co.uk/genesis- ... vargn21820
but it's very much not a horizontal TT design...

I would like to understand how much steel technology has improved from the 80s ...

Hugely - there are far more steel alloys now whereas back in the 80's you had a couple of variants of 531 and that was your lot. Plus more refined ways of joining tubes, heat-treating and so on.

But I think you're on a hiding to nothing trying to directly compare weights because bike design has changed radically since the 1980's!

[Nearholmer]

This is off at an unhelpful angle, but something that amazed me when I first looked at the topic was how light the sportier bikes c1900 were. The really big weight reductions for such bikes have only come about very recently. Plenty of sloping top-tubes back then too, sloping in either direction.

[peetee]

I have a wide range of steel frames and their weights vary between 5.5 and 7.5lb with forks (60cm size, give or take).
The heaviest is a modern Spa Elan but, in comparison to most of my fleet, that has oversized tubing, a high head tube and is designed for disc brakes which require thicker gauge tubing in high-stress areas.
I would argue that, regardless of the year, when you compare the weights of different style of frame from a given time (touring, racing, MTB) they will show a greater variation in weight that would be present between two comparable style frames; one old, one new.

[Brucey]

.......I would like to understand how much steel technology has improved from the 80s ...

IMHO it hasn't, not really. Sure, there have been lots of tubesets which were variously oversize or have peculiar internal shapes, but none of them was noticeably lighter, nicer riding, faster, or more durable than 753 was.

753 derived much of it's strength from cold work; chemically it was the same as 531 and 653. A 753 frameset (ie. frame and fork) in ~54.5cm size (my size) weighed about 5.5lbs IIRC. Today, if you want really thin-walled steel tubes for a bicycle frame, Kaisei in Japan might be worth a look.

[Orbit531C]

I would like to understand how much steel technology has improved from the 80s ...

Hugely - there are far more steel alloys now whereas back in the 80's you had a couple of variants of 531 and that was your lot.

Well no, not really; haven't you forgotten about the wide variety of bicycle steel manufacturers in Italy- Columbus tubi? for your Colnagos and Bianchis and others; then Japan - Tange, used increasingly on mountain bikes and by US builders, and Ishiwata- as used by Revell / Madison in the UK and by some other UK builders; then in France - Vitus for your Merciers and Peugeots and the French tube maker Excell (a rarity, made in Lyons and used by Giordana on frames designed by one of the most respected frame builders, Dario Pegoretti); and no doubt others? Saying there was only Reynolds is a bit insular, as if saying in the eighties the only cars in the UK were those built by British Leyland- even if Reynolds was dominant in England....and even here there was also Accles & Pollock; quite likely available longer than might be supposed...

I would like to understand ...how much do the various frames weigh?

Some lightweight steel frames from the eighties were built around 3lbs 10oz; so 1650 gms give or take, I've two or three examples of these by Bob Jackson, Raleigh SBDU, Brian Rourke two of which have mudguard eyes and one cantilever mounts for touring wheels....

[DiTBho]

it hasn't, not really

I was thinking about

• Columbus Cyclex
• Columbus NivaCrom
• Columbus OmniCrom
• ...

[Orbit531C]

Possibly from early 80's / late seventies as found here:
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vint ... umbus.html

[Orbit531C]

Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) hierarchy (N/mm2)/ Alloy family/ tube sets:

1750-2050/Cro-Ni-Ti-Mg/Reynolds 953
1484/Cr-mo heat treated/True Temper OX
1250-1400/Mg-Cr-Mo/Reynolds 931
1225-1400/Mg-Cr-Mo/Reynolds 853
1315/Mn-Mo Heat treated/Reynolds 753
1280/Ni-Va-Cr/Columbus/ Nivacrom Max-EL-Genius-Cyber-Foco etc
1235/Cr-Mo/Tange Prestige-Logic
1030/Cr-Mo/Columbus Cyclex SL-SLX
925/Cr-Mo/Reynolds 708-653
800-900/Cr-Mo/Reynolds 631
894/Cr-Mo/Tange Infinity-MTB
870/Cro-Mo/Columbus Cromor-Thron
880/Cr-Mo/4130 Aircraft
802/Mn-Mo/Reynolds 531
802/Cro-Mo/Reynolds 525-501
720/Cr-Mo/Columbus Aelle-Gara
440/Cr-C/Mild Steel

from: https://www.retrobike.co.uk/threads/tan ... 161/page-3

[DiTBho]

Have you got anything specific in mind?

Something like this.
Made in 2003.
Classic design
TIG welded
Oval section down tube.

vs something like this



Made in 1996
Classic design
Brazed
Circular section down tube.

[mig]

.......I would like to understand how much steel technology has improved from the 80s ...

IMHO it hasn't, not really. Sure, there have been lots of tubesets which were variously oversize or have peculiar internal shapes, but none of them was noticeably lighter, nicer riding, faster, or more durable than 753 was.

753 derived much of it's strength from cold work; chemically it was the same as 531 and 653. A 753 frameset (ie. frame and fork) in ~54.5cm size (my size) weighed about 4.5lbs IIRC. Today, if you want really thin-walled steel tubes for a bicycle frame, Kaisei in Japan might be worth a look.

753 was a tubeset that builders had to be accredited to use IIRC?

[peetee]

753 was a tubeset that builders had to be accredited to use IIRC?

Correct:

[rogerzilla]

The rule of thumb is 4.5lb for a medium frame (no forks) in 531C/531DB. I have steel frames in that size between 4.2lb (531SL and a pre-war frame that may be A&P Kromo) and 5.1lb (531 plain gauge, main tubes only).