Reynolds tubing weight comparisons

Re:

Anyone currently have these weight comparisons?

My Quinn frame (below; pic courtesy of Hilary Stone) is a 54cm and weighs only 1585g bare!



HW

The comment in the earlier post about no reference to comparative weight at the thumbnail post is wrong. This link is to a very helpful Reynolds leaflet which is spot on for my (painted 58.5cm) frames. http://equusbicycle.com/bike/reynolds/i ... ochure.jpg

Re:

shawnb":33g2sbq8 said:

Cheers, sounds promising, can't open the links at the mo but it may be due to my internet playing up.

Cheers, Shawn.

Click to expand...

I think this is the correct link for the weights of the various tube sets
http://equusbicycle.com/bike/reynolds/0 ... ochure.htm

Hillwalker":23050603 said:

My Quinn frame (below; pic courtesy of Hilary Stone) is a 54cm and weighs only 1585g bare!

HW

Click to expand...

What tubing is this? That is light, but there's not much left of that bottom bracket.

The link shows a 2400 gram tube set (501) as superlight! Ha!

Would be nice to know what the current tube sets weigh. Especially 831 and 931.

rayms":2vwgbbzy said:

Hillwalker":2vwgbbzy said:

My Quinn frame (below; pic courtesy of Hilary Stone) is a 54cm and weighs only 1585g bare!

HW

Click to expand...

What tubing is this? That is light, but there's not much left of that bottom bracket.

The link shows a 2400 gram tube set (501) as superlight! Ha!

Would be nice to know what the current tube sets weigh. Especially 831 and 931.

Click to expand...

I should have included this in the original post :facepalm: Hilary believes the tubing for my Quinn is an extralight 531 variant that Reynolds had available at the time, but which were non standard (might this have eventually become 531SL?) Bear in mind this is a 60s frame...

HW

Would be nice to know what the current tube sets weigh. Especially 831 and 931

Click to expand...

My modern Bob Jackson in oversized 853 weighs 2.1kg, for a 21.5 inch frame (roughly 54cm). That's measured on a normal set of kitchen scales, which aren't too accurate, though.

I think most of the extra weight is in the lugs and bottom brackets. The chainstays are also beefy, rather than pencil thin like some old frames. I think a TIG welded frame frame would be about 300 grams lighter, going by the weights of lugs on the Nova cycles frame building site.

Although the frame is slightly heavy, the overall bike is not as it has a carbon fork, and Campag Carbon Centaur plus a pair of very light wheels. It also rides beautifully, having all the cliches of being laterally stiff and vertically compliant. By that I mean that the frame doesn't twist or flex when going up hill or stomping on the pedals, yet I can ride it for hours without feeling beaten up.

Re:

It's really interesting.

So a 40 year old steel frame weighs approx 1lb more than the latest plastic fantastic (approx 7-800g). Yet modern bikes have to be weighted up in smaller sizes to meet the UCI minimum weight. So theoretically, you could build a steel bike with 531 to a 15-16lb weight. A LOT lighter than most off the shelf carbon bikes!

Of course, for a fraction of the cost, I could take 5KG off me...

I can feel two projects coming on...

Re:

That HQ is extremely light compared to 531SL (mine was 2500g) so either Reynolds thinned the tubes down so far it had no strength or it's something else entirely. Is that the frame and forks weight or just the frame?

The point about the modern fantastic plastic is that it won't bend unlike the HQ.

Mark.

Re:

It might not bend much, but it also fails gracelessly...

I wonder how light a bike I could build using non-Carbon parts...