Montrose

I recently picked up one of these steel beauts, and the tubing seems quite nice (True Temper OX platinum, which is somewhat comparable to Reynolds 853 from what I gather). Just curious if anyone has a frame weight for either the Croix de Fer or the Sarthe (identical frames I believe)?

Thanks for any info!

bikemig 

You own the bike; you could weigh it.

In any case, it's a nice frame. Just build and ride it.

I used to live in Somerville . . . .

Montrose

It came to me built up with what I think is mostly stock components. I suppose I don't want to know badly enough to strip it all down. I was mostly curious about weight as comparison with my old Trek 610, which I loved. I think that one had Reynolds 531. In any event, the CdF rides great. It's nice to be back on steel again.

The Somerville parking enforcement officers miss you

bikemig 

For sure the 853 bike is lighter; I think the trek 610 was reynolds main frame and a slightly heavier tubing for the fork and rear triangle.

No kidding about the Somerville enforcement officers. I had my neighbors telephone in my car to the parking enforcement officers because I stayed in the same legal parking spot for more than 24 hours (seriously) and they wanted the spot for their car. The officer told me that they don't enforce that rule unless someone first rats you out . . . . lol

DIMcyclist

The listed frame weight for the '03 Zurich (full 853 frame, tri-butted) was 3.3 lbs; the Icon C/F fork (Alu. steerer) was an additional 18.1 oz.

The Sarthe preserved the Zurich's original geometry after Trek decided to make it a C/F composite frame with a sloping TT; ergo, being essentially a sort of down-market (steel) Zurich, I'd figure the weight would be about the same, assuming it also had a C/F fork.

RobbieTunes

In a nutshell, you stated it perfectly.

Weight is not very important. Per Cervelo, a 5-lb difference meant 30 whole seconds over a 1-hour trip on an avg 3% grade. Some feel weight is really important when climbing, but the weight of the rider is the biggest factor there, with the recent 2 lbs/inch of height becoming some kind of threshold for greatness.

For the rest of us, it's fit, geometry, fitness, gearing.

Montrose

Thanks for the helpful info. I didn't realize the Sarthe was a continuation of the original Zurich geometry. Interesting. That weight sounds about right, too.

DIMcyclist

That seems to have been par for the course...

Trek really didn't seem to know how to market LeMond's bikes (personally, I always felt they should have kept the older names with the older designs and given the new names to the new ones; less market confusion that way); but considering their tiff with LeMond & involvement w/ LA; LeMond's public stance on doping, etc., it's really not surprising that Trek didn't seem to care too much about sorting it out. They probably saw it as less of a headache to just terminate the whole line.

+1 RobbieTunes; totally agree. Shaving weight off the bikes becomes essential only when you can't shave more weight off riders without a compromise in their health.

Montrose

But just think, that's 30 seconds I could be spending contemplating my greatness...or hacking up a lung.

Agreed, I'm not too worried about weight. I'm more curious from an engineering standpoint (impressed with what can be done with modern steel tubing), and to learn a little more about my bike. As you say, I suspect bike fit plays a far more important role in how fast one rides, especially over long distances.

2 lbs/inch is crazy! That's more like a threshold for starvation.

RobbieTunes

I'm 5'6" I wrestled in college at 134lbs. You hit that right on the head, starvation-wise, but I'll bet I'd have been a heck of a climber!

For perspective, I ran marathons, etc at 138lbs, so even at 70-100 miles a week of running, body fat of 3.7%, I was too heavy to be a great climber. Which is why folks like Tony Martin and Tom Boonen, even with body fat that low, are not going after TdF wins.

I have a pro rider friend, and he told me that you may be able to win one climbing stage on pure will, but you will not do it twice in a row unless you're on something, one of the elite climbers, or have a mindset like Pantini.

Quintana is well under that threshold, must be 80lbs of legs and the other 50lbs for everything else. The glaring exception was Indurain, who had tremendous lung capacity, incredibly quick recovery times, and like other great cyclists, a high pain threshold.

DIMcyclist

Another (current) glaring exception is Sagan; he's big for a climber, but can climb well enough to usually keep up with the main peloton. That makes him a spoiler for any GC contender, especially since he can sprint almost as well as Cav.

Quintana's is pretty amazing for a kid his age; he's doing well in this year's Giro, and his showing on the Ventoux last year against Froome was mindblowing (speaking of hacking up a lung).

20grit

People in breakaways make the mistake of not dropping Sagan when they should. He's not that great at climbing, but if you don't drop him, he's going to bomb past the instant you top the climb.

DIMcyclist

Totally.

Not to stray too far from the OP, but even Cav's referred to him as "a once-in-a-generation rider," and with good reason. It'll be interesting to watch him, Quintana, Phinney, and Kittel over the next few years; lotsa talent there.

DIMcyclist

Woah-- just heard- Phinney broke his leg yesterday in Chattanooga (slammed into a guardrail, possib. a race vehicle); bad luck-- no 1st time TdF for him this year...

Also, fwiw, my '02 Buenos Aires (Full DA; DT Swiss, Thomson, & Chris King everything else) clocks in just a shade under 18lbs. Last month I helped my next door neighbor assemble a dept. store kiddie bike for his 8-year-old son's birthday; I couldn't believe it- that little thing weighed more than my Trek 820 touring bike. As a bit of a joke, I asked my neighbor to give my LeMond a test-lift and, expecting it to be as heavy as the one we were building for his kid, he sorta braced himself against the weight, and went round-eyed at how light is was. Like, slack-jawed.

WNG

2 lbs/inch.....I just did the math, that's 138-140 lbs factoring in for shrinkage.

Crazy! I'm already down to my high school weight of 150lbs, a waistline of 30 in. and ~7% body fat. I already feel like I don't have much energy reserve if I don't keep eating.
But 138 lbs....I'd be skin and bones, and in the ICU with a IV drip of liquified cheeseburgers!!

Considering back in 2003, I was nearly 200 lbs, 37" waistline, and could play an extra for 'Super-size Me', I'm very grateful to be the size I'm currently at.

DIMcyclist

Dig it, dude- Froome's only about 150lbs at 6'1"; Contador's 5'9" and weighs in at 135.