# Weight of a Retro Classic Bike



## cda 455

What is the typical weight of a stock late '80's to late '90's steel framed race bike?


And could I build a 20lb or less bike with a 6 or 7lb steel frame, 27" wheels, and aluminum components?

I'm looking to build the wheels using 36 hole, 27" rims. 

Components would be aluminum Campagnolo.

Frame size would be 59cm to 62cm and (Hopefully) Columbus EL steel tubing.


I really, really, really like the look of a steel frame like this beauty:


----------



## Mapei

The weights of my various steel bikes from the early 1970's though the present were/are, as far as I remember -- 

My early 1970's Reynolds 531 Gitane Tour de France with Simplex 5 speed running gear and tubulars was perhaps 21 pounds. 
My early 1970's Columbus Italvega SuperSpecial with Campy Nuovo Record five speed and tubulars was perhaps 22 pounds.
My mid-1980's Columbus Somec with Campy Nuovo Record five speed and tubulars was about 19 pounds.
My 2011 Colnago Master Light with 10 speed Brifter Campy Nuovo Record and clinchers is perhaps 18 and a half.


----------



## cda 455

Mapei said:


> The weights of my various steel bikes from the early 1970's though the present were/are, as far as I remember --
> 
> My early 1970's Reynolds 531 Gitane Tour de France with Simplex 5 speed running gear and tubulars was perhaps 21 pounds.
> My early 1970's Columbus Italvega SuperSpecial with Campy Nuovo Record five speed and tubulars was perhaps 22 pounds.
> My mid-1980's Columbus Somec with Campy Nuovo Record five speed and tubulars was about 19 pounds.
> My 2011 Colnago Master Light with 10 speed Brifter Campy Nuovo Record and clinchers is perhaps 18 and a half.


Thanks for responding!


Are the tubulars 27" or 700c?


----------



## y2kota

FWIW: My 1973 BERTIN with Campy weight in at a whopping 24lbs just today.


----------



## cda 455

y2kota said:


> FWIW: My 1973 BERTIN with Campy weight in at a whopping 24lbs just today.



Wow; A bit heavy, eh?!


----------



## y2kota

cda 455 said:


> Wow; A bit heavy, eh?!


Steel rims and spokes, computer, lights water bottle cage, air pump... yup heavy I'm looking at a 17lb CF sweetie at my favorite LBS


----------



## velodog

Why do you want 27" wheels and tires? Unless you already have a frame that calls for 27" wheels I'd recommend getting something with 700c wheels. There's a much larger selection of quality 700c tires.

Looking to build a 20lb bike is going to call for a top shelf frame which will probably be made for 700c wheels anyway. I've never really weighed mine but I'd say that they're more like 22-23lbs.
I don't feel that the joy in the ride is in the weight though, it's more in the feel of the ride. Comfort and sprightliness/livelyness.


----------



## cda 455

velodog said:


> Why do you want 27" wheels and tires? Unless you already have a frame that calls for 27" wheels I'd recommend getting something with 700c wheels. There's a much larger selection of quality 700c tires.
> 
> Looking to build a 20lb bike is going to call for a top shelf frame which will probably be made for 700c wheels anyway. I've never really weighed mine but I'd say that they're more like 22-23lbs.
> I don't feel that the joy in the ride is in the weight though, it's more in the feel of the ride. Comfort and sprightliness/livelyness.


Excellent points.


I'm wanting the look of almost everything retro. Particularly the frame (horizontal TT), fork with some sort of crown, and the look of 27" wheels.

One idea I had was to take a Ti frame and paint or powder coat it. A compromise to help keep the weight down. 

This would definitely be a purpose-built kind of bike. 


What kind of bike weight did, say, Greg LeMond and Andy Hampsten deal with during the '86 and '90 TDF?


----------



## velodog

cda 455 said:


> Excellent points.
> 
> 
> I'm wanting the look of almost everything retro. Particularly the frame (horizontal TT), fork with some sort of crown, and the look of 27" wheels.
> 
> One idea I had was to take a Ti frame and paint or powder coat it. A compromise to help keep the weight down.
> 
> This would definitely be a purpose-built kind of bike.
> 
> 
> What kind of bike weight did, say, Greg LeMond and Andy Hampsten deal with during the '86 and '90 TDF?


I just weighed my early 80's period correct DeRosa with 6spd Super Record a Concor saddle and clinchers on a bathroom scale at 21lbs. Could probably take off a few ounces by putting on tubulars.
They raced on 700c wheels.


----------



## AJ88V

1975 Gitane Super Corsa with Reynolds 531 DB, Campy Nuovo Record, Mavic tubulars, and Brooks saddle came in at about 20.5.

And I still hate the bike thief who took it in 1979.


----------



## tmf

cda 455 said:


> Excellent points.
> 
> 
> I'm wanting the look of almost everything retro. Particularly the frame (horizontal TT), fork with some sort of crown, and the look of 27" wheels.
> 
> One idea I had was to take a Ti frame and paint or powder coat it. A compromise to help keep the weight down.
> 
> This would definitely be a purpose-built kind of bike.
> 
> 
> What kind of bike weight did, say, Greg LeMond and Andy Hampsten deal with during the '86 and '90 TDF?


I've been riding 700c wheels since the early-mid 80's. I'm just guessing, but I think the transition from 27" wheels to 700c wheels took place by '81-'82 at the lastest. I think you will limit yourself quite a lot by choosing 27" wheels if you're aiming for a bike that reflects the time period you mention (mid 80's-early 90's).


----------



## cda 455

AJ88V said:


> 1975 Gitane Super Corsa with Reynolds 531 DB, Campy Nuovo Record, Mavic tubulars, and Brooks saddle came in at about 20.5.
> 
> And I still hate the bike thief who took it in 1979.


Wow; 1975 and 20.5lbs. Sounds like a light bike of the times.


And yes; 'Burn in hell' seems like an appropriate karma for said thief.


----------



## cda 455

tmf said:


> I've been riding 700c wheels since the early-mid 80's. I'm just guessing, but I think the transition from 27" wheels to 700c wheels took place by '81-'82 at the lastest. I think you will limit yourself quite a lot by choosing 27" wheels if you're aiming for a bike that reflects the time period you mention (mid 80's-early 90's).


Thanks for the time-era tip.


If I end up building this bike I'd probably paint it in the Molten Team colors no matter what frame material I end up with.

Like I mentioned earlier, I'm thinking of possibly a Ti frame designed for a 1" threaded steerer tube. To keep the frame light and for the material ride characteristics.


If money were no object, I'd probably have Ellis and Kirk build a few retro-classic frames for me  .


----------



## brewster

20-21 pounds was very standard back then. Most of it was dependent on the size of frame. It has always been a concern, but don't think we were weight obsessed like today. Bikes started to get heavier with when things like STI, dual pivot brakes and clincher rims came along in the very early 90s but then focus shifted to aluminum frames and "experimental" carbon frames so the overall weights went down.

I remember there being quite a bit of buzz in magazines around bikes like the Fuji Titanium, the Kestrel 4000, Vitus 929 and the TVT carbon in the mid-late 80s, but these were the exotics. Nobody I knew actually had one and nobody was clamoring to buy one.


----------



## froze

cda 455 said:


> What is the typical weight of a stock late '80's to late '90's steel framed race bike?
> 
> 
> And could I build a 20lb or less bike with a 6 or 7lb steel frame, 27" wheels, and aluminum components?
> 
> I'm looking to build the wheels using 36 hole, 27" rims.
> 
> Components would be aluminum Campagnolo.
> 
> Frame size would be 59cm to 62cm and (Hopefully) Columbus EL steel tubing.
> 
> 
> I really, really, really like the look of a steel frame like this beauty:


That Eddie Merckx is a nice looking bike, thanks for sharing it.

I have 5 steel road bikes from the 80's and their all in stock condition except for the tires and tubes. My lightest bike is a 84 Fuji Club with Suntour ARX and it weighs 20.8 pounds without water bottle cage or seat bag but with pedals and toe clips; it uses Fuji Valight quad butted tubing.

The next lightest is a tie at 21.1 pounds between my 84 Trek 660 with Suntour Superbe and 531cs dble butted tubing, and the 87 Miyata Team with Shimano Dura Ace and Miyata splined triple butted tubing. Then comes the 88 Miyata 712 with Shimano SIS but the same frame as the Team so the components way more and thus it tips the scale at 21.8. My heaviest is the 85 Schwinn Le Tour Luxe with Suntour Mountech and Columbus Tenax dble butted tubing at 25.8 pounds, but that is a touring bike and is suppose to be heavier to handle touring loads.

I do have a spare aluminum racing fork I salvaged off my broken aluminum frame which I just finished polishing it up to a almost chrome like appearance, and I'm thinking of putting it on the Fuji for fun and looks which would cut the Fuji's total weight by at least 3/4ths a pound which means it could come under 20 pounds.


----------



## Mapei

brewster said:


> 20-21 pounds was very standard back then. Most of it was dependent on the size of frame. It has always been a concern, but don't think we were weight obsessed like today.


You shoulda' hung with my crowd in the early 1970's. A couple of my buddies did everything they could to weight-weenie their bicycles out. They found the lightest steel frames out there, Ron Coopers. They used seatposts without saddle mounting brackets and used special alu brackets to affix their seats...which were not made by Brooks. They used Stronglight cranks instead of Campy Nuovo Record cranks. They used low flange hubs, not the high-flange hubs typical of the day. Silk tubulars. The Criterium Seta Extra was a typical choice. TTT bars and stem. My buddies actually got their bicycles down to eighteen and a fraction lbs., when mine always hovered in the low twenties.


----------



## crossracer

My guercotti from the mid 80's with shimano 9spd sti weighs in around 22. But rides like she is 15 lbs IMHO. 
If you go classic you can still do a decent light weight build. Think of areas like the seat post, stem, fork you could go lightweight carbon and not ruin the looks. 
Light weight tires, light weight bottom bracket. Those kinds of things. 
But honestly if you want really light, go carbon. You ride steel for the ride, not how it feels when you pick it up. 
Just my opinion. The who reason you ride steel is cause no carbon bike built today feels like a well built steel frame, or looks even half as good. 
But then I'm a bit of a retro grouch lol lol


----------



## froze

Mapei said:


> You shoulda' hung with my crowd in the early 1970's. A couple of my buddies did everything they could to weight-weenie their bicycles out. They found the lightest steel frames out there, Ron Coopers. They used seatposts without saddle mounting brackets and used special alu brackets to affix their seats...which were not made by Brooks. They used Stronglight cranks instead of Campy Nuovo Record cranks. They used low flange hubs, not the high-flange hubs typical of the day. Silk tubulars. The Criterium Seta Extra was a typical choice. TTT bars and stem. My buddies actually got their bicycles down to eighteen and a fraction lbs., when mine always hovered in the low twenties.


This is true, but I knew guys who DRILLED out their crank arms, chainrings, seat posts, and other stunts, combine that with the lightest weight Huret Jubilee derailleurs that saw low 18 pounds and some claimed high 17 pound bikes.

I do vividly remember one such guy who drilled out everything he could think of got a little over the top with drilling the holes too large in his crank arms and watched one of the arms break right off while he was climbing a steep mountain grade. Cut his leg up pretty good. I heard other tales of weird stuff like a guy drilled out his rear stays and forks only to have the stays collapse. Lot of that stuff was trial and error, learn, and do it differently next time.

I agree with Crossracer. Most of the younger guys today never sat their asses on a steel bike and don't have a clue what it's all about. Low end carbon fiber bikes are not much, if any lighter then high end steel bikes of the 80's. And Rodriguez Outlaw bikes are steel (except for the fork) and weigh less then most bikes on the market at 14.07 pounds fully equipped with pedals and water bottle cages, and no proprietary components...of course it will cost you mint.


----------



## Mapei

froze said:


> This is true, but I knew guys who DRILLED out their crank arms, chainrings, seat posts, and other stunts, combine that with the lightest weight Huret Jubilee derailleurs that saw low 18 pounds and some claimed high 17 pound bikes.
> 
> I do vividly remember one such guy who drilled out everything he could think of got a little over the top with drilling the holes too large in his crank arms and watched one of the arms break right off while he was climbing a steep mountain grade. Cut his leg up pretty good. I heard other tales of weird stuff like a guy drilled out his rear stays and forks only to have the stays collapse. Lot of that stuff was trial and error, learn, and do it differently next time.
> 
> I agree with Crossracer. Most of the younger guys today never sat their asses on a steel bike and don't have a clue what it's all about. Low end carbon fiber bikes are not much, if any lighter then high end steel bikes of the 80's. And Rodriguez Outlaw bikes are steel (except for the fork) and weigh less then most bikes on the market at 14.07 pounds fully equipped with pedals and water bottle cages, and no proprietary components...of course it will cost you mint.


You're right. How could I forget? The drillium bunch. One guy I knew actually drilled holes in his brake calipers. Of course, an easier way to lower your brake weight was to replace your Campy NR with Universal sidepulls (at least I think they were Universals). They couldn't stop a fly, but so what?


----------



## Dave Cutter

I just recently picked up an old Peugeot. Not a particularly special or collectable bicycle but definitely a classic old lugged steel 10 speed road bike. Surprisingly as crappy as it looked and rode when purchased it didn't take much time or effort to make it pretty again. 

It took me months of reviewing graigslist and stopping at yard sales to find the right bicycle. I kept this one looking somewhat original I even used white handlebar tape like in the catalog. 

Now.... if I can just force myself to quit looking for the next one.....


----------



## troutmd

Got this 58CM to just over 20 lbs without the seat bag # plate, and cages. Campy Athena 11 speed, Speedplay, DT Swiss 240 wheelset. Its doable.

<a href="https://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v385/troutmd/?action=view&current=DSC_00121280x856.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/troutmd/DSC_00121280x856.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>


----------



## cda 455

troutmd said:


> Got this 58CM to just over 20 lbs without the seat bag # plate, and cages. Campy Athena 11 speed, Speedplay, DT Swiss 240 wheelset. Its doable.


Shipping to 83704  ?!!



Very sexy!!


----------



## troutmd

cda 455 said:


> Shipping to 83704  ?!!
> 
> 
> 
> Very sexy!!


Thanks for the interest but I'm a tad emotionally attached to this resto-project. Always had a craving for the PDM "Tuxedo" bike, and then I got wind of this Squadra frame in the of Los Angeles that was rusting behind their garage. 

<a href="https://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v385/troutmd/?action=view&current=Concordebefore2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/troutmd/Concordebefore2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

BTW - if you've not tried an 11 speed, do so,. Buttery smooth transition between gear shifts.


----------



## froze

Mapei said:


> You're right. How could I forget? The drillium bunch. One guy I knew actually drilled holes in his brake calipers. Of course, an easier way to lower your brake weight was to replace your Campy NR with Universal sidepulls (at least I think they were Universals). They couldn't stop a fly, but so what?


And it was the drillium bunch of the (maybe as early as the mid 60's?) late 60's and early 70's who inspired some component manufactures like Huret and Zeus (the main drillium gang) to make their derailleurs, brake levers, and chainrings drilled out. Of course the factory made drilled pieces looked far nicer, and I still love the looks of those more then the home made ones. Here's a Zeus example: Zeus 2000 derailleur (2nd style)


----------



## cda 455

troutmd said:


> Thanks for the interest but I'm a tad emotionally attached to this resto-project. Always had a craving for the PDM "Tuxedo" bike, and then I got wind of this Squadra frame in the of Los Angeles that was rusting behind their garage.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW - if you've not tried an 11 speed, do so,. Buttery smooth transition between gear shifts.


Whoa; So you restored it to it's former glory?!!


What year is your frame?

Wow! You put 21st century components on that beauty  ! BTW; You have great taste in components  !

Maybe I'll just follow your route: Rescue a worthy frame and restore it like you did. I can definitely live with a 20lb bike.

Thanks again for sharing the before and after pics of your baby!


Since I really like the Molteni Team bike paint scheme, would it be sacrilegious if I took a worthy frame; paint it and decal it like Eddy Merckx's bike? basically do what you did via components, etc. I'll just have the Orange Molteni paint scheme. I'm even looking at a merino wool Molteni replica kit (Short and long sleeve!).


----------



## troutmd

cda 455 said:


> Whoa; So you restored it to it's former glory?!!
> 
> 
> What year is your frame?
> 
> Wow! You put 21st century components on that beauty  ! BTW; You have great taste in components  !
> 
> Maybe I'll just follow your route: Rescue a worthy frame and restore it like you did. I can definitely live with a 20lb bike.
> 
> Thanks again for sharing the before and after pics of your baby!


Believe the frame is a '88 or '89 but not sure. Anyway I tried to be faithful to the era on the resto rehab to the frame and its graphics, but decided at the end to add the pin-stripping to the head lugs to add some touch alerting a future owner (or fan) this is not original paint.

<a href="https://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v385/troutmd/?action=view&current=pinstrip.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v385/troutmd/pinstrip.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>


----------



## latman

these deep rimmed alloy wheels are not light on my EL OS tubed Chesini with full 9 speed record


----------



## brewster

OK, granted my perspective started in the mid 80s. I do remember one guy causing a crash in a race because he had drilled his handlebars out and they snapped. I just never saw the point of all that. I was worried about getting stronger and looking intimidating.


----------



## JChasse

My lugged Waterford (1996 or so) with steel fork weighed right around 19lbs built with a mix of Ultegra & Dura Ace, and a tiny bit less with Record. My wife's 1998 lugged Serotta Atlanta weighed 18.3 lbs built mostly with Chorus. My lugged Zanconato cross bike with steel fork and cross tires is just under 20lbs with a not-light build. All of these weights are with pedals and cages. 

For comparison, we moved all of the components from my wife's Atlanta (except for the brakes, which were the same weight anyway) to a plastic Ibis Hakkalugi frame with an Enve fork and it weighs 2.3 lbs less than the steel bike.


----------



## american psycho

1973 Colnago Super, 58 cm Nuvo Record gruppo, Cinellii stem & bars, with triple front crank and not particularly light tubulars on 36 hole Mavic rims is 21.5 lbs. I suppose with better tires and 28-spoke wheels I could drop 3/4 of a pound, but it's easier and cheaper to drop it off my gut.

View attachment 276885


----------



## takmanjapan

My steel bikes have been 20-21 pounds. 

Box rim tubular wheels with DT revolution or similar spokes along with some lightweight hubs will save a lot of weight. I had a 1400g set that were Mavic hubset (570 & 550) plus GL280 rims and 32 spoke DT revolutions (normal 3-cross pattern). Should be able to do better than that easily and for not much cash.


----------



## SirVelo'

my early 90's Pinarello Vuelta with Columbus EL...built with a modern campy athena 11 speed group....18lbs (without pedals)


----------



## AJ88V

SirVelo' said:


> my early 90's Pinarello Vuelta with Columbus EL...built with a modern campy athena 11 speed group....18lbs (without pedals)


That, my friend, is a STUNNING bike.

It also really points out that modern components, especially wheels, can really lighten up a bike compared to the old days.

There's a nice interview with Tom Ritchey extolling the steel framed bicycle. I should drag my Cilo off the rack and take her for a ride sometime soon.


----------



## brewster

crossracer said:


> The whole reason you ride steel is cause no carbon bike built today feels like a well built steel frame, or looks even half as good.


You just can't argue with a true statement.


----------



## Richard

My late '80's Falcon, built with Reynolds 531P, mid-90's Campy Record Titanium 8, and 32 hole Mavic Open Pro's, pedals and cages, is right at 21 lbs.

My early 90's Bertoni TSX, full Campy Centaur but with Record hubs, also Mavic Open Pro's, pedals and cages, is 20 lbs even.


----------



## rich p

Nice project! My 1983 Tange #1 frame with full Superbe Pro and 700c Mavic clinchers on 36 hole cross 3 spokes and Sella Turbo saddle weighs in at 22 lbs. If I wanted to cut weight I would 1) Vitus 979 frame, Tubo saddle with alloy rails, Suntour alloy freewheel and tubular rims on 32 hole spokes. Without the aluminum frame a sub 20 lb bike of 80's vintage will be tough. I remember the drill out craze of the 70's and (I think) Campy had a bunch of titanium nuts and bolts to save grams - fun times indeed.


----------



## Dave Cutter

cda 455 said:


> What is the typical weight of a stock late '80's to late '90's steel framed race bike?


This is a really great question/topic that has really provoked [at least for me] a lot of thought and consideration [and some off-site research as well]. Thank you for the post.


----------



## froze

rich p said:


> Nice project! My 1983 Tange #1 frame with full Superbe Pro and 700c Mavic clinchers on 36 hole cross 3 spokes and Sella Turbo saddle weighs in at 22 lbs. If I wanted to cut weight I would 1) Vitus 979 frame, Tubo saddle with alloy rails, Suntour alloy freewheel and tubular rims on 32 hole spokes. Without the aluminum frame a sub 20 lb bike of 80's vintage will be tough. I remember the drill out craze of the 70's and (I think) Campy had a bunch of titanium nuts and bolts to save grams - fun times indeed.


It was a fun time. We could do all sorts crap to our bikes to try to reduce weight, sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't. Today you're not going to drill holes into your carbon crank arms to save weight, you have to go out and buy a more expensive crank. Of course a lot of today's bikes are lighter, but there are quite a few new bikes in LBS's today that weigh just as much as bikes of the 80's did.


----------



## Chombi

Sure, a sub 20 pound 80's steel race bike that is rideable was possible....








My 19.25 pound 84 Peugeot PSV......
And I haven't even put on more serious weight weenie stuff on it yet. I figure that if I mount my ultra lightweight CLB Professionel brakeset and Mavic GEL280 sewups on it instead of the present Spidel sidepulls and 330GLsewups and find an alloy bodied and cogged freewheel for it, plus a lighter Ti railed saddle, I'd easily be in the very low 18 or maybe even high 17 pound weight with the bike. Having a lightweight tubeset on the frame also helps a bunch. The Supervitus 980 tubing used on the PSV's frame was Vitus's lightest raceframe tubeset.

Chombi


----------



## cda 455

Chombi said:


> Sure, a sub 20 pound 80's steel race bike that is rideable was possible....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My 19.25 pound 84 Peugeot PSV......
> And I haven't even put on more serious weight weenie stuff on it yet. I figure that if I mount my ultra lightweight CLB Professionel brakeset and Mavic GEL280 sewups on it instead of the present Spidel sidepulls and 330GLsewups and find an alloy bodied and cogged freewheel for it, plus a lighter Ti railed saddle, I'd easily be in the very low 18 or maybe even high 17 pound weight with the bike. Having a lightweight tubeset on the frame also helps a bunch. The Supervitus 980 tubing used on the PSV's frame was Vitus's lightest raceframe tubeset.
> 
> Chombi


Very nice bike, indeed! Thanks for sharing.


That red/orange/yellow color stripe is sooo '70's'  ! It reminds me of the '79-'80 BMW M1 because the M1 sported a very similar stripe.

When I was a kid in the '70's I used to pronounce Peugeot 'pug-it' :lol:


----------



## froze

Chombi said:


> Sure, a sub 20 pound 80's steel race bike that is rideable was possible....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My 19.25 pound 84 Peugeot PSV......
> And I haven't even put on more serious weight weenie stuff on it yet. I figure that if I mount my ultra lightweight CLB Professionel brakeset and Mavic GEL280 sewups on it instead of the present Spidel sidepulls and 330GLsewups and find an alloy bodied and cogged freewheel for it, plus a lighter Ti railed saddle, I'd easily be in the very low 18 or maybe even high 17 pound weight with the bike. Having a lightweight tubeset on the frame also helps a bunch. The Supervitus 980 tubing used on the PSV's frame was Vitus's lightest raceframe tubeset.
> 
> Chombi


Very nice indeed. The Vitus 979 with Campy Record came in at 18.5 pounds if memory serves me right. Problem with those light weight frames is that I could get them to flex pretty bad when I hammered on them, including the 83 or 84 . The chain would rub both sides of the front derailleur, and the rear wheel would rub both sides of the brake pads. That's why I didn't buy a Trek 760 because I could get it to flex so I opted for a slightly heavier 660 which would not. But for some reason that didn't stop Sean Kelly from riding one. Side note, Sean Kelly was busted twice for doping and no wins were taken from him.


----------



## Chombi

froze said:


> Very nice indeed. The Vitus 979 with Campy Record came in at 18.5 pounds if memory serves me right. Problem with those light weight frames is that I could get them to flex pretty bad when I hammered on them, including the 83 or 84 . The chain would rub both sides of the front derailleur, and the rear wheel would rub both sides of the brake pads. That's why I didn't buy a Trek 760 because I could get it to flex so I opted for a slightly heavier 660 which would not. But for some reason that didn't stop Sean Kelly from riding one. Side note, Sean Kelly was busted twice for doping and no wins were taken from him.


The Supervitus 980 tubing on my PSV does makes you pay for the light weight it provides, as I can similarly get my front derailleur cage to rub a little bi too if I stomp on the pedals. It's not too bad and one usually gets used to it (plus, you can minimize the rubbing if you adjust the front derailleur well enough) as something you live with the bike as otherwise the bike climbs really well because of the light frame and it works great as a spinner's bike on ling flat straight courses.
It's funny but I have three carbon fiber framed bikes from the 70's and 80's and those feel much stiffer than my steel Peugeot PSV. No front derailleur rub on those at all.....you'd think it would be the other way around....

Chombi


----------



## froze

Chombi said:


> The Supervitus 980 tubing on my PSV does makes you pay for the light weight it provides, as I can similarly get my front derailleur cage to rub a little bi too if I stomp on the pedals. It's not too bad and one usually gets used to it (plus, you can minimize the rubbing if you adjust the front derailleur well enough) as something you live with
> Chombi


My problem was I was racing, and I was racing and training on the mountains of California, and by chain rubbing I meant both sides of front derailleur, not just one side. With one side you're right the front can be trimmed, but you can't trim if both sides rub.

I almost bought an aluminum lugged glued CF bike from Trek in 88 instead of the Miyata Team I got (the team is an 87 but I got it on a closeout sale in 88), but the glue technology and the CF technology scared me away, and the Trek rep didn't have any encouraging words to say about it other then it's new technology and it's great, but otherwise knew nothing about it. Since I had a steel Trek I didn't want another of the same brand so got the Miyata. But when I bought the Miyata, just like I did when I got the Trek 660, I tested a boat load of bikes and if the derailleur rubbed the chain at all, or the rear wheel rubbed the brake pads I passed, the Miyata was one of the few that didn't but the deal was better so I got the Miyata.


----------



## Chombi

Actually, my front derailleur cage also rubs on both sides too when you push the bike hard like on climbs. It's a rhythmic noise that I'm use to when climbing on the PSV since I got it in 84. Not really bad rubbing as it is only slight, so I never wore out the front cage on the derailleur because of it (but I did buy a spare FD anyway as the Simplex FD with a French style brazed-on mount one on the PSV is not that common)
Regarding old CF technology on bikes in the 80's....
Here's a real old on that I just finished restoring just last week that's even older.....








My 1972 Line Seeker CF bike.
Pretty much the first CF bikes ever sold in the market, and this particular one was number 22 of a small batch hand built at home by the engineer who designed it (Larry Blake). If the bike looks familiar, it was the direct pre-cursor of the Exxon Graftek. The Engineer who built this Line Seeker, sold the design to Exxon for them to build and market it (with later modifications) as their bike.
No, I don't trust the now 41 year old bonds on the frame that much, so I won't be riding this bike too much so it does not break on me. It's too rare of a bike to risk that...... I have not weighed it yet, but I think this bike weighs in at maybe around 20 pounds. the Imperial Brooks saddle on it is most of that weight, I suspect....

Chombi


----------



## froze

Chombi said:


> Actually, my front derailleur cage also rubs on both sides too when you push the bike hard like on climbs. It's a rhythmic noise that I'm use to when climbing on the PSV since I got it in 84. Not really bad rubbing as it is only slight, so I never wore out the front cage on the derailleur because of it (but I did buy a spare FD anyway as the Simplex FD with a French style brazed-on mount one on the PSV is not that common)
> Regarding old CF technology on bikes in the 80's....
> Here's a real old on that I just finished restoring just last week that's even older.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My 1972 Line Seeker CF bike.
> Pretty much the first CF bikes ever sold in the market, and this particular one was number 22 of a small batch hand built at home by the engineer who designed it (Larry Blake). If the bike looks familiar, it was the direct pre-cursor of the Exxon Graftek. The Engineer who built this Line Seeker, sold the design to Exxon for them to build and market it (with later modifications) as their bike.
> No, I don't trust the now 41 year old bonds on the frame that much, so I won't be riding this bike too much so it does not break on me. It's too rare of a bike to risk that...... I have not weighed it yet, but I think this bike weighs in at maybe around 20 pounds. the Imperial Brooks saddle on it is most of that weight, I suspect....
> 
> Chombi


Man that is a rare bike, I've never seen or heard of it. I was always told by internet history stuff I read that the Exxon Graftek was the first CF tubed bike, now I know that's not true. If you have a lot of knowledge and original paper work you should share that with VeloBase.com because they are looking for more information which would be great for others searching the internet; see: VeloBase.com - Bicycle Model. 

EDIT: I just noticed the handle on the Velo site is yours, never mind then, but if you can add more that would be cool but you probably have given all the info about it. I'm glad you did that.

Also there is bogus information out there declaring the the Exxon was the first, places like: Who made the first carbon fiber bike frame? - Yahoo! Answers And that site locked the answer so no one can change the false information! 

If I had that bike I wouldn't ride it much if at all, it has to be extremely rare and Exxon did have problems with the glued lugs staying glued, so I can understand your hesitation about riding it. It should probably be in a museum!! You are one very fortunate person to have a bike like that and the history associated with it.

Wow, simply wow!!


----------



## Chombi

Actually, the question of who really invented the first CF bike will be hard to answer/prove. Yes, Larry Blake is considered by many as the father of the CF bike, but there might have been work also being done at the same time or just slightly later by the engineer(s) who designed the Mossberg CF bike which some people say came out maybe just a little earlier (some say by just months) than the Exxon Graftek did in the market.
So far, the timelines I'm aware of are Line Seeker - 1972, Mossberg - 1973, Exxon Graftek - 1973 or 74(?) depending on what evidence and publications you read out there. The 1972 build date is based on actual discussions with the bike's designer, Larry Blake by a fellow Bike Forums member/Exxon Graftek owner, who confirmed the timelines and the production numbers on our bikes and also the production date stamps on all the original components on my bike. As for challenging other/different statements out there about who made and sold the first CF bike, I don't really feel like doing so as eventually everyon has their own evidence that they would like to attach to their own bikes....For me personally, It's fine if my Line Seeker is just called out as "one of the first" production CF bikes.......
Here's another tidbit that you might find interesting, according to my Exxon Graftek fan friend, Larry Blake, who designed the Line Seeker and Exxon Graftek, was eventually hired by Alan some years later to help design their "Carbonio" model bike, of which I also have one of.... A connection I never even knew when I bought this Alan frameset and built it up....








I don't see any resemblance but I guess there could be Line Seeker DNA in my Alan Carbonio....

Chombi


----------



## froze

Chombi said:


> Actually, the question of who really invented the first CF bike will be hard to answer/prove. Yes, Larry Blake is considered by many as the father of the CF bike, but there might have been work also being done at the same time or just slightly later by the engineer(s) who designed the Mossberg CF bike which some people say came out maybe just a little earlier (some say by just months) than the Exxon Graftek did in the market.
> So far, the timelines I'm aware of are Line Seeker - 1972, Mossberg - 1973, Exxon Graftek - 1973 or 74(?) depending on what evidence and publications you read out there. The 1972 build date is based on actual discussions with the bike's designer, Larry Blake by a fellow Bike Forums member/Exxon Graftek owner, who confirmed the timelines and the production numbers on our bikes and also the production date stamps on all the original components on my bike. As for challenging other/different statements out there about who made and sold the first CF bike, I don't really feel like doing so as eventually everyon has their own evidence that they would like to attach to their own bikes....For me personally, It's fine if my Line Seeker is just called out as "one of the first" production CF bikes.......
> Here's another tidbit that you might find interesting, according to my Exxon Graftek fan friend, Larry Blake, who designed the Line Seeker and Exxon Graftek, was eventually hired by Alan some years later to help design their "Carbonio" model bike, of which I also have one of.... A connection I never even knew when I bought this Alan frameset and built it up....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any resemblance but I guess there could be Line Seeker DNA in my Alan Carbonio....
> 
> Chombi


You have a very interesting collection of bikes, nice. I almost bought a used Alan CF with the aluminum lugs years go but the person was asking way more then I thought the bike was worth so I passed. I can't remember anymore what he was asking for it but it was at that time 17 or 18 years old and had some worn parts that would have needed attention. I do keep my eye open for those type but their difficult to find at reasonable prices or are not trashed; there were other brands too that had the same stuff like the Specialized Allez (sp?), and Vitus, Trek, Motobecane, and probably some others. I like the look of lugs so anything with lugs intrigues me including the all aluminum lugged Vitus and the same version put out by other brands including Alan.


----------



## Fai Mao

It is pretty easy to get a steel bike down to about 21 pounds. Top of the line bikes in the 80's were typically just above 20 including the saddle and pedals unless you used tubular I have a rather pedestrian Battaglin that is a welded frame but with old Mavic GL-280 rims and Cheap Tubulars and it is just under 20 pounds with a Selle San Marco Regal saddle 

Frame and fork weight is an indication of the quality of the frame (Unless it is a touring Frame) Look for a frame and fork that are about 6 pounds or less.

As others have said it isn't the overall weight. It is the ride. If the 2.5 pounds extra weight is non-rotating you'll not notice it. In fact it might make caurse the cost of the carbon fiber bike


----------



## cda 455

Fai Mao said:


> It is pretty easy to get a steel bike down to about 21 pounds. Top of the line bikes in the 80's were typically just above 20 including the saddle and pedals unless you used tubular I have a rather pedestrian Battaglin that is a welded frame but with old Mavic GL-280 rims and Cheap Tubulars and it is just under 20 pounds with a Selle San Marco Regal saddle
> 
> Frame and fork weight is an indication of the quality of the frame (Unless it is a touring Frame) Look for a frame and fork that are about 6 pounds or less.
> 
> As others have said it isn't the overall weight. It is the ride. If the 2.5 pounds extra weight is non-rotating you'll not notice it. In fact it might make caurse the cost of the carbon fiber bike


Thanks for your input.


I'm looking at a 60cm frameset right now that weighs 6lbs 9oz.


----------



## froze

Fai Mao said:


> It is pretty easy to get a steel bike down to about 21 pounds. Top of the line bikes in the 80's were typically just above 20 including the saddle and pedals unless you used tubular I have a rather pedestrian Battaglin that is a welded frame but with old Mavic GL-280 rims and Cheap Tubulars and it is just under 20 pounds with a Selle San Marco Regal saddle


There were a few steel bikes that weighed just under 21 pounds out of the box. I have an 84 Fuji Club, size 58 with stock components except modern lighter tires, tubes, and saddle, but weighed with a single water bottle cage (for some reason Fuji only installed one set of bosses for water bottles on that bike). When weighed by myself twice and by a LBS in town it came out to 20.8 pounds even though the specs showed 23. I have the original tires and tubes an those combine only add maybe 3/4ths of a pound more, so not sure how Fuji came up with 23 pounds, most of the time manufactures weigh the middle size bike which would have been a 55 so mine should have been a wee bit heavier then 23.

I have a aluminum fork I polished to look close to chrome in appearance and I'm seriously thinking about replacing the Fuji fork with it and use my really light Stronglight A10 headset. I should be able to drop at least a 1/2 a pound of the total current bike weight when I do that. 

However that bike has an odd ride, it's more banging feeling then any of my other steel bikes, not sure why either because I would have thought with a lighter steel frame the more flex their would be, thus the ride should have been less banging. Not sure if that's due the use of quad butted tubing or what, the geometry is very similar to my other road bikes. It's a bike I wouldn't want to ride more then about 50-60 miles (I installed a water bottle bracket to hold a cage on the seat tube where there was none). I'm not as strong as I was when I raced over 25 years ago so trying to get the BB area to make the chain rub between the front derailleur hasn't been an issue with this bike.


----------



## quikrick1

This is a 1988ish Colnago Master PIU 55cm. It weighs in at 21.4 lbs. as shown. With Chorus 10 speed group. With Chorus Pro-Fit Pedals, bottle cage and computor.


----------



## froze

quikrick1 said:


> This is a 1988ish Colnago Master PIU 55cm. It weighs in at 21.4 lbs. as shown. With Chorus 10 speed group. With Chorus Pro-Fit Pedals, bottle cage and computor.


Man that bike is sweet. The color scheme is fantastic looking.


----------



## cda 455

Questions:

1) Does having Campagnolo drop outs on a frameset mean or say anything about said frameset?

2) If a frame has a 1" HT that's 160mm long, what length threaded steerer tube do I need? 

3) How much thread on a threaded steerer tube do I need for a given HT length?

4) Are 1" threaded steerer tubes pre-cut to length or do they come uncut if sold alone?

I'm looking at a NOS frame that doesn't come with a fork so when I buy a fork I want to make sure I get an appropriate length threaded steerer tube for whatever frame I end up getting.


Thanks!


----------



## froze

Campy dropouts mean the dropouts are the top of line dropouts then a no name. But any high quality dropout like Campy, Shimano, Gipiemme, Simplex, Huret, (new) Sachs, and Suntour are all forged and are third party suppliers for bike manufactures wanting to use a forged dropout (of course Suntour is out of the game now). There are some dimensional difference between brands of dropouts but it's too detail and I don't have all the facts, but their so slight it really doesn't matter. And some dropouts may have a brand stamped on it but when in fact they were made by someone else, usually a major player.

If a branding is not on the dropout and the dropout looks flat with no raised surface area, then it's a cheap stamped out dropout that is not as good nor as strong as forged, stamped dropouts are found on cheap lower end bikes.

I don't know enough about your other questions so hopefully someone else will chime in. And if someone does chime in and you get confused any LBS can make the appropriate measurement and cut etc without incurring a major cost.


----------



## velodog

cda 455 said:


> Questions:
> 
> 1) Does having Campagnolo drop outs on a frameset mean or say anything about said frameset?
> 
> 2) If a frame has a 1" HT that's 160mm long, what length threaded steerer tube do I need?
> 
> 3) How much thread on a threaded steerer tube do I need for a given HT length?
> 
> 4) Are 1" threaded steerer tubes pre-cut to length or do they come uncut if sold alone?
> 
> I'm looking at a NOS frame that doesn't come with a fork so when I buy a fork I want to make sure I get an appropriate length threaded steerer tube for whatever frame I end up getting.
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Besides head tube length you also need the stack height of the head set that you're going to use. Add head tube length to the stack height will give you a starting point. Make sure that the steerer is longer than that measurement and it will need be trimmed to length. Find a reputible shop and have a sit down with them.


----------



## laffeaux

cda 455 said:


> 2) If a frame has a 1" HT that's 160mm long, what length threaded steerer tube do I need?


It depends on what headset you use. The steerer tube needs to at least as long as the heat tube length plus the "stack height" of the headset. Stack heights vary but plan for at least 40mm (you can find some headsets that are in the 32-33 range). The longer the better - as you can cut off any extra length that is not needed.



cda 455 said:


> 3) How much thread on a threaded steerer tube do I need for a given HT length?


There's no specifc amount needed. However, the fork needs to have threads low enough on the steerer so that the headset can be threaded on it. If you buy a fork that is super long, additional threads may need to be added (and the top cut-off of the fork). A good bike shop will have the tools to do this if it's required.



cda 455 said:


> 4) Are 1" threaded steerer tubes pre-cut to length or do they come uncut if sold alone?


Threaded forks are intended to fit a small number of frames. Each builder would have a fork with a different length fork steerer for each frame size that the sold. A 56, 58 and 60cm frame would each have a specific fork.

After market forks would come in various length, and one fork might fit 54-56cm frames, and another would fit 57-59cm, etc.

One of the biggest reasons that the industry went to threadless forks is that they could make one fork with a long steerer tube, and it could be cut down to fit any frame size. Instead of having to stock multiple forks, a bike shop could carry one fork and sell it to anyone. It saved a lot of money. In the world of mountain bikes, where after market forks (generally suspension forks) were much more common, there were three steerer tube diameters (1", 1 1/8", and 1 1/4") and multiple head tube lengths. In order to have the correct threaded fork in stock, a shop needed to carry a huge inventory.


----------



## Fai Mao

cda 455 said:


> Questions:
> 
> 1) Does having Campagnolo drop outs on a frameset mean or say anything about said frameset?
> 
> 2) If a frame has a 1" HT that's 160mm long, what length threaded steerer tube do I need?
> 
> 3) How much thread on a threaded steerer tube do I need for a given HT length?
> 
> 4) Are 1" threaded steerer tubes pre-cut to length or do they come uncut if sold alone?
> 
> I'm looking at a NOS frame that doesn't come with a fork so when I buy a fork I want to make sure I get an appropriate length threaded steerer tube for whatever frame I end up getting.
> 
> 
> Thanks!


You can should you wish, use a threadless fork and headset on the frame. Just get a threadless headset that is not integrated. (The old-style threadless) the only real problem with doing that (Other than loosing a retro-aesthetic) is that a threadless fork with a 1 inch steering tube are little rare. However, there is very little practical difference in function between the two and the overall weight is about the same for the headset/stem but you could probably get a lighter fork that way and you had asked about the weight earlier.


----------



## KensBikes

tmf said:


> I've been riding 700c wheels since the early-mid 80's. I'm just guessing, but I think the transition from 27" wheels to 700c wheels took place by '81-'82 at the lastest. I think you will limit yourself quite a lot by choosing 27" wheels if you're aiming for a bike that reflects the time period you mention (mid 80's-early 90's).


Not the "lastest." My 1984 Trek 610 came new with 27" wheels stock.

TdF racers used tubulars back into the '50s if not earlier. The size designator depends on nation of origin and perhaps on what year, but what we now call a 700c tubular fits what they once called a 27 tubular. TdF riders did not in that time frame use the heavy 27x 1/4 or the lighter 1" width (or less) clinchers we now see as vintage.


----------



## froze

KensBikes said:


> Not the "lastest." My 1984 Trek 610 came new with 27" wheels stock.
> 
> TdF racers used tubulars back into the '50s if not earlier. The size designator depends on nation of origin and perhaps on what year, but what we now call a 700c tubular fits what they once called a 27 tubular. TdF riders did not in that time frame use the heavy 27x 1/4 or the lighter 1" width (or less) clinchers we now see as vintage.


I race on 27 1" tires when I got the Trek 660 in 84, there were some good racing tires for that size back then, but I liked the Specialized Turbo S (I think that's what they were called), and I like the Avocet Fastgrip (again I can't recall the name correctly) tires. But when 700'c's came into vogue in America I had to make the conversion because 27's all but disappeared except for very cheap quality tires. Since then today you can find pretty decent 27" tires including probably the lightest and best one available for that is the Conti Ultra Gatorskin, it's a folding tire and the lightest one that I know of but it only comes in a 27" x 1 1/4" . 

Panaracer makes a real nice durable tire called the Pasela in a 27" x 1" but it's not a racing tire, more of a durable street tire even though it's a tad lighter then the Ultra Gatorskin, but it has steel wire beads so it can be a pain to install and remove.

Conti also makes the Ultra Sport but while it's less expensive then the Ultra Gatoskin it's also heavier.

Vittoria makes the Zaffiro in a 27 x 1 1/8 but again it's not as light as the Conti Ultra Gatorskin or the Panaracer Pasela.

If you decide to switch to 700c you have to make sure first that your brakes will reach a 700c rim, some bikes came with short reach calipers and they will not reach, but some came with medium reach calipers and those will. If they don't reach then you have to decide if you want to invest in new calipers in addition to the new wheels. I was able to make the switch with no problems on my Trek 660, but I decided to stay with the 27" tires on my older touring bike.


----------

