# Advice Pls: Frame Weight Estimates



## Mark56 (Jul 22, 2007)

Hello 

I am going to build a new commuter bike and I want to get a lighter frame because I have stairs to go up and down at my condo, stairs at the train station, stairs getting off and/on the bike car of the train, and stairs to the bike room at work. So, I am a bit sick of the weight and I have a small pain in my back on the right side because of hoisting the bike up all the time.

I want to remain with a lugged bike because I love 'em and it's gotta be steel, not aluminum or fiber. So I am trying to figure out the relative differences in weight between tubing materials. I would like to buy a vintage bike and with lugs and horizontal drops, but I would consider getting a new frame, if it makes sense to put my money there. 

Could someone help me out and give me a general idea of how much I should worry about frame materials vs parts and what I might save in weight between the tubing types I'm listing below. I have no idea if I'd be saving pounds or just a few grams. For example, I have no idea what the weight difference is between regular 531 and double butted 531, etc.

Thanks.

531
531 double butted
531 triple butted
631 
725
853


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Frame weight is only a small part of the equation*

I'm not so sure that you really need to worry that much about frame weight on a commuter bike. Communter bikes are about utility, durability and reliability. And its not like frames weigh that much to begin with. Consider:

Ultralight steel frames are about 3 lb. (True Temper S3, Columbus Spirit/Life).

A reasonable light steel frame that can take some knocking about weighs about 4 lb. (True Temper OX Platinum, Reynods 853).

A steel frame that can lots of abuse and keep coming back weighs about 5-6 lb.

So, you're only talking about a difference of a pound or two for the frame - all the other parts that go onto the frame weigh several times more than the frame itself. This is especially true for a commuter frame, which probably has rugged wheels, fenders, lights, etc.

In terms of your question about 531 vs. 853 tubing - these designations refer to the alloy that the tube is made from, not the size/shape/weight of the tubes. All steel has about the same density, so the weight of a tube of a given length will vary only with diameter and wall thickness. Both 531 and 853 are/were (as far as I know 531 isn't made anymore) available in a variety of diameters and wall thicknesses for the builder to choose from. Due to its greater strength, 853 tubes typically have smaller wall thickness and are lighter than 531 tubes, but that isn't always the case. Depending on tube selection, it is probably possible to make a "light" 531 frame that is lighter than a "heavy" 853 frame.


----------



## Mark56 (Jul 22, 2007)

Thanks, Mark. You're reply gives me enough to go on. I know that they don't make bikes of 531 anymore, but I trying to decide between a modern frame and a vintage frame, and just wanted to know what the relative difference in weight would between, everything else being the same. My biggest nemassis is all the stairs, and that's my reason for shedding the lbs, not the ride itself.

Thanks again. I think I'm set.
Mark


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

Light commuter go Aluminum. Larger tires will soften the ride.


----------



## Mark56 (Jul 22, 2007)

Good suggestion if you're just trying lighten up, but that's not the bottom line for me. I had a high-end aluminum bike and it was alright. But as I confessed up front, it's gotta be steel and have the beauty of lugs.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

Mark56 said:


> I know that they don't make bikes of 531 anymore, but I trying to decide between a modern frame and a vintage frame, and just wanted to know what the relative difference in weight would between, everything else being the same.


If you go with an older bike, vintage componets are also going to play into the equation. Their's a bigger difference in the components than the frame.

My "light" road bike is a 2001(ish) Ritchey Road Logic made of Ritchey Nitanium tubing (whatever that is), and built up with relatively light components. It weights in at 16.8 pounds.

My commuter is a 1980 Peugeot made with 531 main tubes, and slightly heavier rear triangle. It's a fixed gear, although I run it with both front and rear brakes since the hub is a flip-flop to single speed. The bike has no deraillers, shifters, and a single chain ring up front. Even with many of the components stripped off, the bike is still about 22 pounds.

I imagine that the 1980 frame is heavier than my more modern steel frame, but it's not that much heavier - maybe a couple of pounds. So when you're comparing new/old, remember that there's a whole lot more going on than just the weight of the frame.

And as far as commuters go.... durability and lack of maintance matter the most. Other than adding air to the tires every couple of weeks, and lubbing the chain every couple of months, I do little if any maintance on the commuter. I jut get on it and ride.


----------



## refund!? (Oct 16, 2006)

Check out the SOMA Speedster. It's a lugged steel frame (Butted Tange Prestige), and the headtube lugs are polished stainless steel. It'll accept tires up to 700x28 with fenders. The frame and matching fork weigh under six (6) pounds and your local lbs will probably sell you one for around $700 or less (A nice price for a new/traditional frame that will accept modern components without messing with the stays).


----------



## Lumbergh (Aug 19, 2005)

have you considered a track bike? those are awesome for commuting and totally low maintenance.


----------

