# Steel Frames - What is considered light?



## jtcastillo

I am new to road riding and was just wondering, what is considered light for a Steel frame. What is considered average weight?

It seems like there is a lot of carbon out these days and it just got me thinking of steel.


----------



## CC09

without knowing toooo much.

my team was talking to a steel frame builder (boutique, 1 man operation, full custom, etc). and he was saying about 1 lb heavier than a comparable size/geo frame, be it alu,carb,or ti.....

so id figure at least 1lb if not more to a bike? isnt there some new type of steel out though that is supposed to be lighter?


----------



## terzo rene

The only thing lighter about the 953 is it [theoretically] doesn't need paint which can save 200g on a frame. Other than that it's no lighter than S3 or other light steel. 1400-1500g is very light for a 55-56cm steel and in most cases that would be about 1 lb more than the competition. But my next carbon frame will be under 700g so you are really asking what is light for a sumo wrestler.


----------



## fleck

I heard with new R953 you'll find frames around 1kg.
pretty sweet for steel. But, you're gonna pay for it.


----------



## jtcastillo

*Thats a good way to put it!*



terzo rene said:


> ...so you are really asking what is light for a sumo wrestler.


 I just picture a sumo wrestler on a carbon bike!


----------



## roadboy

I have a Bianchi Reparto Corse steel frame (2002 model) and it weighs about 3.25 pounds (it's a 55cm). I have built it into a 16.5 pound bike pretty easily, without buying a bunch of wacked out way light parts. I have seen a few steel frames advertised at 2.7-2.8 for a 55cm but your going to pay top dollar, and I dont even know if those weights are accurate. I would find a nice steel frame from a nice builder and with the right components you can build a pretty light bike. And remember ride what you like cause 1lb is not going to make the difference between slow and fast, but can make the difference between love and hate.


----------



## physasst

*+1*



roadboy said:


> I would find a nice steel frame from a nice builder and with the right components you can build a pretty light bike. And remember ride what you like cause 1lb is not going to make the difference between slow and fast, but can make the difference between love and hate.



Bingo....The truth is.....well over 95% of cyclists don't need that extra pound off the bike...most of us could stand to lose a few off our bodies...as far as cost....I think one of the BIGGEST benefits to steel, is the ability to go custom. Support your local businesses and find some good framebuilders in your region. Most seem to charge in the 1400-1800 range for a good custom steel frame....Remember...ride quality is many times more affected by fit, than 1 pound or so on the bike. The ability to custom fit you and, and build a frame to your dimensions is huge. As far as the new 953.....I think I saw on Carl Strong's website that he is asking about 2000 for a frame with 953..not cheap, but not really expensive, especially not when you compare it to the high zoot carbon frames. I don't know..I have to admit that I am biased..I don't really like carbon bikes..they look fake to me..kinda like a matchbox toy. Me...I'll take the weight penalty for the beauty and ride of steel.


----------



## ultimobici

terzo rene said:


> The only thing lighter about the 953 is it [theoretically] doesn't need paint which can save 200g on a frame. Other than that it's no lighter than S3 or other light steel. 1400-1500g is very light for a 55-56cm steel and in most cases that would be about 1 lb more than the competition. But my next carbon frame will be under 700g so you are really asking what is light for a sumo wrestler.


So Baum in Australia claiming an sub 1200g medium frame were lying? Its more resistant to dents than regular light steel and as strong or stronger than 3/2.5 TI apparently.


----------



## RickyRitalin

Go to Wrench Science (htttp://www.wrenchscience.com), open up Road bikes and compare weights. High end steel bike frames weigh about a pound or so more than carbon and cost between $2000 and $3500 (for a Pegoretti). The point is that although steel frames weigh more than carbon, the difference is not that much. One could build an IndyFab Factory Lightweight spec'd to C. Record for ~ $7k and it will weigh less than 17lbs. With some careful selection, a Factory Lightweight could be built to weigh less than the Tour de France limit of 15 lbs. How durable these bikes are, I don't know. I leave that up to the experts.


----------



## refund!?

The average weight of quality steel frames (Around 3 lbs/1350 gms) isn't much more than the average weights for carbon (2.25 lbs/ 1000 gms) or ti (2.5 lbs/1125 gms) frames. However the cost of the good steel frames is a fraction of that for carbon or ti, so the savings can go for better/lighter components/forks/wheels. There's lots of neat looking 16.5 pound steel bikes on the road. If you look around, you can locate well built and inexpensive road frames from SOMA, IRD, Salsa, Ritchey, Torelli, etc. Add a half pound for a used one with lugs, get a $400 paint job (Contrasting tubes/stays & lugs), and you'll end up with a nice riding bike that'll really turn heads.


----------



## laffeaux

refund!? said:


> However the cost of the good steel frames is a fraction of that for carbon or ti, so the savings can go for better/lighter components/forks/wheels. There's lots of neat looking 16.5 pound steel bikes on the road. If you look around, you can locate well built and inexpensive road frames from SOMA, IRD, Salsa, Ritchey, Torelli, etc.


Agreed. I picked up a slightly used (looks new) Ritchey frame for under $300 on "the Bay." It's built up as a sub-17 pound bike (58cm frame). It rides really well, and the cost for the the full bike was very reasonable (less than some high-end carbon frames).

If you're trying to build a 13 pound climbing bike, forget steel, but for a reasonably light bike, a little extra weight in the frame is not that significant. Use the money you saved on the frame to buy lighter components, where you can get more bang for your buck.


----------



## rodel

www.geniebicycles.com has a nice light steel frame too. 
I've had many high end and custom steel bikes (4) as well as scandium (2) Titanium (3) and carbon(2). I gotta say I like carbon better but steel is a close second.


----------



## DannyBoy

laffeaux said:


> Agreed. I picked up a slightly used (looks new) Ritchey frame for under $300 on "the Bay." It's built up as a sub-17 pound bike (58cm frame). It rides really well, and the cost for the the full bike was very reasonable (less than some high-end carbon frames).
> 
> If you're trying to build a 13 pound climbing bike, forget steel, but for a reasonably light bike, a little extra weight in the frame is not that significant. Use the money you saved on the frame to buy lighter components, where you can get more bang for your buck.


Actually you're a bit off the mark there. If you look at this link you'll see Roberts helped a guy build a high end steel bike with fairly heavy S&S couplings that came in under 13lbs.

I was in their shop 2 months ago and they had it in and I was flabergasted at how light it really was. To be fair the bike isn't light because of the frame, but because of everything else on it, but it does go to show that steel can be built up into a very very light bike!!!

http://www.sandsmachine.com/a_rob_r5.htm


----------



## DannyBoy

I forgot to say I also agree with a comment above about bike and rider weight. Whilst it's cool to have a light bike for the coffee shop stop in reality it makes very little difference on the road. I spent a few months improving my diet and dropped 7kg's and got down to 12% body fat (not that low I know, but it could be worse) and I can guaruntee you that made a hell of lot more difference in overall performance, especially up hill, than having an ultralight bike.

All that said, I still wish I could afford an 11lb bike!!!!!!


----------



## merckxman

*Test Ride If You Can!*

You may be surprised to learn that given the same course that slightly heavier steel bike will out perform a less weighty non-steel bike....a well made steel bike that fits well will perform extremely well.


----------



## wheezer

*Having just come off a steel frame ...*

Not to poo poo the steel lovefest, but having just come off a steel frame (Columbus Foco OX tubes) and gone to an alu/carbon combo frame, I personally found the latter to have much more pop both on the flats and on climbs. Combined with full carbon forks and carbon bars, the ride is not overly harsh compared with the steel frame. Don't get me wrong. I love the steel and still have a couple in the stable, but I've heard the claims about steel being a superior climbing material and my experience points to the contrary. It only takes three hard turns of the cranks to notice the difference in BB stiffness between the two frames.

Oh, and I should add that that is ONE HELL of a nice ride right there!


----------



## terzo rene

I suspect Baum's claim is about right for a smallish Med frame with no paint. But I have heard several places that guys that have built with 953 have had some [minor] corrosion issues so were leaning toward painting the frames, which would put it back into the 1400g area.

The real issue is it's still steel and nothing about 953 changes the basic characteristics, so if the walls are stiffer to reduce denting they will also be more brittle and subject to failure that way.

After this year's frame I am going to start holding my breath for a metal matrix, rather than epoxy, carbon nanotube fiber composite frame. While waiting I will set a world free dive depth record too, because I am going to have to hold my breath a long time anyway.


----------



## Richard

I have one of the last of the Masi Speciale Carbon's. Dedacciai 16.5 steel main triangle with Dedacciai Black Tail/Mono Box full carbon seat and chainstays. With Campy Centaur (not the lightest) and Bontrager Race X Lite wheels, it's under 18 lbs.

And while it is certainly "stiffer" than my Reynolds 531P lugged steel bike, it rides every bit as nice. Comparing pro race bikes from 1990 to today, more weight has come out of the components than the frames. Throw current "top-of-the-line" forks and components on LeMond's 1989 steel Bottecchia and you'd probably have a 17 lb. bike!


----------



## RickyRitalin

I was just on the Ionic Cycles site. They are claiming a weight of around 2.75 pounds for a 953 frame at $1500. Don't know about their rep but certainly gets Steel down into carbon territory.


----------



## Guest

Although steel does have a certain 'nostalgia' value and I wouldn't mind a classic steel frame built up really nice I think it would be very hard to go from my ~1.1 kg run on the mill TCR frame to something which is realistically going to add at least 700 grams to the frame (for a light custom build) or more if it is an older classic. Ok so if you added this weight to your body you would hardly notice it but it will make the bike feel less 'flickable' when out of the saddle and cornering IMO, maybe making you hate it.


----------



## MTBMaven

I don't want to hijack this thread, it may actually help the OP. To those that one will not notice a drop of 1 pound. Would that hold true if that 1 pound came from a drop in wheel weight?


----------



## physasst

*You*



MTBMaven said:


> I don't want to hijack this thread, it may actually help the OP. To those that one will not notice a drop of 1 pound. Would that hold true if that 1 pound came from a drop in wheel weight?



will notice it more by losing weight in the wheels....The weight in your wheelset is dynamic...think of it this way..pick up a baseball.....not too heavy right...now....put it into a sling and swing it around in a circle real fast...it becomes MUCH heavier. Those same prinicples apply to wheels. The weight on your frameset is static, you will not notice slight differences in weight on the frame. That's why the argument over a 2.2 vs 2.8 pound frame are ridiculous to me. Buy the 2.8, buy a 1400 gram or lighter wheelset, and you will notice the difference FAR more.


----------



## Mark McM

*Bad physics*



physasst said:


> will notice it more by losing weight in the wheels....The weight in your wheelset is dynamic...think of it this way..pick up a baseball.....not too heavy right...now....put it into a sling and swing it around in a circle real fast...it becomes MUCH heavier. Those same prinicples apply to wheels.


No, that principal really doesn't apply wheels. When you swing the sling overhead, the main force you feal is the centrifugal force. However, since a wheel is balanced (unlike a sling), the centrifugal force is completely canceled - there is no net radial force.

What if you had two identical baseballs in two identical slings, and swung them overhead exactly opposite each other, what force would you feel? The centrifugal forces would cancel, and you'd only feel the weight of the balls - just like is if you picked them up without swinging them.


----------



## physasst

*Yeah*



Mark McM said:


> No, that principal really doesn't apply wheels. When you swing the sling overhead, the main force you feal is the centrifugal force. However, since a wheel is balanced (unlike a sling), the centrifugal force is completely canceled - there is no net radial force.
> 
> What if you had two identical baseballs in two identical slings, and swung them overhead exactly opposite each other, what force would you feel? The centrifugal forces would cancel, and you'd only feel the weight of the balls - just like is if you picked them up without swinging them.



I realized my analogy was flawed about 10 minutes after I went to bed last night. IMO, it's still easier to save weight on the wheels, then on the frame...


----------



## CoLiKe20

Mark McM said:


> No, that principal really doesn't apply wheels. When you swing the sling overhead, the main force you feal is the centrifugal force. However, since a wheel is balanced (unlike a sling), the centrifugal force is completely canceled - there is no net radial force.
> 
> What if you had two identical baseballs in two identical slings, and swung them overhead exactly opposite each other, what force would you feel? The centrifugal forces would cancel, and you'd only feel the weight of the balls - just like is if you picked them up without swinging them.


he may used an incorrect analogy but taking weight off the wheel is more effective than off the frame. It has to do with rotational inertia. The conventional wisdom is one pound of rotating mass equals 2 pounds of fixed mass.


----------



## Mark McM

CoLiKe20 said:


> he may used an incorrect analogy but taking weight off the wheel is more effective than off the frame. It has to do with rotational inertia. The conventional wisdom is one pound of rotating mass equals 2 pounds of fixed mass.


It's not just "conventional wisdom", but has a basis in physics. For any portion of mass on the wheel, the relative inertia is related to the how far it is from the center of rotation:

M(eff) = M(act.) x [ 1 + (r/R)^2 ]

M(eff) = Effective inertia

M(act) = Actual mass

r = radial distance from center of rotation

R = outside radius of wheel.

So the effective inertia ranges from 1:1 for mass at the hub, to 2:1 for mass at the outside of the wheel.

The big caveat is that this effective inertia _only affects accelerations and decelerations_. It has no affect on climbing or descending, or travelling at constant speed. Most of cycling is done at relatively constant speed, so there is little affect of this inertia. Even when accelerating, the variation in inertia between one wheel and the next is very small compared to the entire inertia of the bicycle/rider, so it still has little affect.


----------

