|   Lightest frame material? | Chris Smith
Mar 25, 2002 1:22 AM | | I'm , like, confused. If I had identical 3lb hardtail frames made of carbon fibre, aluminum or steel, which would be the lightest?
Thanks
Chris Smith. |
| lightest material: Carbon...lightest frames: Aluminium... | nino
Mar 25, 2002 3:06 AM | | Carbon is less than half the weight of Aluminium but needs to be designed in a way that it`s stressed in tension only where it excells in strenght.round tubes as used on most frames aren`t Carbons strenghts especially the junctions will suffer and need to be reinforced (just look at Treks OCLV frames...)
to make a strong and stiff bicycle frame more Carbon is needed so it results in a heavier frame.
so far oversized Aluminium tubes offer the best weight to strenght ratio in bicycle frames.
Scott USA has produced lightest frames using both materials:
Fullsuspension:Scott USA G zero Strike 10 (M) with the Carbon mainframe/Scandium rear swingarm weighing only 1995g (incl. rear shock)
HT: Scott Team Issue Scandium frameset (M) 1170g
www.scottusa.com
my 02 Scott Team Issue frameset (size M): 1168g
.jpg) |
| OK, now here's a question. Where to buy... | Wierzyman
Mar 25, 2002 8:08 AM | | I don't understand why a company called Scott USA only sells there mountain bikes in Europe. At least that is the impression the website gave me. Where can you get one in the US? |
| I don't think you can. They gave up distribution in the US... | AZ-X
Mar 25, 2002 8:48 AM | | many years ago. Not sure why exactly... |
| OK, then what is the lightest full suspension frame... | Wierzyman
Mar 25, 2002 9:27 AM | | that you can get in the US? Did a search on this form and came up with this Scott frame twice. Was thinking of a Santa Cruz Superlight. What are some other medium travel (3 to 4" rear) frames that are under $1500. What are some other brads I should look at? Ventana and Yeti seem to have some light models too. Thanks in advance. Currently riding a Cannondale Super V 400 so anything is going to be lighter than that! |
| ---Wow, that's actually a tough one... | AZ-X
Mar 25, 2002 9:55 AM | | The Kona King Kikapu is supposedly about 5.2-5.3lbs in the medium size. The Titus Racer X aluminum is also supposed to be in that range. (Titus may be releasing a carbon/Ti version of that frame if the rumour mill is correct--competition for the Fuel and Sugar?)
The top end Fuel and Sugars are supposed to be light. I have yet to see frame weights for the 2002 models with all the new carbon insert and linkage changes. My Giant NRS is just under 5.5lbs. I'm actually researching a couple of frames right now myself because I want to try a different geometry (and possibly go lighter as well).
The Specialized FSR S-Works, Rocky Mountain Instinct Team Scandium and the new Brodie Sauce Scandium (supposedly 3-4inch adjustable travel and only 5.1lbs in medium size according to their tech guys)may be worth a good look as well.
You can see the Brodie at http://www.brodiebikes.com. |
| OK, then what is the lightest full suspension frame... | Andystrike10
Mar 25, 2002 11:12 AM | | I have a Scott Strike frame, my small fitted with ti bolts weighed in at 1935g (4.25lbs). High BB and stand over height, but a stunning frame. My LBS here in the UK would happily ship a Scott frame, FS or hardtail, to the US.
In the UK the top Scott Strike sells for around £1430 that's about 10% more than a Santa Cruz superlite. In the next month or so I hope to get the weight of the complete bike with discs to below 20lbs, 4" travel both ends. My LBS can be contacted at www.johnatkinscycles.com or sales@johnatkinscycles.com there not a huge outfit but they provide good service. |
| Depends how you define full suspension... I've seen Ti slingshot | DeeEight
Mar 25, 2002 3:40 PM | | frames around 3 1/2 pounds. |
| Scott | laffeaux
Mar 25, 2002 10:21 AM | | Scott stopped selling in the US in '98 or so. They has some sort of agreement with Schinn whereby Scott USA would sell in Europe, and Schwinn would sell in the US. They shared a R&D facility in Boulder, CO, for a while.
Now that Schwinn is gone (more or less), maybe Scott can come back? |
| Another rumor recently seen in mtbr.com/Passion is . . . | pedalAZ
Mar 25, 2002 10:38 AM | | that so many frames were breaking, that they couldn't deal with the product liability/warranty exposure, so they dropped the US market. Here's the link:
http://forums13.consumerreview.com/crforum?13@@.ef1acb8/0 |
| Hmm... It's possible, but I don't know... | AZ-X
Mar 25, 2002 10:48 AM | | Their original suspension forks were admittedly pieces of crap, but I used to love their AT2 and AT3 handlebars with the integrated barends. I used them exclusively until I went to GripShift and realized that they weren't GripShift friendly... I've heard really good things about their recent bikes and frames. Maybe they've really become better at frame building too. |
| That was part of the Scott's buyout of Schwinn deal. | DeeEight
Mar 26, 2002 7:12 AM | | |
| I had a trick quiz like that a school | Re-Pete
Mar 25, 2002 3:13 AM | | Which is heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of lead? |
| No, no, no... | SirF
Mar 25, 2002 7:18 AM | | This is a trick question:
"Which is heavier? A pound of gold or a pound of feathers?" |
| a pound is not a pound | split
Mar 25, 2002 3:08 PM | | Precious metals are measured in a different "pound" than other stuff. So if you had an aluminum frame at 3lbs, compared to a gold frame, let say, at 3lbs, the aluminum would be heavier. 3lbs aluminum = 1360gm, 3lbs gold = 1119gm. |
| Exactly... | SirF
Mar 25, 2002 3:11 PM | | Gold, for example, is weighted at 12 oz. per pound, the Troy Oz. system.
Feathers, lead, iron, etc, is measured at 16 oz. per pound...so a pound of feathers does weigh more then a pound of gold... |
| This is a joke, right? | WarrGuru
Mar 25, 2002 8:45 AM | | This has gotta be a joke. What weighs more? 3lbs is 3lbs.
What weighs more....a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?
Idiot |
| Also, if different material, then they are not identical. | Locoman
Mar 25, 2002 1:38 PM | | By definition. |
| Chris, you have a future in comedy ! Another..... | IAmtnbikr
Mar 25, 2002 9:27 AM | | thought-provoking post. The funniest part is seeing the responses to your posts. Oh well, I guess we can't just clean up the gene pool overnight....... |
| This has them all beat... | gp
Mar 25, 2002 1:41 PM | | ...(ignoring the "identical 3lb frame" non-sequitur)...
http://www.bambooclette.at/english1.htm
Definitely got the lightness wired, don't know about rigidity, though...
GP |
| weight is not mass | split
Mar 25, 2002 2:52 PM | | Oh god, this is rehashing memories - no, nightmares - from physics class. Here's my best shot at this puzzle:
Weight is not equal to mass. The mass of an object is constant and fixed, usually measured in kilograms (1kg=2.2lbs). When we weigh our precious bike components and frames on a scale, we measure mass, not weight, technically. But in layman's world, we call mass weight all the time (hence, WEIGHT weenies, not MASS weenies).
Weight is a whole other story with newtons and gravity. To find WEIGHT, we multiply the mass of an object by the force of gravity (9.8) to get a number in Newtons. This is true, scientific "weight".
So, if all frame types were the same MASS (3lbs/2.2=1.5kg) then multiplying it by 9.8 will get the same WEIGHT for all frames (14.7N). So long as we ask this question at the same elevation for all frames (force of gravity decreases as you get higher), all frames at 3lbs (same MASS) will WEIGH the same as well....I think. ;) |
| |
