OldRoads.com

This is an archive of Vintage Bicycle Information.
For current Discussions, go to our main site: OldRoads.com

If you are trying to determine the genealogy of your bicycle by it's features, go to our Vintage Bicycle Price Guide
which details bicycle features, wheel sizes, brake types, etc., as well as showing a price estimate for your old bicycle.

If you are trying to determine the make and model of your bicycle, go to our Vintage Bicycle Picture Database
which details bicycle features, wheel sizes, etc., as well as showing a price estimate for your vintage bicycle.

Archived: Vintage Lightweights







VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   looking good!! one question? posted by: luke on 8/3/2003 at 6:19:08 PM
hello all,it,s been awhile but i,ve been busy on my 1980
schwinn ''letour'' restore.it now looks brand new with a
super gloss white paint job and i buffed the hell out
of the chrome pieces,so they shine as well!!!
rims are ok,but i may opt for new ones.
it was very cool that i could unscrew the headbadge,prior
to painting with the two micro screw,s.!!
now id like to buy new 3 piece cranks.will i have a
prob with that or should i have saved the old''supermaxy''
cranks that i donated to trash heaven about 4 weeks ago???
well take it easy,luke


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   looking good!! one question? posted by Walter on 8/3/2003 at 10:21:58 PM
In my experience, no, you shouldn't have any problem with new cranks. A bike I built for my wife was Campy N. Record. Somehow the crank spider gets bent and I try a Campy Veloce modern 10 speed crank and after numerous rides it seems to handle the older style chain with no problem. So a new 9 or 10 speed crank will probably work fine.

If you're concerned still, eBay usually has a bunch of older cranksets at any given time. Also a shop may well have some old ones in a parts bin too.

   Super-Maxy crankset posted by John E on 8/4/2003 at 3:50:40 PM
If your goal is an authentic, all-original restoration, then you will need to find a replacement set of Maxy cranks. However, from a safety standpoint, you definitely made the right decision. Old aluminum cranks do sometimes fail, and the Maxy series was not particularly robust. If it were my bike, I would replace the Super Maxys with a sealed cartridge BB and a modern, low-mileage set of Campag. or Shimano cranks, or Sugino Mighty Compes, if you can find them.

Disclosure: With mid-1990s Campag. Veloce cranks and a 1990 Campag. derailleur on my 1959 Capo, I am no component purist!

   RE:Super-Maxy crankset posted by luke on 8/5/2003 at 11:51:07 PM
thanks john,
i choose some new cranks and b/b over the super maxys.
i want to make the letour orig but have some nice modern
touches.im sure you understand.safety first.ha ha!!
luke

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   looking good!! one question? posted by luke on 8/5/2003 at 11:56:52 PM
thanks walter,
i did choose a 9 speed campy veloce crank set and i bet i,ll
love it. thanks for your help.
luke






AGE / VALUE:   G.B. brakes posted by: humberchristopher28@hotmail.com on 8/3/2003 at 6:04:05 PM
What I have is a mixture of the two brakes and my lever is different too.
pictured at:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British/GBbrak_pix1.htm
The brake itself is original but has no X's on it.
The leaver is exact but mine has a large red anodised dial cut in the top part of the face of the brake leaver.
I'll send in pictures of mine for the page.
Love those red GB decorative nuts! Beautiful!

Did G.B. make cable casing?
Would like to see something written (a piece on) cable casing.







AGE / VALUE:   Campy parts posted by: MC on 8/3/2003 at 1:06:38 PM
Can anyone tell me what kind of bike a Campy right-hand only shifter was used on? I picked this up in a box of parts and I have never seen one before. It looks just like a conventional DT shifter set up, but it has a single right-hand lever only. Any help?


   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Campy parts posted by Tom on 8/3/2003 at 4:09:22 PM
This was a common set-up on several low-end, Italian, city/touring bikes in the 60s and 70s. It could also be from a boy's 5 speed racer. It could be from any of the full-line Italian manufacturers; Atala, Bianchi, Bottechia, Chiorda, Fiorelli, Legnano, etc. I had a Legnano Gran Sport Roadster with this set-up and I have seen a Chiorda 275 with this set-up.

All the Camapgnolo levers from this period look similar, so it's easy to think you have a real find. The difference was in the band and friction device. The lower end bands were generally softer steel and not chrome plated. The lower end friction devices were generally a thin steel plate (sometimes coloured red) with a plastic wing nut or slotted drive screw.

   single shift lever posted by John E on 8/4/2003 at 3:53:09 PM
The lever could also be from the early 1950s, when Campag. had a direct lever action front derailleur, similar to the Simplex Competition "suicide" shifter.






AGE / VALUE:   Schwinn Voyageur 11.8 chrome posted by: Peter Sigal on 8/3/2003 at 2:11:50 AM
Hello,

My father is selling his Schwinn Voyageur 11.8, Japanese chrome frame and Shimano 600 Triple drivetrain. The bike was previously owned by a bike shop proprietor. It is all original except for the wheels, which have red anodized Bullseye hubs, to match the red decals and red cables (!) and my father installed riser bars (I think he still has the originals.

He asked me to sell it for him online. While I know a fair bit about contemporary bicycles, I have no idea about the value of the 11.8. Thus, I ask:

What might this be worth? And second, is anyone interested in buying it? I will post it on the SALES board here, as well as on E-Bay, once I get a feel for a fair price. I would say that it is in very good condition. (Oh, it seems to be 25 inches bb to top tube, and would fit someone 6'2" or larger, or with very long legs. it's too large for me, that's for sure)

Thanks in advance,
Peter Sigal


   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Schwinn Voyageur 11.8 chrome posted by Kevin K on 8/3/2003 at 10:48:00 PM
Hi Peter. Nice bike. I've got a 1980 Voyageur 11.8 also. Mine is Scarlet. The Voyageur was built for Schwinn by the Panasonic Corp. The very first Voyageur was built in 1973, also by Panasonic. Your bike in chrome has got to be sharp. As for value, the bikes only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If you really want to sell it start with a $100 opening bid and see what happens. If you do not feel that is enough, try $150. Just remember shipping can kill a sale on a bike. Even though I collect and really enjoy Schwinn bikes of this vintage I do not feel the bike is worth more than the dollars mentioned. Good luck. Kevin






AGE / VALUE:   j.c.higgins posted by: jalen on 8/2/2003 at 2:47:39 AM
i recently ran across an apparent J.C. Higgins boys three speed bicycle. the thing is i dont know the name of it nor its age or value. ive been all over the net with this. its black looks like the original paint job j.c. higgins on crankshaft and frame and a schwinn seat. the tire sizes
are 26 by 1 3/8. Made in Austria. Sears and Roebucks name are on it also. Any help wll be appreiciated. Thanx.


   RE:AGE / VALUE:   j.c.higgins posted by JONathan on 8/2/2003 at 5:13:16 AM
Nice find! Those were early '60's built by Austrian "Steyr-Daimler-Puch". Mine was a true lightweight compared to the Schwinns and a lot of other massively built 10-speeds that proliferated on the streets.
You will be impressed with how quick that bike moves out. The "Komet" rear hub 3-speed was very tough. It may have an SA "AW" hub. Pre-bikeboom, lightweight, well balanced ride. That's a vintage LW, to be sure. Couldn't find alloy wheels for it, back then. Pops wouldn't have sprung for that luxury, so I just got to be an animal pushing that out the coast and back. Both mine (crashed one pretty hard) were black. That was the only color...like Model "A"'s.
Are you interested in selling?
Cheers, JONathan

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   j.c.higgins posted by Wings on 8/2/2003 at 5:45:55 AM
In the late 40's and 50's when the fat tire bikes were popular the J.C. Higgins was sold by Sears and it was not desired because Schwinn was the bike that was cool then (West Coast). Now the fat tire J.C. Higgins is a very nice find! I agree that your would have to be 60's possibly early 60's or maybe late 50's.

Comment regarding Black. Every bike I saw as a kid seemed to be black -- I don't remember any colors until the super duper fat tire bikes came in. Other makes of 3 speed existed in colors in the 60s.

I have only seen one J.C. Higgins in 12 years! Good find!

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   j.c.higgins posted by jalen on 8/2/2003 at 10:33:51 PM
Thanx JONathan and wings. Your assistance in this matter was truly a step out of the mist. I thought for a minute to be in the twilight zone with this bike. The ride is extremely smoooth. Seems im missing a couple of parts here and there the brakes aren't functional yet. Not sure what to do with it but im open to any suggestions dont know if i should fix it up or just enjoy the ride.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   j.c.higgins posted by Jimbo Jones on 8/3/2003 at 10:33:19 PM

Take a look at this site.

http://threespeedbicycles.angelcities.com/


   3-speeds posted by John E on 8/4/2003 at 3:58:57 PM
The default gear range for a 3-speed bicycle was 50 to 90 gear inches, which covers the gears I use most on every bike I own. I have gears in the low-to-mid 40s (or down into the 20s on my mountain bike) for climbing steep hills, and gears in the 90s for descents, but 50 to 90 easily covers all of my level ground needs.






MISC:   "Biscayne" mixte by Merida posted by: JONathan on 8/1/2003 at 10:22:24 PM
Call me bored. I have stopped by this thrift store everyday this week and the pickins is good. Got a Raleigh "Sports"; black from '72 (SA "AW" date). Today, I spotted a "Biscayne" mixte that I'm wondering if it's worth a second look. This model is made by Merida in Taiwan, which answers a big question for me. I have been trying to discover who made the "Biscayne" line of bikes. They are all over the place around here in N. Ca. I have a MTB that was my commuter for 5 years that is a Biscayne "Blazer". Never had anything go wrong but a broken shifter cable, loose rear bearing cup and flat tires. This mixte looks to be well constructed with reinforced brake bridge and lugged diagonal top tubes into the head-tube. Nice job of brazing up, too. Color is red underneath and faded, hazy orange on top. Lots of uv for this one. The hodge-podge conglomeration of parts is impressive in diversoty. A Sturmey-Archer alloy stem with short, flat bars. Dia-Compe cp brakes that look like Weinmann "Vainqueurs". Five point spider alloy crank...looks like SR. Steel rat-trap pedals. Steel rims, alloy hubs. SunTour front and rear (GT) with big ol' SunTour stem shifters. That's cool enough to want to get the bike. Bikes have been 50% off all week! I may go back right now with the truck, but my question is: Parts it or get it running? I'm leaning toward partsing, but it could easily get back up on the road. Tires are new looking, but cheap low pressure jobs....THanks, JONathan







MISC:   British Hub "Defiance" posted by: Edward in Vancouver on 8/1/2003 at 4:39:10 AM
Checked out the dumpster at one of my favorie haunts and spied a wierd wheel, though it was a "flip-flop" and took it home for a closer look. It has the stepped gear-ring and reverse thread lock ring threads, and on the other side normal threading for a freewheel. The rim is toast, once-upon-a-time-chrome plated with absolutely no markings, no tire either, but it appears to be 26 x 1 1/4. 40 spokes.
Now assumptions are dangerous things, but I'm assuming the hub is older than mid 60's, and bottom of the range (weighs over a pound). I'd like to have a second wheel for my fixed gear project, but don't know if this hub is worth it. It also has a solid axle (wouldn't a Q/R make sense for a flip-flop?), both cones are adjustable, and it's missing lock nuts.


   RE:MISC:   British Hub posted by humberchristopher28@hotmail.com on 8/1/2003 at 7:34:35 PM
You have a real gem there! Bravo Edward! Keep looking in that dumpster, no kidding.
This is what I have in my Scot. The solid axle exactly as you describe and yours is original.
I believe my 1950's Brown Brothers catalog shows your exact hub and with all the spare parts listed for it as well. I'll look and drop copies of the pages in the post, free.
You may be able to install a quick release axle but I would leave it alone with the solid axle and nuts.
Defiance. I'll look that up.

   RE:MISC:   British Hub posted by Ron on 8/3/2003 at 4:10:01 PM
Before quick release became widely available, many bikes had wing nuts. Sort of a poor man's quick release.






AGE / VALUE:   Pierce Bicycle posted by: Bruce Halverson on 7/31/2003 at 4:28:40 AM
I would like to find out the value of a "Pierce" shaft-drive, wooden-rim bicycle. The tires (now missing) were apparently of the semi-pneumatic type. The bicycle is in fair condition with the original seat missing and one rim slightly bent.
I have tried to find information about this bicycle with little luck except that the makers of the "Pierce Arrow automobile did build bicycles before building cars. Can anyone point me in the right direction????? Thanks in advance!


   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Pierce Bicycle posted by Walter on 7/31/2003 at 10:54:41 AM
You've got a real oldie there. Where did you find it?

I seem to remember that Sheldon Brown has one in his extensive collection. Check www.harriscyclery.com and click the Sheldon Brown links. Something like "My Bikes." as I recall.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Pierce Bicycle posted by sam on 7/31/2003 at 1:48:35 PM
For this one PLEASE talk to "THE MAN" Mr Paul Jacobs. His email is Jacobs@carltech.com He is the Pierce socity bicycle historian.---sam

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   Pierce Bicycle posted by Chris on 7/31/2003 at 6:39:29 PM
Shaft drive, my god!

   RE:AGE / VALUE: Pierce Bicycle posted by Bruce on 8/1/2003 at 12:14:46 AM
I would like to thank all of you for the replies! I will check with both sources above. I dug the bike out of storage today (it had been a long time since I looked at it) and maybe the condition is not quite as good as I had remembered. The front rim, which seems to be entirely of wood, is bent an inch or two to one side at one point. The rear rim is slightly bent, but seems to be wood inside of steel. The rims are not "clincher" rims and yet there appears to be a hole for a valve stem, so now I am not sure what kind of tires it had. I purchased this bike many years ago from a friend who was moving south and could not take it with him. Neither of us had any idea what it was worth, so I think I paid quite a bit for it. Never had seen (nor have I since) a shaft drive on a bike so thought it might be quite valuable. It appears to have been made by the same "Pierce Arrow" company that made the cars because in addition to the name "Pierce" on the nameplate, it has an arrow running vertically. Then, the manufacturer's name surrounds the name & arrow: The Geo. N. Pierce Co. Makers, Buffalo, New York, USA. Thanks again, Walter, Sam, and Chris for your input. I was very excited to find this site because I have been trying to find out more about this bike for a number of years. I will be in touch!

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Pierce Bicycle posted by Mike on 8/1/2003 at 3:18:43 PM
See pages 163 & 164 of "Collecting and Restoring Antique Bicycles" for a description of your bicycle.

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE: Pierce Bicycle posted by Bruce on 8/3/2003 at 5:30:30 PM
Thanks for the suggestion, Mike. I haven't had any luck so far with the other two sources so I am still looking. Is that book available at this site or where else would I look for it?
Thanks for your time!
Bruce

   RE:RE:RE:AGE / VALUE: Pierce Bicycle posted by Chris on 8/4/2003 at 5:28:48 PM
The Henry Ford, Greenfield Village museaum in Dearborn Michigan has a gift shop with books that I don't see regulally sold anyplace else.

I got my copy with the Pierce bike pictures and info there.
Call them up, call information in Dearborn Michigan have a worker at the gift shop look and ask them to look in their bike books for it. Arrange to buy the book. They'll likely take credit cards too. Shipping? I don't know that.
If not ask them the title and order it. I forget the title of that book. I have so many books.
I have another booklet entitled: Early bicycles
Pictures of highwheel bikes and boy is it detailed!
The table of contacts is better than any info at almost any web site's link pages.
I found this book at a tourist gift shop.
I suppose I should share this info with the folks here at oldroads.com
Try to find somebody at a museaum someplace who can put you in touch with somebody thru them.
The information you seek is hiding away out there.
Good Luck.

There are folks who could amaze you with their knowledge of Pierce bicycles.
Find the family of the inventor of that particular bike and ask if they have any information on that dude and or the bike.
Pictures are sitting in attics still.
Good Luck

   RE:RE:RE:RE:AGE / VALUE: Pierce Bicycle posted by Bruce on 8/31/2003 at 9:47:57 PM
Chris: Thanks for the suggestion. I will follow up on locating the book. Sorry for being so slow but was on vacation. Thanks again!
Bruce






AGE / VALUE:   Raleigh, Campy Gran Sport posted by: Ken on 7/30/2003 at 6:04:15 PM
Did you all see the Raleigh Competition G.S. on the general for sale page? This model was spec'd with Campy cranks, hubs, shifters, headset and seatpost, and Weinmann rims and brakes- catalog pictures on retroraleighs.com (thank you, again, Sheldon!) - it's not mine and I don't know Barry, but because I own the one pictured in the CampyOnly vintage picturebase I get an occasional inquiry, and I'm curious as to its collectability. Any comments?


   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Raleigh, Campy Gran Sport posted by Smitty on 7/31/2003 at 3:28:20 AM
I have 77 Comp GS and the lug work on the frame is the worst I have ever seen, and were the seat stays are brazed to the top tube is so bad that im afraid it could fail. I am wondering if anybody has a simular quality problem with there Comp or Profesional. But other than that I think there a good looking bike . Mine has a Victory groupo (Campy) on it. I still have all the oem equipment for it including that goofy chaingaurd that seems to be missing from all the ones i see online. The early 70's Comps are French equiped they seem to bring a litle less

   late 1970s Raleigh posted by John E on 7/31/2003 at 2:05:26 PM
Your observations regarding Raleigh workmanship reinforce what I have observed and read about regarding other venerable European framebuilders during the cost-cutting dark ages of the late 1970s. My 1980 Peugeot PKN-10 is certainly no work of art, with visible seams on the backs of the fork blades, brazing gaps around the rear dropouts, etc. Fortunately, in contrast, my 1981 Bianchi looks very good.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Raleigh, Campy Gran Sport posted by Smitty on 8/1/2003 at 3:20:52 AM
That is very sad I am sure there were workers at the factory that were sick seeing a bike of any price range let alone the next down from the top go out the door like that. I had a LeTour that was made in japan at that time its quality was a lot better (that is an under statement) . I sold it and got a "77" Peugeot PRN-10 . The work on this frame is better at least its safe . You can tell ther were alot of corners cut to build this frame but is was 531 and I was happy. Raleigh should have kept up quality and rode out the storm .

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   Raleigh, Campy Gran Sport posted by Jimbo Jones on 8/1/2003 at 7:52:19 AM
I have what is called a Grand Sports. 1973. It has campy style dropouts but in every other way it appears to be the same as the grand sports' I have seen. White with sky blue panels. The paint job is terrible and it is about as tough as krylon, the fake pinstripe decals don't ever meet and the seat post cluser that I thought was an amature repair I now realize was just a sloppy job when I noticed that the brake bridge was only half solderd on.

Who knows , mabe they did this intentionally so one would know that they were hand made. The parts on the bike ( nervar star, atom, GB and headset) are so finely finished that it only exagerates how bad this frame looks.

   RE:RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   Raleigh, Campy Gran Sport posted by steve on 8/1/2003 at 4:49:41 PM
Curious. . .I recently bought a Raleigh Gran Sport frame of the same vintage - and while it's rather beat-up from obvious years of hard use, I can detect nothing wrong with the original workmanship. (In fact, after getting some collision damage straightened, I turned it into a very enjoyable commuter mount.) Different day; different shift, perhaps?






MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by: Rob on 7/30/2003 at 2:32:34 AM
For those of you who are interested in these things here's a link to a picture of what is claimed to be the lightest road bike, 10.5 lbs:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2001/photos/interbike01/speedplaybike.shtml

This bike was displayed at the Interbike International Bicycle Expo" in Las Vegas, Sept 29 - Oct 3, 2001...apparently made with titanium and carbon fibre...

I've also found some reference to road bikes for UCI (Union Cycliste Intenational, based in Switzerland)competitions having to be 6.8kg, but I'm sure I heard 6.7kg...I'll keep looking...


   RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by Tom on 7/30/2003 at 1:23:59 PM
The UCI mimimium is definitely 6.8kg. That is what the rulebook states.

   RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by Rob on 7/30/2003 at 5:21:22 PM
Thanks Tom...after some more digging around on the web I found the 2003 UCI cycling regulations, updated to 15/07/2003. Here's the wording for chapter 1.3.019 ...in factured English, no less..."The weight of the bicycle cannot be less to 6.8 kilograms."...obviously meant to say ..."less than...". Here's the link....lots of interesting details....everything you want to know, plus some, about cycling competitions...UCI ones anyway...but were afraid to ask...:)

http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules.htm

click on "1 - General Organization of Cycling as a Sport" for a pdf report with equipment details.

I also found a reference to Cannondale's CAAD 7 frame: "The “unofficial” weight of the entire bike is 6.7 kg (14.77 lbs). In order to meet the UCI minimum weight rule of 6.8 kg, Saeco apparently used a heavier seatpost and water bottle cage." Maybe that's what they were talking about on OLN...the article is dated 13 Jul 2003, which is about the time I heard the discussions on minimum bike weights...Interesting stuff, but not vintage...my lightest bike at the moment is my Gitane TdF...21 to 22lbs...nothing on it that doesn't have to be there...plus a fairly new Selle Italia Flite saddle with titanium rails...my circa 1980 Benotto (model unknown) is close...I forget at the moment..I think maybe 23lbs...

   RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by Tom on 7/31/2003 at 12:26:35 AM
Thanks for the reference Rob, but I have my own copy of the rulebook, as I am Technical Advisor for the local race organizers. You are right, it is very interesting reading, especially if you trace the evolution over the past thirty years, or so.

I am surprised that any pro team would try using a heavier seatpost to add weight. This adds the weight at a very high point on the bike, which raises the centre of gravity and theoretically should adversely affect the handling. Worse yet, it significantly raises the moment of inertia when rocking the bike from side to side. This will introduce fatigue quicker on climbs. Ideally you want to add the weight to as low a point as possible on the bike, as close the centre of the fore/aft dimension as posssible and not on a rotating part. This makes the bottom bracket the ideal situation. I would have started by substituting a steel cups and lockrings, then went for heavy duty quick release skewers. Yes, I know we are talking a very small addition of weight, but at this level you need to give your team every advantage possible, no matter how tiny.

I recall several sucessful attempts in the 1970s at 10 lb track bikes and road bikes in the 15lb range. The lighest I had at that time was a Jeunet, which I had down to about 18 lbs.

   RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by Rob on 7/31/2003 at 1:01:24 AM
Tom, as usual you have lots of good info...from what I can gather, the weight limit relates to concerns that people will take chances with unsafe designs to, of course, get that competitve edge. In my searching around I found there was a lot of discussion on this during 2001, and I think there must have been some changes in the UCI rules related to overall bike weight. My question is...Are weight limits a recently imposed requirement?

   RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by Gralyn on 7/31/2003 at 11:47:43 AM
I've often thought about the weight issue when it comes to lightweight bikes. I'm always looking for a lighter bike, always looking for ways to reduce weight. One idea I had - how I could knock 10 lbs off my bike's weight....why don't I just lose 10 lbs myself! Would that not be equivalent? OK, say...I weight 170...and my bike weighs 30.....that's 200 lbs total. I could get my bike's weight down to 20...making a total weight of 190. Or, I could lose 10 lbs - making a total weight of 190. When you are riding - what would be the difference? OK, I've heard about tires and wheels....their weight...and as they are turning around and around - the weight factor gets increased....but, wouldn't that be forces in all directions - so wouldn't it cancel-out? And, factoring the actual rotational speed of the tires - would it not end up being a negligible difference?

Personally, I desire to have the lightest bike, with the lightest components I can get (afford)....but when I think of the bike and the rider together as a unit....and I think I can pay hundreds more - to knock off a few grams here and there....then I think, for my budget...why don't I just lose a couple pounds, myself.

   RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by Rob on 7/31/2003 at 6:14:23 PM
Gralyn...I like your logic...I guess the overall assumption is that the rider will come to the bike as lean as possible, and won't have any weight left to lose... ;)...When I was watching the Tour de France I was thinking a lot about "body types", "weight to power ratios" and so forth. As to the rider, beyond training, strategy and mental attitude...the rest seems to come down to physics...you want the right body proportions, and you want the muscle mass to be where it is most effective...legs and lower back...you don't want to be carrying around any weight that doesn't have a use. Lance and Jan seem to be very similar, with the weight to power edge, in my view, going to Lance...I get the impression he is rather more disciplined in his training and fitness regime than is Jan...Tyler is a smaller person, and that somehow is translating into quickness on the more level stages...I haven't quite thought it through, but I guess you need the greater muscle mass, up to a point, for the hills, and the lower weight for the flats...Interesting stuff...as for the weight factors associated with the various components, I'll let the 'engineers' among us take that on if they want to...

   RE:RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by Gralyn on 7/31/2003 at 8:23:18 PM
I'd say at least 10 - 20 lbs of my body is useless fat that needs to come off. I need to get on one of my bikes at every opportunity I get! I can't think of a more enjoyable way to get that weight off than riding!

   RE:RE:RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by dafydd on 7/31/2003 at 11:59:53 PM
Doubt anyone really cares, but the Speedplay came into our shop with that bike. He had it acid-dipped, because no builder would build it as light as he wanted.

   RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by Tom on 8/1/2003 at 4:00:23 AM
Rob, the weight restriction is a fairly recent development, but I'd have to check my rulebooks to see exactly when. In general, rule changes were infrequent, up to the mid mid-eighties whan the aero equipment started to appear. Then things just seemed to snowball.

The UCI seems to have three basic concerns behind the rules; tradition, safety and cost. To a big extent, they go hand-in-hand.

Bicycle racing is steeped in tradition, with an image of strong men who are pushed to their physical limits. Thus, the regulators are loathe to introduce developments which depreciate the physical aspect or radically deviate from the general concept of the bicycle. Consequently, pros no longer ride V-frames (Softride), Y-frames (old Treks) or Z-frames (Lotus) as they do not fit the traditional double diamond frame concept. We also do not see recumbents and faired vehicles because they are universally accepted to be more efficient. Some of concepts crept in, but were soon banned.

Most rules have an arguable safety element to them but the UCI generally dealt with the sport and left bicycle safety issues to the industry regulators. However, in 2002 the UCI issued its first clear bicycle safety requirment. The recent developments of low spoke counts in wheels was causing concern, so the UCI banned all non-standard wheels from mass start road race races, except those that had passed prescribed rupture tests performed by approved laboratories.

Cost is also a big factor. Part of the appeal of cycling is that the biggest factor is the human and that pro equipment is not beyond the finances of an average person. In 1984, Moser set the hour record using revolutionary disc wheels that reportedly cost $30,000. The UCI immediately banned them. It was clear that the new technology was faster. It was also safe. But boy was it expensive. However, if you had the money, you could buy yourself 45 seconds in a 40k time trial. Some considered this an unfair advantage for the priviledged few. So the ban was put in place, until the cost was reasonable for all levels of cyclists.

Looking at the above three factors, a 15lb rule can be argued on the basis of safety and cost, but I think the big factor is cost. In order to make a bike lighter and still be as strong, it will cost a lot more. The technology is available to make a strong, sub 15 lb bike. But it would be too expensive for the average person. There's a big market for pro bikes and the sport would lose a lot of appeal if the wanna-bes couldn't afford to ride an exact replica of Lance's bike.

As for body types I think the fingers typed a little reverse logic to what the old brain was thinking. I know, it's happened to me. The very lean and small cyclists tend to be the good climbers. The taller, slightly heavy muscled riders tend to be time trialers. The very heavily muscled riders, tend to be sprinters. These are very general statements, to which there are many exceptions.

As for losing body fat, this is definitely preferable to losing weight from the bicycle. As body mass decreases, maximum oxygen intake (VO2 max.)rises, increasing performance. Of course, you will still gain performance benefits by taking weight off the bike, but not as much as taking it off the body. Besides being cheaper, losing body fat will be of beneifit in all other physical activities (except Sumo wresting). A lighter bicycle is only good for one activity, and that's riding it. Just my 2c's.

   RE:RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by JONathan on 8/1/2003 at 5:22:30 AM
I stopped off to peruse the used book store nearby and found a great book on the topic of cycling performance. Title: "Cycling endurance and speed" by Michael Shermer with forward by Eric Heiden; 1987. I enjoyed it's retro aspect, as my best performing bicycle is a Team Fuji from the mid '80's vintage. In my experience, a couple pounds ain't so big a deal as is frame geometry. The energy is delivered faster with sacrifice of stability..at least that's what I feel like on the Team Fuji. The bike takes a bit of skill to realize it's awesome potential for acceleration. Unlike my more relaxed frames, where the force is directed somewhat horizontally on compression, the tighter, steep angled frame and forks directs, or can be made to direct the power almost vertically...which scares me sometimes if I haven't cruised a bit to reset motor memory. The lower inertia contributes a lot toward acceleration. As for top-end cruising, it doesn't seem to make as much difference.
I really feel like the bike will snap in half, it's so light. I beat on it as hard as I can and nothing comes apart. I am amazed at how strong these 20 pounders can be, if the outfit knew what they were doing that put them together. I know one thing. On a longer ride, the Team Fuji wears me out more than my Schwinn "Traveler"...going at 80% VO2(max) speed!...JONathan

   RE:RE:RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by Dave on 8/1/2003 at 3:45:37 PM
Yes, Jonathan , I had a sub-20 lb bike once, a early '90's Klein w/Dura Ace 6-speed on it. It was lightning fast but my upper body would absorb every little pebble on the road. After a 70+ mile bike ride I was sore. I sold it to a budding Triathlete, it was just too harsh a ride. I now have a mid-70's Coppi that weighs 21.5 lbs and is stiff but not nearly as harsh a rider

   RE:RE:RE:RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by JONathan on 8/1/2003 at 5:50:13 PM
Nice to know it's not my bike alone with those attributes. One interesting dynamic centers around the kinetic energy of road "noise". I hit a rough spot going say 15 mph and I get jolted. As I get to say 20-25 mph and hit a similar "howdy-doo", the bike seems to glide over the defect, damping the impulse, when I was sure I was gonna knock a filling loose. Counterintuitive, is seems. Nice to have a bike that gives one a taste for what a road racing machine is all about...at least a vintage road-racer, anyway.
I am still amazed at how strong these are. Fine design. building and testing, then fine tuning the design, building and testing until it's "right". That's what I think about when I look and ride my Fuji Team. I'm with you on the distance factor. What a bike to punch out on. Cheers, JONathan

   RE:MISC:   Lightest Road Bike posted by Rob on 8/1/2003 at 5:55:49 PM
I guess this thread is getting a bit long...I find this topic quite fascinating and I would guess so do many others...I'm motivated now to do more reading and research on this...I would guess there must be scads of books on the subject written since the start of the Tour and its cousins.

I think this was one of the more dramtic Tours I've watched despite the rather limited coverage on this side of the Atlantic...live early in the AM PDT with an evening rebroadcast on OLN, and when I could live without understanding the commentary on TV5...For me the defining moment was Armstrong powering up the Luz-Ardiden after his fall, and powering past the front runner, Chavanel ...incredible...where did all that come from???






AGE / VALUE:   British Hub "Racelite" posted by: humberchristopher28@hotmail.com on 7/29/2003 at 6:49:05 PM
With the dustcaps and spindle axle and cones and nuts and balls and washers soaking in the de- gump it tank I wipe out the cups in the hub and I examine it. I have a question.
Looking inside the open end of the B.H. Racelite high flange front hub there is no wear anyplace so I will leave it alone.
Also since I hold no spares it makes no sense to mess with it.
Still I am not sure how these were serviced if ever. Did B.H. make spare inner hub cones as well as outer main cones?
Did folks totally re- build their B.H. Racelite hubs?

My question is: There is a hexagonal shaped hole but no threads are showing and it looks like the thing was simply pressed in at the factory.
You see, this six sided hole has me wondering if these were ever removed and new parts inserted into the hub extending the life of the hub as long as the owner could get replacement spares from British Hub Co.

A replacement hub spindle and cones in the right threading and size yes, I have these but never saw the small cone cups for these.
Anyways, these are lovely hubs and I dearly hope to find more of them in the future.
A front hub were you can pop out ALL these inner parts and pop in replacement parts in a matter of seconds where the entire hub and the pain/cost of replacement and the necessary wheel re-building is avoided is a great idea.

Campagnolo hubs are the same way too>

Is this what they did back in the day? Or is this just the way these were assembled and these inner cups are intended to stay in place and never be removed and replaced.
I have not seen these inner parts in drawers but I could have missed them.


   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   British Hub posted by Chris on 7/30/2003 at 3:32:30 PM
This actually happened to me. It is like seeing bike paradise!
I did go to an auction and there was an old Trailways or Greyhound bus and it was sitting in the field next to the shop where Six day racer of old: Omellemchuck had his hidden, secret lair and shop with the house next door and I open up the bus's doors and peered inside and there was all, all these old wheels piled up like 80 sets of wheels and they are all Racelite and Harden hubs and there is like major parts everywhere N.O.S. in boxes I did not have enough money on my person to buy it and I lost out.

Next time, if there ever is a happening like that Sunday morning auction again where I showed up with only $375.00 in cash and inexperience in auctions and how they work. If it ever happens again and it will if I stay dedicated then yes, I'm going to have it all!
Or at least a chunk of it.

I missed out on hanging with Omellenchuck but we all stood there me and the other bike shop sharpies/collectors who had a field day because the auction was overwhelmed. We were all speachless but as one guy scooted out with Campy grouppos in boxes he said he got it so cheap he would never sell anything. It was unbelievable.

It's out there, but as you drive past the building you would never guess by the way it looked. If you have never heard of the man or met him and if you don't hear about the auction until it is too late to bring money or get your crap together then you will miss out.
Please don't miss out as it goes into landfil so often.
We were in the masters workshop!
There were 50 lightweight six day bikes that caused quite a stir. Paramounts, Flying Scots, Things like this.
I saw them.
They were in the other building.
Clocks and vintage bikes and a few old Trailways bus.
Don't sit on your tail like I have. Get out there and find these folks and learn from them and get in the grove before it is too late.

   RE:RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   British Hub posted by Chris on 7/30/2003 at 3:40:19 PM
I have to stop dredging up the past where I got there too late or without enough money or where I got there without a truck or where I messed up and blew the deal or where I ran into another collector who told me to shove off or had me helping him carry things for him.

I have had fun and done ok and there was awesome times. Everybody learns in this. I guess I was just a slow learner when it came to hunting vintage bikes and parts.
70% of it is showing up. Just don't mess it up from there.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   British Hub posted by humberchristopher28@hotmail.com on 7/29/2003 at 9:28:33 PM
What is the story behind British Hub? When did they stop making cycle hubs and when did they go under?
What became of the tooling? Who has it?
What business is in the building now? What became of the building? How come we never hear from anybody who worked there?
These are lovely hubs and they go quite high on e- bay but we never hear how it all wraped up for British Hub Co.

Someday I hope to find out and see pictures and really hear the story.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   British Hub posted by Tom on 7/29/2003 at 10:05:38 PM
I think you may have answered your own question. The Camapgnolo hubs had replaceable hub shell races. Campagnolo's high manufacturing standards quickly made them the high end hub to own, to the detriment of all the others. Of course it didn't hurt that they were very stylish too, and owned several important hub patents.

As to whether the BH racelites had replaceable races, that is a question I do not know the answer to. I defer to the experts.






AGE / VALUE:   Kabuki posted by: Martin latimer on 7/29/2003 at 3:33:06 AM
i recently picked up a kabuki at a swapmeet for free no less it had one wheel missing a couple spokes and the tires were destroyed

i disasembled it cleaned it and re built it everything seemed to be in order the frame was in good shape but the model sticker was missing

it has suntour 7 complnents

and has stickers indicating tubing made by nissan motor co

all i know about it is it was made by brigestone and is a fairly light bike for a steel frame


   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Kabuki posted by JONathan on 7/29/2003 at 6:20:40 AM
I got one of those about 10 years back. The seat post has a clamp inside the seattube, much like a stem bolt anchor. I have to tilt the seat forward and loosen that bolt wedge to change the post elevation. A magnet to the lugs will reveal that they are not steel. I believe they used aluminum for the lugs. Imagine the heat-shrink joint with steel tubes instead of brazed lugs as a construction method. The internal diameter expands to accept the external diameter of the tubes, which upon cooling down, tightens the joint quite securely, I would guess. It has cottered cranks and Shimano "lark" derailer. I gave it away to a relative, who rode it for years, before getting a MTB. It ended up back in our driveway on a visit a couple years back; whereupon it went into a shed. It isn't an especially good ride, but it is sturdy enough to have survived the abuse it suffered for 10 years without service, except for occasional tire replacement out of necessity. It's odd nature and scarcity conjures up ideas about it being collectible...certainly not for the vintage lightweight top=of=line category, but many collectibles are hardly the cat's meow of bikes. The BB makes for a rigid rear triangle and a stiff ride. It holds a good line. Fix it for commuting? It'll never wear out, becuase it was designed for undeveloped regions, in my opinion. The post earlier on the Bridgestone "carmel" was interesting to me. I have a 6-speed "carmel" double-downttube frame which is a great ride. I popped the fenders for use on a Schwinn "Traveler" ('83) that's my all-weather commuter. Bridgestones were different bikes in that the components used were excellent. Some of my bikes have cheaper componentry than the frame deserves, like my French bikes, for example. Why were these bikes taken out of production? Just a nagging question of mine. Maybe they'd be too expensive to make form a labor standpoint...Whatever the reason, the ones that are around today represent a unique piece of history.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Kabuki posted by Tom on 7/29/2003 at 10:12:01 PM
Kabuki was one of lines of bicycles made by Bridgestone. The line-up consisted of seven bicycles and were refered to as the Seven Samurai. The line-up was fairly wide, extending from a junior lightweight to a professional racer. As previousluy noted, the line-up also included novel innovative ideas such as aluminum and stainless steel frames, die cast in place lugs and disc brakes.

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   Kabuki posted by JONathan on 7/30/2003 at 4:51:04 AM
Very interesting. Thanks for the model descriptions. I read somewhere that the Kabuki had a three-wheel taxi-bike model...BTW, I wonder if "Kabuki" is derived from traditional Japanese theater? Just a thought....Cheers, JONathan

   RE:RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   Kabuki posted by Ron on 8/1/2003 at 11:47:18 AM
My first ten-speed was a Kabuki, bought used in the mid 70s. I don't remember much about it, except it had steel rims, center pull brakes, and the Kabuki seat post. I sold it and bought a Fuji in 1980. The decal had traditional theater masks in the design, so the name probably was derived from the theater. I read somewhere, that as the Japanese started to become known for high quality, Bridgestone wanted a name that sounded more Japanese, so Kabuki was chosen to cash in on that reputation.






MISC:   Raleigh "Super Course" and Raleigh "Gran Prix" posted by: JONathan on 7/28/2003 at 9:59:23 PM
I came across a Raleigh "Super Course" 12 sp. with SunTour stuff and a "Gran Prix" 10 sp. that was as close to NOS as you could get at a thrift store.
Prices were $30 and $39 respectively. The SC was at a local flea market we passed by en route and the GP was at a St. Vicent Thrift. I had to pass as the car had no more room for anything. After 106 deg. rides along the American River and Ancil Hoffman Park, my brain was fired, or I would have found a way to secure those two bikes. Sacto has some good bikes for the bargain hunter/collector, like me. I was seriously planning to get one...leaving the transport problem as a realtime issue. The return stop at the thrift store was a zero. Too bad, but it was encouraging to know that if I casually search (as opposed to serious hunting) the bikes appear. Don't know what that is about. Our mission was to MTB the river that weekend and come home...no bike hunting. So what happens...two nice bikes practically fall out of the blue. I need a bike rack!...JONathan


   RE:MISC:   Raleigh posted by Rob on 7/28/2003 at 11:31:25 PM
JONathan...I understand perfectly...I always carry one of those old light bike racks from the mid-'80's in the trunk of my car...just in case...it's perfect for a couple of old lightweights, and doesn't take up much room. FWIW, had I been in your shoes, even at $30,(about $40CDN to me), I would have grabbed the SC...unless it was too far gone!!! It sounds like it's probably from the late '70's...maybe 1980 or even '81...

   RE:RE:MISC:   Raleigh posted by JONathan on 7/29/2003 at 1:09:59 AM
Thanks for the tip. That is a great idea...that bike rack would be perfect. My wife's car is bit cramped for space and yet a collapsable aluminum bike rack could sit right behind the seat. Two bikes just fit in the trunk, with four wheels. Problem is; all the other stuff has to go in the back seat. Last time I brought a bike home (from Monterey) it tore a rip in the roof upholstery. That ended all hope of me ever placing any bikes in her car's "people" area. She didn't say anything about portable bike racks. That rip was an expensive repair, making the $20 "Sports" into a $300 "sports"! Why didn't I think of that idea? It's great. We do have an old truck, but no AC and it rides real rough with the kind of shocks I put on it. I have passed up several bikes, because of the car limitations. The flea market SC was in excellent shape with Reynolds 531 butted main tubes. Flea markets are not my preferred choice for bikes. The tires were rotting off the rims, which made me feel it was bought at a garage sale for next to nothing, only to be jacked up to $30 for the flea market. At least, that's what I wanted to think. Anyway, we never made it back there as the biking was superb and we were having a fantastic ride. Deer everywhere along the trail. I was dumb. The long stary face on the road home gave away my emotions..."Still thinkin' about that bike, are you"? Pathetic? Yrs, I missed a great shot. Maybe next trip...Yuba pass? That SCX couldn't have weighed more than 25 pounds!...Cheers, JONathan

   RE:RE:RE:MISC:   Raleigh posted by Gralyn on 7/29/2003 at 11:52:55 AM
There is something to that: When you are really looking hard for those old bikes - they just aren't to be found. But when you aren't really even looking - they just appear!

Transporting the bikes can be a challenge. I have picked up many bikes when I was driving my Datsun 260Z 2-seater. I couldn't have done it without quick release front wheels, though. When both wheels are quick release - it was very easy - I could nicely fit them in the hatch. I can still fit them with only the front wheel removed - but it's more difficult. I thought I would carry a small bike tool set - just in case I found one without quick release.

But, hands down, the bike rack idea I think is the best. I have a couple old bike racks. The idea would be to stuff one somewhere in the vehicle - like when the entire family is out, say, we're in the van - there's no room for a bike. But, if I had a bike rack in the back - I would have no problem picking one up - should I come upon one.






VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Bike and Parts - Motobecane and Normandy Freewheel posted by: J.Collins on 7/28/2003 at 7:31:47 PM
Have a Normandy 5-sprocket freewheel available free to anyone who wants to pay for its shipping to your address. Was on a Gitane. Drop me a note if interested.

Also, have a large frame Motobecane Grand Sprint 64 cm bike that will be for sale intact or parted out. Vitus 888 logo on frame and 28-19 label on front fork. Weinmann alloy side pull brakes. Sugino crankset with Motobecane logo on both of the crank arms. Shimano Altus shifter and deraillers. Rigida alloy rims with 27" x 1" tires. Drop a note if interested. Needs restoration but nice base to start from.


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Bike and Parts - Motobecane and Normandy Freewheel posted by Steve on 7/29/2003 at 5:26:31 AM
If it came off of a Gitane I would be interested in it for my old Maino, which was distributed by Gitane in it's last years. I live at zip 63135 in St. Louis, Missouri. I am alwys interested in learning the component groups of the Gitanes from the '70s in particular. Haven't heard much of any of the old Maino bikes but Chuck Schmidt gave me some helpful background earlier this year. Thanks, Steve

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Bike and Parts - Motobecane and Normandy Freewheel posted by JONathan on 7/30/2003 at 4:29:23 AM
You said; "Maino" twice, so I guess I'm not crazy. I have an Maino 10 speed which I guess is from the '60's. Very light bike and the fork blades appear a bit larger ave. diameter than expected. It is possible that the Columbus tubing was used since I read that Maino was making bikes in Alessandro, It. I also read that he was developing a new tubing type...would that have been Columbus's origin? Very interesting question. The Simplex derailer is very delicate-looking, but it's been shifted a couple thousand times riding the Jedediah Smith Mem. Bikepath along the American River. Handling at speed is excellent due to the fairly stiff frame and featherlight forks with small rake. Fast, fast, fast. I'd like to know more. A friend who is from near Pavona, It. told me Maino was a highly respected builder of bikes. I can definitely see why, and mine is hardly his top-runner!
Right now, it's ready for a complete refit of components as they are worn down from all the miles. The frame and paint are excellent, so I plan on doing it justice. Amazing someone mentioned; "Maino". I get worn with all the dumb looks whenever I mention it. I can give some specs. on mine if you want. I know he made roadster models way back when...like in the '30's?..Cheers, JONathan






AGE / VALUE:    Note the word: "Flying" in the name! posted by: Chris on 7/28/2003 at 5:04:42 PM
When they put the word "Flying" into the brand name: The Flying Scot. They were quite serious.

I picked it up with two fingers and was amazed.
Fly, it certainly will! My God!

I think back to when I held De- Baytes Sr's personal track bike with its prototype, un- cataloged Campagnolo gears and silk tires and I wonder whick one would be lighter and faster and I think it would be a fairly even match.

The former Scot owner was a real somebody and not just an anybody too.
OOHHH!


   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:    Note the word: posted by JONathan on 7/30/2003 at 7:17:23 AM
Very interesting splotch of specs. on weight. The question to me is: How much effect can "non-rotating" mass differences make to a rider? If I weigh, say. 215 pounds with a 15 pound bike (better be a good frame!) and another person weighs say, 150 pounds and rides a 25 pound bike and assume that the wheels, cranks, pedals and gear-trains are identical on both bikes; then I would not be favored in a race, even with a 15 pound bike under me...assuming that the VO2 max of both riders is comparable. Let's look at a more realistic scenario; Rider #1 is 165 pounds with a 15 pound bike; rider #2 is 155 pounds with a 25 pound bike. The weights are identical on the road, but the heavier rider has the lighter bike and the lighter rider has the heavier bike. Is there any difference? This is assuming that both riders are equally fit and experienced. Who is favored, now? Asode from this digression, I must say that I love seeing the push for ever lighter frames and components as an exciting area of research. Makes the vintage lightweights that were made a few decades BP with "normal" materials that much more amazing. The finesse required is trully awesome....Just anotrher dumb question. Cheers, JONathan

   weight regulations posted by John E on 7/30/2003 at 2:33:19 PM
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the "magic" weight for a high-quality road bike was about 10 kg / 22 lb, although a few sub-9 kg bikes did exist. Does anyone know the history of weight limits for the TdF or other races? Was there indeed a 10 kilo lower limit during that period?

   RE:AGE / VALUE:    Note the word: posted by ChristopherRobin2@starmail.com on 7/28/2003 at 5:41:13 PM
A new: The Flying Scot page with all the new info I have found with a ton of new pictures is in the working.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:    Note the word: posted by Gralyn on 7/28/2003 at 8:19:03 PM
Yes, it's a long way from a 40 pound Varsity!

I tend to want to pick up a bike to feel how light or heavy it is. I just can't resist picking them up. I spot some old $20 lightweight bike boom bikes in thrift stores - pick them up....and they feel pretty heavy - mostly. I go into a LBS - and pick up a $2000 road bike - I'm amazed at how light it is!!!!! I don't know pound-wise what they weigh - but they are lighter than most of what I have.

I have one bike - I know weighs 22 lbs. I have a Raleigh Technium Aluminum - set up as fixed gear - and it feels a lot lighter than the 22lb bike. I have a Bianchi that feels about the same as the 22 lbs bike.

What is the lightest bike to ever be on the track? What was the weight? What is the lightest bike with gears? What does it weigh? If anyone has an idea - I am curious to know.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:    Note the word: posted by Rob on 7/28/2003 at 10:11:33 PM
Gralyn, Thanks for asking this interesting question!!!...I found some interesting stuff on the web trying to find out. I seem to remember hearing early on during the "Tour de France" that the minimum weight was 6.7 kg. (14.75lbs) and that some of the bikes weighed in as low as 6.4 kg. and had to have weights added...I think I'm right...I searched the "TdF" site ( www.letour.fr), but couldn't find any reference...Does anyone else remember hearing this on OLN...probably around Stage 5 or 6, maybe earlier?

Also I did an internet search (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22lightest+road+bike%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) and found this fascinating site (http://www.geocities.com/khabarbike/index.html). In there is a reference to a 4,755 gram (10.473lb) bike, but the link to it is broken...it looks like an Italian web host...maybe if someone knows how to say "lighest road bike in the world" in Italian, we'll find it...

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:    Note the word: posted by linda on 7/29/2003 at 11:09:58 AM
try Bici da corsa. I am not to sure if that is a road bike or mountain.
bici is short for bicicletta (Bike)so try both words. Also try bicicletta que e piu legerra. (the bike that is the most lightest) There are some accents oevr the u in piu but compter can not do.

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:    Note the word: posted by linda on 7/29/2003 at 11:11:58 AM
try Bici da corsa. I am not to sure if that is a road bike or mountain.
bici is short for bicicletta (Bike)so try both words. Also try bicicletta que e piu legerra. (the bike that is the most lightest) There are some accents over the u in piu but computer can not do.
Some rescently told me that a race bike can not be lighter than 16 or 17 pounds so they try not to make them lighter than that.

   RE:RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:    Note the word: posted by Dave on 7/29/2003 at 2:35:09 PM
A British frame maker called Omega makes a 13lb bike w/paper thin aluminum tubes

   RE:AGE / VALUE:    Note the word: posted by Tom on 7/30/2003 at 3:14:17 AM
The actual UCI minimum weight requirement is 6.8 KG (about 15 lbs), so Rob was very close. The comment about adding weights to the TDF bikes is very probable. You want to have your biggest bikes weigh the minimum. Consequently, the smaller bikes will weigh less. On the small frames you can make the weight up at the bottom bracket. Keeping the added weight in a low position keeps the centre of gravity low, improving the handling and making it less tiresome when you are rocking the bike from side to side to get up those climbs.

Of course, this weight limit applies only to bicycles entering UCI sanctioned races. From what I understand, the limit was applied for two reasons. Expense and safety. Lighter bikes will be weaker, unless more exotic and expensive materials are used. The UCI did not want any person to have an unfair advantage over his competition, just because his competition could afford it. Now, in the TDF money is not an object, but these rules apply to to any lisenced rider in any sanctioned event. The UCI was afraid that some competitors might lighten their less exotic bikes to the point where they were unsafe, in an attmpt to remain competive with those who could afford the exotic stuff. There was a similar uproar when Francesco Mose set the hour record on his $30,000 disc wheels. The UCI banned the discs until the prices dropped to levels that could be afforded by your average competitor.

Outside of the UCI rules, I have seen stories of several modern bikes in the 10-11 lb range, which doesn't really surprise me. I recall successful attempts at 10lb track bikes and 15 lb road bikes, back in the 70's.