Lightweight steel: What is it exactly?

[CNY rider]

Anybody read the recent Bicycle Quarterly article on planing?

Well luckily for you my question isn't about planing! It's about what constitutes "lightweight" steel tubing for bicycles.

They have the tubing coded in the tests they did; I could figure out that the stuff they called "superlight" was True Temper OX platinum.

They didn't say what the "average" stuff was but compared it to Columbus SL.

They also didn't give the Columbus SL tubing diameter but did say that the "average" stuff they tested was .9-.6-.9 and the True Temper OX was .7-.4-.7.

So was Columbus SL as lightweight as newer lightweight tubing? Is there any difference in weight if you make Columbus SL tubes and more modern tubes in the same diameters? Is the only difference in the new stuff the ability to make the very thin and hence lightweight tubing?
What about the even newer steels like go into CDA's or Pego-richie tubing?

[Chris]

Read this for a primer. http://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=899

[RPS]

Is there any difference in weight if you make Columbus SL tubes and more modern tubes in the same diameters?Material density is essentially the same, so to make it lighter they have to use less of it. Either smaller diameter and/or thinner walls, or both.

The trend has been towards larger diameters with very thin walls that more than offset so you end up with a stiff tube that is also lighter.

[Peter P.]

The problem is, the older steels needed certain wall thicknesses to retain some properties such as dent resistance, and to retain strength after brazing.

If you increased Columbus SL tube diameters without reducing wall thickness, you gain a more flex resistant tube, but it's heavier.

So, manufacturers came out with stronger steels that didn't lose as much strength, or even became stronger after brazing/welding. Therefore, they could use thinner tubes and lose weight even after increasing the diameter to gain flex resistance properties.

Columbus SL and Reynolds 531 in the old, "one inch" standard diameters (which referred to the top tube and/or the steerer diameter) WAS/IS the standard against which all newer tubes are judged. They were that good.

Virtually all current steels have thinner walls, larger diameters, and lower weights than those old standards. These steels are trying to compete with the other materials in overall weight.

So was Columbus SL as lightweight as newer lightweight tubing?
No; newer tubes are lighter in weight for a given tube length, because they can use thinner tube walls. Frame+fork weights for Columbus SL frames hovered around 5.5-6 lbs with lugs, braze-ons, the works. Newer frames are about 1-2lbs. less, though they're usually fitted with carbon forks so the comparison isn't quite equal.

Is there any difference in weight if you make Columbus SL tubes and more modern tubes in the same diameters?
Yes, the newer tubes can be lighter because the walls are thinner as the materials are harder so at the thinner wall thicknesses they still maintain dent and buckle resistance.

Is the only difference in the new stuff the ability to make the very thin and hence lightweight tubing?
No; fabricating larger diameter tubes makes a more flex resistant bike. Larger diameter tubes address some problems with larger frames, but stiffness is overrated, to the exlusion of shock absorption. Some flex is good! Another problem with some of the newer steels is they are heat treated; it may make it impossible to align these frames after a crash as the metal is so hard it's almost brittle.

[stuckey]

I have never noticed a difference in brands of steel just in the diameter of it. So I would have to say the newer stuff and Columbus would act the same if it was both regular sized or both oversized. The same goes for the Pego Richie or Life as it is called. As for weight difference it will not be a lot but I am not sure on the specifics. The diameter of the light tubes was 7-4-7, the heavy was 9-6-9, Jan and Mark usually ride 8-5-8 bikes... 7-4-7 just sounds overly flexy for tubes, I am 155 and 8-5-8 is flexy enough for me.
It was a interesting article though... The weight article was kind of a laugh though. The comparisons from 1947 to today are ridiculous at best. I would not use brake levers without hoods if you payed me.

[CNY rider]

The weight article was kind of a laugh though. The comparisons from 1947 to today are ridiculous at best. I would not use brake levers without hoods if you payed me.


I think the weight article was very unflattering to cpg and should not have been presented the way that it was.
That was apples vs. oranges vs. beer kegs.

[palincss]

The weight article was kind of a laugh though. The comparisons from 1947 to today are ridiculous at best. I would not use brake levers without hoods if you payed me.

The issue you're discussing hasn't arrived here yet, so I haven't had a chance to read it.

But why would comparing 1947 to today be ridiculous? If we are claiming progress in technology, isn't it fair to compare bikes from one era with bikes from another?

[stuckey]

I think the weight article was very unflattering to cpg and should not have been presented the way that it was.
That was apples vs. oranges vs. beer kegs.

The thing that angered me the most was the handlebar bag and the tool that the guy carried on the Crumpton. You would think they would use the same components there when doing a comparison. Plus not admitting that the brake levers and shifter weight combined on the Goodrich weigh more than Record Ergopowers. Sometimes VBQ goes out of there way to reinforce the old and pee on the new. I like the magazine and all but somethings just make me shake my head there ultra low trail included... Give me 49mm but less... never ride that baby unloaded.

[stuckey]

The issue you're discussing hasn't arrived here yet, so I haven't had a chance to read it.

But why would comparing 1947 to today be ridiculous? If we are claiming progress in technology, isn't it fair to compare bikes from one era with bikes from another?

Wow, I have had it a little over a week.
Not when it comes to things like comfort. He compares old hoodless brake levers with those with hoods. I have used the old all aluminum levers and ridding on the hoods is a painful experience. I mentioned a few more things in my post above. I will reread the article because I know there where other things I am forgetting right now.

[cpg]

I think the weight article was very unflattering to cpg and should not have been presented the way that it was.
That was apples vs. oranges vs. beer kegs.

I was feeling that way a little too. Wasn't sure if I was being too sensitive though. It does seem like an apples to oranges comparison. The Crumpton was cool and I dig it but the bikes are radically different with different goals. Oh well the customer is happy with it.

Curt

[LouDeeter]

The Crumpton is a nice bike, a very expensive nice bike at over $11,000 as tested in the article.

[sg8357]

The Crumpton is a nice bike, a very expensive nice bike at over $11,000 as tested in the article.

I'll take a Goodrich and spend the savings riding around France for a couple months.

On point, I had no trouble with the article, JH's preferences and prejudices
are well understood by the BQ readership, I can easily read thru them
so I can apply my own. ;-)

Scott G.

[stuckey]

I'll take a Goodrich and spend the savings riding around France for a couple months.

On point, I had no trouble with the article, JH's preferences and prejudices
are well understood by the BQ readership, I can easily read thru them
so I can apply my own. ;-)

Scott G.

I have been reading/subscribing since the second year and still find his preferences a little much sometimes.

[palincss]

I think the weight article was very unflattering to cpg and should not have been presented the way that it was.
That was apples vs. oranges vs. beer kegs.

My issue arrived last night. I don't see this as an unfair comparison.

As the article clearly says, the Goodrich is a classic frame and it weighs essentially the same as the Singer. The Crumpton carbon's frame weighs a good bit less. So far, nothing whatever unfair or unflattering to cpg, or, for that matter, unexpected.

Regarding the components, the article clearly states they were chosen by the owner, not cpg, and not necessarily for low weight. The components on the Singer were lighter for various reasons, many of which should be no surprise: e.g., a lever-operated front derailleur doesn't require cable and housing; brake levers and downtube shifters weigh less than brifters.

You might not want to use such components -- as the article says, few would wish to use 1950s headlights even though they weigh less than modern ones -- but it is a fact that in many cases modern components do weigh more than old ones. In many cases, the tradeoffs are well worth the extra weight. As the article says, plastic saddles weigh less than leather ones, but if that weight saving comes at the cost of less comfort, that might not be a worthwhile tradeoff.

So how's all this unflattering to cpg? Or unfair?

[CNY rider]

IMHO, the article starts with the preface that "lighter is better" (and I'm not arguing that that is untrue).
There is only one brief mention that Curt's bike was not built to be a lightweight, and that large sums of money were saved on the Goodrich by not opting for the most expensive, lightest parts.

Also, why call each sub-heading of the article a "rating" and then list them in order, instead of just listing the weights? Using the term rating tells me you are ranking them in order from best to worst.

I just feel the overall tone is negative towards the heavier steel bike. Why would you even compare the Goodrich to a carbon model? It really is apples and oranges.

Did you feel positive about the Goodrich bicycle after reading that article? I didn't feel that way even though I really admire cpg's bikes.

[palincss]

Also, why call each sub-heading of the article a "rating" and then list them in order, instead of just listing the weights? Using the term rating tells me you are ranking them in order from best to worst.

I just feel the overall tone is negative towards the heavier steel bike. Why would you even compare the Goodrich to a carbon model? It really is apples and oranges.

Did you feel positive about the Goodrich bicycle after reading that article? I didn't feel that way even though I really admire cpg's bikes.

The article IMO was mainly about components, not frames. The "Ratings" are listed by weight, lightest first, with the amount of additional weight shown in parens for the heavier items.

The frame and fork rating make up less than 10% of the article. At first glance, it might appear that the Goodrich is being compared to the Singer and the Crumpton, but it's the bikes as built which in the case of the Crumpton and the Goodrich had little or nothing to do with the builder.