# Vintage Weight Weenie builds



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

I know its hard to get super light with most older stuff, but that Anchor thread got me thinking. Does anyone here have a vintage weight weenie build? If so, lets see em.


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

How light and how old? I could probably get my 95 Mako down to 19-20lbs pretty easily with a few parts swaps from a couple of other bikes.


----------



## scant (Jan 5, 2004)

theres been a few light-weight project specialized ultimates over the years:
http://kalimotxo.com/mtb/specialized_ultimate_various.html
a UK magazine MBi possibly, also had a similiar feature once

Klein also did a few


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

*Perhaps Easier With Vintage*

On average I'd say the only thing lighter now is frames...and only by a few percentage points.
I had a Pro-Floater built at 23.6lbs with crappy wheels so it could have been closer to 23 with some decent hubs and cassette instead of freewheel.

All my hardtails end up at 23lbs +/-1. That must be some subconsious goal I have. Not truely weight-weenieish but far less than anything (reasonably priced) you can wheel off the rack at a shop today.


----------



## phoenixinflames (Dec 20, 2006)

I had a 94 Kona Hei Hei buildt with matching retro parts at 19lbs and a 96 Explosif at 21lbs.

It wasnt that hard especially with rigid forks.

I´ll have a look if I still have some pictures of the bikes.


----------



## phoenixinflames (Dec 20, 2006)

Here`s the Explosif.










Seat(post) and tires not too retro in this setup.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

I have a '93 KHS that is about 23 1/4 pounds built exactly as it came brand new from the factory. While the ultra-high end components might be lighter today, the "typical" component is about the same or in some cases (rims) they're heavier.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Yes... DUH.... but quick... what's "vintage"... is a 1997 Amp B-3 vintage? Its under 24 pounds (I can't weigh it right now, its got a couple pounds of lights mounted to it still from the last nightride i did). Going older and lighter I got this 1993 Norco Sasquatch as one of my loaner bikes which is 21.4 Ibs right now with some lowfat style flat pedals...









Hmmmm, should redo the pics of it... maybe in a bit since its actually +5 out here for a few hours today.

Oh and my UglyTi project bike, which has been partially reconfigured for trail riding again now that I have a cyclocross built I can use for road training on, is 18.9 Ibs with a triple-ring and rockring, different saddle, and no pedals as the only major changes from this picture. With the FastFred tires and some pedals I plan to use, still only looking at about 20.4 Ibs.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

This is an interesting thread. I'll have to weigh some of my bikes soon. I believe my Paramountain is my lightest bike; but I've never had a hardtail, so I only really compare rigid vs. FS.

What about breaking it down into what likely weighed more or less on a vintage bike vs. a modern one? Anyone and everyone is welcome to verify, correct or ignore my ideas if they want, but I'm thinking of the following to start discussion and strictly off the top of my head.

I'm assuming a fairly typical 1980s steel bike with higher end tubing and fairly typical components (6/7-speed XT or Suntour) vs. a fairly typical modern higher-end aluminum hardtail.

Vintage weight advantages:

Fork (rigid vs. suspension)
Brakes (canti vs. most disk) - maybe no advantage with U-brake(s) or Roller Cam(s)?
Wheelset?
6/7-speed Cassette? (probably not true about freewheels)
Shifters - thumbies vs. rapidfire? Not sure here...new triggers and certainly twist shifters are light
Tires - I'm assuming similar weight for the width if both are Kevlar, but we all run skinnier tires on vintage bikes and had little choice back then

Vintage weight disadvantages:

Frame - most steel vs. most modern aluminum
Bars, stem and post (?) - certainly if steel vs. aluminum, but that was changing in the late 80s.
Brake levers - four-finger levers must have been heavier, but maybe not at all vs. hydro levers/master cylinders?

That leaves a lot I don't claim to know: derailleurs, cranks, posts, saddles...just thought starters, though. I'm guessing external bearing integrated BBs + cranks are lighter than typical vintage cranks + BBs...


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

i will not weigh my bikes.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

cegrover said:


> I'm assuming a fairly typical 1980s steel bike with higher end tubing and fairly typical components (6/7-speed XT or Suntour) vs. a fairly typical modern higher-end aluminum hardtail.


Most of us don't own a 1980s steel bike... I have TWO... and neither fits the "typical" banner. The Rocky Mountain Thunderbolt was super high end custom built end of the spectrum and the Mikado Kamikaze is still quite rare being a quebec brand at the time that barely was marketed outside of eastern canada.



> Vintage weight advantages:
> 
> Fork (rigid vs. suspension)
> Brakes (canti vs. most disk) - maybe no advantage with U-brake(s) or Roller Cam(s)?
> ...


How is rigid fork an advantage? Have you ever been to the light-bikes website to look at some of the bikes people put up? Lots of rigid forks at work there on relatively modern bikes. Canti brakes are rarely any lighter than V-brakes which many modern weight weenies use and many hydraulic disc setups are now as light as running rim brakes. Fewer cogs doesn't automatically mean less weight. Thumbshifters are not radically lighter than rapidfire pods can be (or twist-grip shifters) until you do the modern weenie method of paul's thumbies mounts and shimano road bar-end shifters (lighter than any MTB specific thumbshifters made back in the old days). And whos the "we all" that run skinny tires on vintage bikes ?!


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

In the early 90's I think that it became a lot easier to go light. Most of the 80's components were over built (ie. four-finger brake levers).

From your list:

*Fork (rigid vs. suspension) *
Rigid steel fork ia baout 2 pounds. A very light suspensoin fork is 3 pounds - most are 4.

*Brakes (canti vs. most disk) - maybe no advantage with U-brake(s) or Roller Cam(s)?*
If you go with the absolute lightest hydro brakes, there's not a huge penalty compared to canti/v-brakes. However, you're comparing a $400+ hydro brake to a $40 canti.

*Wheelset?*
Probably very similar. Modern hubs with aluminum hubs and freehubs are lighter, but these are still not super common on most bikes. Early 90's rims tend to be lighter than modern rims with a few excptions. For example, Bontrager Red rims were consistently 380-395g. Today a 425g is considered light. Stan's and AmClassic do produce rims today that are lighter though.

*6/7-speed Cassette? (probably not true about freewheels)*
Freewheels were heavy. Higher-end modern cassettes are lighter than vintage casettes.

*Shifters - thumbies vs. rapidfire? Not sure here...new triggers and certainly twist shifters are light*
Thumbies are lighter than anything that has come out since.

*Tires - I'm assuming similar weight for the width if both are Kevlar, but we all run skinnier tires on vintage bikes and had little choice back then*
Very similar. Vintage racing tires saved weight by being narrow. Modern racing tires tend to be light by reducing the amount of tread on a tire.

Vintage weight disadvantages:
*Frame - most steel vs. most modern aluminum*
Modern is lighter. A light steel frame in 1990 was 4 to 4.5 pounds (frames in the early ot mid 80's where heavier). Today sub-3 pound aluminum or carbon frames are readily available. Once you add suspension, almost all modern FS frames weight more than a vintage steel bike - but they do have suspension.

*Bars, stem and post (?) - certainly if steel vs. aluminum, but that was changing in the late 80s.*
The super light stuff is lighter today. What is "typical" on modern bikes is really unchanged from the early 90's. A 145g Answer bar form 1991 is still light; carbon bars are 125g or around 100g fi you run narrow ones that do not allow barends. There are ultra light modern stems (Ritchey, and others) and seat posts (Thomson Masterpiece, and other), but what most peope used is about the same weight as 15 years ago.

*Brake levers - four-finger levers must have been heavier, but maybe not at all vs. hydro levers/master cylinders?*
Levers form the 80's were heavy. By the 90's they were light. There may be a few levers today that are lighter than the CNC sutff, but "typical" components are similar.

So... a typical 1980's bike is not going to be a super light weight bike, but an early 90's bike can be made to be super light. If money is no object I think that a modern bike will defiitely be lighter than an older one. But for what most people ride ($500-$2000, modern bikes compared to early 90's frames are a bit porky, but they do offer the comfort of suspension.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> Most of us don't own a 1980s steel bike... I have TWO... and neither fits the "typical" banner.


Alright, then address something else if you find it interesting - no requirements here. 

That was just general food for thought...would be interesting to see vintage weight weenie vs. modern weight weenie, too, as that'd get you closest to 'lightest vs. lightest'. The 80s steel choice was going with vintage. If you get very far into the 90s, you're more into classic and retro than vintage IMHO, but that's just my definition.

It would also seem to me that more of the parts get closer to modern, too, what with more aluminum parts (including frames), suspension forks, etc. working their way into more bikes. Naturally, there are plenty of exceptions - great 90s steel frames, great rigid 90s bikes, etc....

Of course there are very light weight suspension forks and disk brakes, etc. available - would be good fodder for a vintage vs. modern weight weenie comparison.


----------



## Baulz (Sep 16, 2005)

Good points Laffeaux:thumbsup: 

This thread got me thinking of some of the stupid light parts available in the 90's. 

Mainly the Maxam Ti frames that were made from Russian tubing. The frames were incredibly light, but without a wheel in the frame you could squeeze the dropouts together with your fingers. :eekster:

Didn't Klein have a carbon/alum bar that was 90grams? 

And I seem to remember some canti brakes being close to 100g per wheel, but my memory has been damaged a bit since the 90's


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> *Frame - most steel vs. most modern aluminum*
> Modern is lighter. A light steel frame in 1990 was 4 to 4.5 pounds (frames in the early ot mid 80's where heavier). Today sub-3 pound aluminum or carbon frames are readily available. Once you add suspension, almost all modern FS frames weight more than a vintage steel bike - but they do have suspension.


There were lighter offerings back then.... Trimble's 140 Unlimited carbon boom tube frame at 2.7 Ibs, most Ti frames were lighter then than now (my Titan Compe is 3.5 Ibs for a 20.5" size WITH the Bottom Bracket installed), Brodie Sovereign frames were 3.8 Ibs for a 21" steel, etc.


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

Back in my racing days (94ish) I had my M2 down to about 20.5 lbs with front suspension (spec FSX) and the following year I had a ProFlex (nice riding bike but lots and lots of maintanence) down to about 22.5 lbs. Nothing stupid light. Topline cranks, 2x7 or 2x8 (can't remember) drivetrain, XC Pro Thumbies, DuraAce rear Deraileur, Hugi rear with alum cassette body and custom Ti spindle, ti post stem and all the other various parts. The only thing that ever gave me a problem was the Mavic 230 rims, light as hell but also soft as hell and always dented up the sidewalls after a couple of races. Luckily the rims were cheap and I have always enjoyed building wheels. I also worked at a shop and would weigh numerous samples of tires/tubes etc and take the lightest ones. I still have the M2 and it is still my favorite riding bike but it is no longer in it's past glory.


----------



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

Well I guess this thread goes back to the old "what is vintage?" When I first got into this forum, in the late 90s, a 10 year old bike was definitely considered vintage. The problem is now we're getting to a point where 10 years ago isn't vintage at all IMO. I mean does anyone consider a 1998 bike vintage? I don't. I have a Gary Fisher Procaliber OCLV from 1994 that I don't consider vintage. The frame weighs about 3 pounds and would build into a nice WW bike, but its just not vintage IMO. The OCLV frames made today are almost identical. The only carbon frames that I might consider vintage would be the old bonded Treks and the like. So what does that mean? I don't know, maybe my cutoff for vintage would be early 90s?

Personally I consider some "modern" things to be vintage if they were the first generation of said part/material. Two examples would be carbon and disc brakes. Both generally thought of as modern things, but old Kestrels and Amp and Rock Shox disc brakes are pretty vintage if you ask me.

As far as what was lighter, then or now, well like others have said, average stuff was about the same then as now, but what true weight weenie runs average stuff? (How about that for a run-on sentence.) I guess I consider a ww build to be made of the lightest stuff possible or at least or at least without getting rediculous like a $300 seatpost for example.

The lightest frames then were about 1/2 lbs heavier than the lightest now. Tires about the same I guess. Wheels? hmmm, I doubt anything older was as light as a set of I9s. Brakes and shifters were about the same. Cassettes were heavier then, but I think Tioga was making a ti cassette a while ago that could be considered vintage. Old Topline cranks were probably as light as anything new. Old rigid forks were lighter than modern suspension forks, but new carbon rigid forks are lighter than old steel forks.

But my point wasn't to compare modern weight weenie builds to vintage. I just wanted to see and hear about some vintage (early 90s) builds.


----------



## scrublover (Dec 30, 2003)

Had a Titan frame/IRD ti fork setup for a long time that various parts filtered on and off of. Lightest was 16.5-17# based on a shop scale of questionable accuracy. 

Control-Tech stem, flat ti bar, Syncros ti post, Flite seat. Topline cranks, Action-Tec ti bb, American Classic hubs with some silly light wheel build. 8 speed freewheel, Grip Shift, XT, SRAM hybrid drivetrain, Ritchey ti spindle pedals. Panaracer Smokes were my default tires. Paul Love levers and 986 cantis. Bunch of ti and alu bits here and there. 

That is about all I can recall; fun at the time, but it would beat the hell out of me and bounce me around like a ping pong ball how I like to ride now!

All gone now; would be fun to ride that thing again!


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

AKamp said:


> XC Pro Thumbies, DuraAce rear Deraileur, .


Were the XCPro thumbies compatible with the DuraAce in index mode?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Actually yes...


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

I really love this bike. Claimed weight is 13lbs. Is that true? Or is it a misprint? http://sonic.net/~ckelly/Seekay/ScotNicol_1.jpg


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Its definitely not 13 Ibs... the deore xt component group alone was over 8 pounds.


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

Must be 23lbs.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

grawbass said:


> But my point wasn't to compare modern weight weenie builds to vintage. I just wanted to see and hear about some vintage (early 90s) builds.


Okay then... my entry into the vintage WW contest is a '93 KHS. As pictured it's 23.2 pounds. It's exactly as it was sold off of the showroom floor (except for the saddle): kalloy saetpost, Zoom stem and bar, and full m900 XTR. It could be lightend up a bit if I wanted.


----------



## -Anomie- (Jan 16, 2005)

12 years ago my size XL Bontrager Race Light weighed under 23 pounds, and that was with Magura HS-22's, Middleburn cranks, and a mix of Grip Shift and Shimano drivetrain components. Nothing particularly weenie-ish about it, but still light.

My "modern" Turner 5 Spot weighs 30 pounds. Progress?


----------



## Archangel (Jan 15, 2004)

Here's mine, although it's part modern / part vintage:

1995 Haro Impulse Comp weighing 19.35 lbs


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

XR4TI said:


> Must be 23lbs.


No.....

13 Kilograms


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

muddybuddy said:


> Were the XCPro thumbies compatible with the DuraAce in index mode?


Yep, like they were made for each other. Still running the same configuration on a 1x5 on my slingshot. It was only compatible for the older DuraAce that wasn't compatible with any other Shimano but luckily Shimano and Suntour were kind enough to make them compatible with each other.


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

patineto said:


> No.....
> 
> 13 Kilograms


It says 13lbs. I'd say 23lbs not 28.6lbs. My Pinarello weighs 26lbs stock and thats on the heavy side.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Its because shimano stole the slant-parallelogram derailleur geometry exactly from suntour (who held a patent on it, and promptly sued shimano and WON, which didn't amount to much in the japanese courts) and used it first on the DuraAce group (which was the first to go index shifting). After the court battle shimano had to make changes to the derailleur geometry so every other model got a derailleur which wouldnt work flawlessly with DA shifters. Suntour's own indexing shifters of course were meant for their derailleurs and coincidently fully compatible with DuraAce shifters/derailleurs.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

-Anomie- said:


> 12 years ago my size XL Bontrager Race Light weighed under 23 pounds, and that was with Magura HS-22's, Middleburn cranks, and a mix of Grip Shift and Shimano drivetrain components. Nothing particularly weenie-ish about it, but still light.
> 
> My "modern" Turner 5 Spot weighs 30 pounds. Progress?


23 lbs.. what tires were there when you weighed the bike. there is a full lb to be gained by swapping good, meaty, trail worthy tires w/ 1.9 lightweight not so good stuff.

i see internet 19lb bikes everyday. but what wheels are we talking about?


----------



## ssmike (Jan 21, 2004)

Archangel said:


> Here's mine, although it's part modern / part vintage:
> 
> 1995 Haro Impulse Comp weighing 19.35 lbs


I had one of those frames - very nice, nice riding, and light! Easton Varilite ProGram tubing.


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

XR4TI said:


> It says 13lbs. I'd say 23lbs not 28.6lbs. My Pinarello weighs 26lbs stock and thats on the heavy side.


Gotta be a misprint. I mean, the frame has to weigh negative 10 lbs, to even make the spec work. Not being argumentative here, just not seeing it. My Specialized S-Works Ultimate, with more carbon in the frame, full XTR, and it's original rigid fork weighed around 21.5. Where the extra pounds are going on the Ibis, is beyond me. That said, it's a HOT bike!


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

grawbass said:


> I know its hard to get super light with most older stuff, but that Anchor thread got me thinking. Does anyone here have a vintage weight weenie build? If so, lets see em.


That 13lb Ibis is probably one of Scot's attempts at being humorous. Or maybe that was it's lunar weight. 

The lightest frames now are about 2.5 pounds. The lightest in 89-90 was probably around 4 lbs. My MB-1 frame is just under 5 lbs with its heavy lugs.

Here is my 1989 MB-1 weighing in at 22.9 lbs. All parts are circa 1989, too, so there is no cheating. Yes, I was a weight weenie and this would be the predecessor to the MB-0 which was basically Grant's weight weenie bike. This actually weighed about a half pound less when I had Ritchey Force Racing tires on it but I ended up using them on a different bike.






Note the alloy railed Turbo SLG:


----------

