Weight of frames
There's been a lot of people starting threads about ti frames recently but none of them mention weight.
What sort of weight do the commonly mentioned frames from Van Nic, Eclipse and Sunday come out at and how do they compare with the carbon frames often mentioned in the £1000 - £1500 range (orbea, Focus, willier etc) ?
What sort of weight do the commonly mentioned frames from Van Nic, Eclipse and Sunday come out at and how do they compare with the carbon frames often mentioned in the £1000 - £1500 range (orbea, Focus, willier etc) ?
0
Comments
-
Don't know about the specific brands you mention, but the weights of your average Ti and CF frames are very close. With both materials there is a trade off between weight and stiffness and/or strength, and from what I've read my impression is that for a given performance bracket, Ti and CF frames weigh about the same unless you are talking about the really top-end CF frames, which succeed in being a little lighter while retaining other desirable properties. The weight saving is still well under a pound however.0
-
You're wrong Neeb - there might not be a huge difference, but you can get a <1kg carbon frame for £1k (mine is only 1.02kg at £400), whilst only super expensive ti frames get down to that sort of weight. The standard ti frames you mention there are in the 1.3kg range - could only find weights online for Enigma, and their very lightest is 1.25kg in a 56cm (for £1250).0
-
MOST carbon frames for that price are quite a bit heavier than that though.
It's still going to be only 200-350g difference, really not worth worrying about and much less significant than component choice for total weight.0 -
P.S. There are superlight Ti frames too - one of the litespeeds was/is under 900g I think.0
-
So 100g is quite a bit (most cheap modern carbon frames are <1.1kg for a medium size), yet 200-350g isn't significant? I'm not really sure how you can claim "for a given performance bracket, Ti and CF frames weigh about the same", when cost for cost the carbon ones are 20% or so lighter! You'll spend quite a bit of money to lose that much weight in the components.neeb wrote:MOST carbon frames for that price are quite a bit heavier than that though.
It's still going to be only 200-350g difference, really not worth worrying about and much less significant than component choice for total weight.0 -
IME most ti frames are in the 1250g range whereas there are quite a few sub-1kg carbon frames out there for around £500. Whilst there are Litespeeds and the like which are sub 1kg, the cost is prohibitive and the ride characteristics aren't what you expect for the money - the Ghisallo for example was well known for it's flexiness. I'd make my selection based on my riding style and needs rather than weight - some of the lighter carbon frames are incredibly stiff and so fine for short races, but would beat you up for a 6 hour sportive, whereas a ti frame tends to be more subtle and helps diffuse road buzz. I have experience of both and whilst the two bikes are set-up near identically, my uber-stiff carbon frame gives me backache after a few hours, whereas I can ride the same route and pace on my ti-carbon bike with barely a niggle.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
I do agree with aracer's comments here have to say.
Ti frames usually come out at slightly heavier weights compared to carbon frames of a similar value. Only when you fork out (excuse the pun) quite a bit more on ti frames such as Lynskey, Merlin, Seven etc. do you get the lower weights.
If you want a low weight frame but not spend too much, carbon is the way.0 -
Ok, on reflection "about the same" was an exaggeration. I guess maybe you are going to gain half a pound or slightly more with Ti.
My perspective comes from owning an Enigma which is 16lbs exactly with pedals, bottle cages, full Chorus and Eurus wheels. If I had Record it would be getting towards 15lbs. It's a joy to ride, fast, lively and comfortable and I can't see what I'd gain at all from a CF frame, but it wasn't cheap.0 -
There's the rub. Mine was only just over £2k (not cheap, but probably significantly cheaper than yours) and is <15lbs including pedals, cages, computer, aeroish wheels etc. I know it's not all about the weight, but as Giant mancp says - if you do want to build a light bike on a budget then carbon is the way to go.neeb wrote:but it wasn't cheap.0 -
Its usually a hell of a lot cheaper to lose the weight off the rider than it is the bike though...
Its interesting to see these superlight race bikes at Triathlons, only for them to be laden down with kilos of fluids...0 -
Well my Enigma was a little more than that (a few hundred quid) but I wasn't paying the extra to save 1lb of weight...There's the rub. Mine was only just over £2k (not cheap, but probably significantly cheaper than yours) and is <15lbs including pedals, cages, computer, aeroish wheels etc. I know it's not all about the weight, but as Giant mancp says - if you do want to build a light bike on a budget then carbon is the way to go.
I still think the weight range of Ti frames and of CF frames is close enough such that it shouldn't be a significant factor in choosing one material over the other (unlike steel vs. CF perhaps) unless you are a real weight weenie. And all Ti frames are expensive, so if you're building a bike on a budget it's not going to be the material of choice.0 -
wow good discussion points from everyone - not sure it makes my mind up with regards to my next purchase but certainly adds to the debate.
As always the weight thing comes back to relenvance to the rider and seeing as even my biggest fan (my 3 yr old lad) would probably state - you could do with losing a bit - then maybe I should go for comfort rather than outright weight saving0 -
Oh man, you guys are riding on air. I think my Gios Compact Pro frame weighs just a
bit over 4 pounds and the chrome fork comes in at about 1.6 pounds. The way I see
it I'm getting at least twice the bike for half the price of carbon. And you call me crazy.
:P :P
Dennis Noward0 -
Weight of frame is not that important. Most guys weigh in at over 73 kg a lightweight bike at 7 kilo's
Do the maths on saving a couple of hundred grams from the frame and see it is almost zero in the overall scheme.
As for light cheap carbon frames Don't start me as they are cheap for a reasonRacing is life - everything else is just waiting0 -
Yes - because you're not paying for lots of marketing and middle men taking their cut!Down the Road wrote:As for light cheap carbon frames Don't start me as they are cheap for a reason0 -
bollocks!!!
Most cheap carbon frames lack one vital component THE CARBON FIBRE.
Not marketing costs as these add up to less than 5% of the cost.
Cheap is cheap0 -
I ride a lightweight racer and my lad rides a steel tourer with mudguards and a rack. It must be 3 or 4 kgs more than my bike. He thrashes me out of sight on hills. He is 3 stone lighter than me :oops: .
Also i can shave over a lb in weight off my frame by just half filling my water bottle
One of the things that has improved my speed the most has been a good pair of padded lycra shorts.
I suspect that a lot of cyclists if they were into cars would lust after ferrari's etc but because they are into bikes the top of the range is just more affordable.We are born with the dead:
See, they return, and bring us with them.0 -
When I built my Litespeed I calculated the weight saving of 8 oz. only of Record over Chorus . I got screwed by an Italian dealer on the Record and whilst deep in dispute bought a Chorus gruppo as a get me on the road job . No regrets : it's still on the bike .
No one appears to have mentioned that Ti stuff - of whatever weight - is more robust in the long term and will last - well , forever , at a guess ( I have, in fact , managed to break a ti. frame : but that's a long story).
Carbon frames , I understand , get tired out fairly rapidly and are definitely not an investment in longevity . Initially they're very stiff ( for how long ? ) but , like glass , shatter catastrophically when shunted ( I know this first hand as I've seen off two sets of forks ). Remember that bicycle in two halves flying through the air over the heads of the peloton when a rider clipped a kerb during this years TdF ? For the same reasons I wouldn't like to fly on Boeings' new carbon sheathed Dreamliner when that gets its certification . New tech at thirty thousand feet ?
I admit though that there are some good looking CF bikes to had right now for the right money ."Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
Welcome back - I see you've unfortunately not gained much in the way of expertise whilst you've been away. Where exactly do you get that 5% figure from, and if cheap carbon frames are lacking carbon fibre, what exactly are they made from?FORUM IDIOT wrote:bollocks!!!
Most cheap carbon frames lack one vital component THE CARBON FIBRE.
Not marketing costs as these add up to less than 5% of the cost.
Cheap is cheap0 -
So the old myth which used to be about steel frames getting soft is now being recycled in reference to carbon frames? Unfortunately any frame will fail when catastrophically shunted - your ti frame which will "last forever" will be destroyed by an impact hard enough to break a carbon frame. The only reason you only see broken carbon frames in the TdF nowadays is because that's what almost all the bikes they're riding are - I'm sure if there was a peleton full of ti bikes you'd never want to ride one of those having seen the spectacular destruction of one.mercsport wrote:Carbon frames , I understand , get tired out fairly rapidly and are definitely not an investment in longevity . Initially they're very stiff ( for how long ? ) but , like glass , shatter catastrophically when shunted ( I know this first hand as I've seen off two sets of forks ). Remember that bicycle in two halves flying through the air over the heads of the peloton when a rider clipped a kerb during this years TdF ? For the same reasons I wouldn't like to fly on Boeings' new carbon sheathed Dreamliner when that gets its certification . New tech at thirty thousand feet ?.
Anyway, I'd suggest your suspicions of a piece of engineering which has been subjected to far more extensive and rigorous analysis and testing then any bicycle frame ever has says it all!0 -
aracer wrote:
So the old myth which used to be about steel frames getting soft is now being recycled in reference to carbon frames? Unfortunately any frame will fail when catastrophically shunted - your ti frame which will "last forever" will be destroyed by an impact hard enough to break a carbon frame. The only reason you only see broken carbon frames in the TdF nowadays is because that's what almost all the bikes they're riding are - I'm sure if there was a peloton full of ti bikes you'd never want to ride one of those having seen the spectacular destruction of one.mercsport wrote:Carbon frames , I understand , get tired out fairly rapidly and are definitely not an investment in longevity . Initially they're very stiff ( for how long ? ) but , like glass , shatter catastrophically when shunted ( I know this first hand as I've seen off two sets of forks ). Remember that bicycle in two halves flying through the air over the heads of the peloton when a rider clipped a kerb during this years TdF ? For the same reasons I wouldn't like to fly on Boeings' new carbon sheathed Dreamliner when that gets its certification . New tech at thirty thousand feet ?.
Anyway, I'd suggest your suspicions of a piece of engineering which has been subjected to far more extensive and rigorous analysis and testing then any bicycle frame ever has says it all!
Oh , I wasn't aware of that ' myth' re. steel frames before . Live and learn , and all that .
A ti. frame - this maybe a myth for you too - hardens and actually gets stiffer with age and use . CF - I believe - fatigues with age and use . Additionally , ti. and steel is not likely to fracture in a normal shunt but , like steel , will bend nicely - maybe repairably - or crumple irrepairably : not shatter like glass .
As for Boeings' confidence in its product . One of the 'Dreamliner' chief engineers - amongst other CF unhappy employees - walked out of his job recently as he wasn't convinced of its integrity in holding together in the air . Also , - do you read the papers ? - remember a very few years ago a multimillion quid , giant ( biggest ever) CF catamaran yacht having been built to break the 'round the world' sailing record , computer analysed to the hilt ? Best marine architect designed . Fastest thing on the water . Unbreakable . And the rest of the usual guff .
Didn't half of one of the hulls wash up on the coast of Iceland a few months after it had set off on a shakedown cruise across the pond ? I don't think there was anything else recovered from it ."Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
I'm not sure what the benefit of crumpling irrepairably (which is what will happen to a metal frame in an impact large enough to break a carbon frame) is compared to simply breaking. The idea of repairing a metal frame following such an impact is a nice dream. In any case a carbon frame won't shatter like glass at all - yes it will fracture, but more often than not won't completely break in two, just deform - it certainly won't break into a million pieces.mercsport wrote:Additionally , ti. and steel is not likely to fracture in a normal shunt but , like steel , will bend nicely - maybe repairably - or crumple irrepairably : not shatter like glass
Oh, and yes a carbon composite will fatigue - eventually. However that's the matrix which fatigues, not the carbon, and as most of the strength (and hence the stress) is in the carbon, the fatiguing of the matrix will be very slow and pretty insignificant. As to a ti frame actually getting stiffer with use 0 -
mercsport wrote:Remember that bicycle in two halves flying through the air over the heads of the peloton when a rider clipped a kerb during this years TdF ?
You can hardly call it clipping a kerb, he ran head on into a traffic island and a road sign at about 30mph! Lets see you ride away on your ti frame after such an impact. Anyway, what has the mode of failure got to do with durability or longevity? Carbon will only break if you crash it and a broken frame is a broken frame, whether it's in two bits or bent in half.0 -
aracer wrote:
Welcome back - I see you've unfortunately not gained much in the way of expertise whilst you've been away. Where exactly do you get that 5% figure from, and if cheap carbon frames are lacking carbon fibre, what exactly are they made from?FORUM IDIOT wrote:bollocks!!!
Most cheap carbon frames lack one vital component THE CARBON FIBRE.
Not marketing costs as these add up to less than 5% of the cost.
Cheap is cheap
Std MAJOR business practic for manufacturing and distribution is about 3-5 % of TURNOVER is used in advertising. Smaller the business the larger the PERCENTAGE.
This is then factored into the cost of product. The more you sell the less you add to each product. Hence the likes of TESCO spend less per sale on the advertising than Morrisons.
Cheap carbon bikes are basically resin and lack the strength of the quality frames. Hence stories coming about of how "my mate's frame failed after a small shunt"
Cheap is Cheap for a real reason.Racing is life - everything else is just waiting0 -
aracer wrote:
I'm not sure what the benefit of crumpling irrepairably (which is what will happen to a metal frame in an impact large enough to break a carbon frame) is compared to simply breaking. The idea of repairing a metal frame following such an impact is a nice dream. In any case a carbon frame won't shatter like glass at all - yes it will fracture, but more often than not won't completely break in two, just deform - it certainly won't break into a million pieces.mercsport wrote:Additionally , ti. and steel is not likely to fracture in a normal shunt but , like steel , will bend nicely - maybe repairably - or crumple irrepairably : not shatter like glass
Oh, and yes a carbon composite will fatigue - eventually. However that's the matrix which fatigues, not the carbon, and as most of the strength (and hence the stress) is in the carbon, the fatiguing of the matrix will be very slow and pretty insignificant. As to a ti frame actually getting stiffer with use
I'm old enough to remember when bicycle shops used to be able to repair bent frames and sundries as a matter of course , and when gas bottles , welding kit and the ability to use such was a requisite . Even I managed to repair a severely bent Ti. frame once - from an impact which would have snapped a CF frame in two - with a bit of old fashioned brute force and luck and kept it going for several years longer than could have been hoped for in this modern age of chuck away consumerism . So , chum , dream on ,if you will , and nurture your sceptism . Time was when bike repairs consisted of a little more than bolting stuff together .
CF performs like glass - it is , after all , a glass fibre composite - and , like glass , shatters with shock . Very hard and stiff but very brittle .
Further to my little parable about the best computers in the world can't get it right necessarily . Recall that in the early seventies Rolls Royce went belly up and broke developing the earliest RB series of jet engines - for big airliners - when substituting titanium primary fan blades with CF . They couldn 't get them to work with the required safety margins .
As for your " LOL " : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
I said marketing, not advertising - maybe you should work out what the difference is, and whilst your at it check up on the difference in economics between direct distribution and how major brands sell their frames via multiple importers/distributors.Down the Road wrote:Std MAJOR business practic for manufacturing and distribution is about 3-5 % of TURNOVER is used in advertising. Smaller the business the larger the PERCENTAGE.
This is then factored into the cost of product. The more you sell the less you add to each product. Hence the likes of TESCO spend less per sale on the advertising than Morrisons.
Cheap carbon bikes are basically resin and lack the strength of the quality frames. Hence stories coming about of how "my mate's frame failed after a small shunt"
Cheap is Cheap for a real reason.
So where exactly do you get your info from about cheap carbon bikes being basically resin? That's the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard. Maybe you could give me a link to some of these stories about cheap carbon frames failing after a small shunt, as strangely I've not heard any.0 -
Quite apart from probable better resistance to catastrophic damage, one of the biggest durability advantages of bare Ti IMHO is just not having to worry at all about abrasions, chips, gouges and the like. Steel needs a careful eye to protect against rust and will suffer cosmetic damage to paint, CF will suffer both cosmetic damage and possible structural damage from sharp impacts and gouges.
I've got an excuse for being a slight weight weenie - my body weight varies between 60 and 65kg so a kilo of bike weight is a significant percentage of my controllable total weight. Plus, as I've said before, I have to carry the bike up five flights of stairs every day..
0 -
neeb wrote:Steel needs a careful eye to protect against rust ...
Got to disagree with you there. I go a few years back(well, more than a few) and know
a pretty good share of guys who own steel bikes along with other materials. I have
only seen one(1) actually rust out and this guy used it on his trainer for something like 10 years. Plus he never even wiped it down after a sweaty session. Oh sure, 20-30
years down the road a steely might give it up but as far as a "careful eye", I don't think so. They require the same care as any frame, no more no less.
Dennis Noward0 -
Someone has forgot 953 stainless - no rust, potentially stronger than Ti, but probably not as light.
To be honest, we'd all be better off working on our own body weight rather than a few grammes off the bike - that makes the biggest difference.
For me it has to be durability, strength and quality over weight as a decider for bike parts.0
