3-Speed Weight?
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pinole, CA, USA
Posts: 17,392
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 28 Times
in
26 Posts
An alloy crank would lower the weight even further - but you lose the Raleigh/Rudge insignia.
If you went to town, replacing even the seat and crank, you could get it down well below 25#, I bet.
I made a drop bar single speed out of a 1954 Regal for my son - nothing fancy, all out of junk box parts. That weighs 26#. If I went to town on it, that would be easy to get below 25#. Probably much less.
If you went to town, replacing even the seat and crank, you could get it down well below 25#, I bet.
I made a drop bar single speed out of a 1954 Regal for my son - nothing fancy, all out of junk box parts. That weighs 26#. If I went to town on it, that would be easy to get below 25#. Probably much less.
#27
Veteran Racer
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ciudad de Vacas, Tejas
Posts: 11,760
Bikes: 32 frames + 80 wheels
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1337 Post(s)
Liked 766 Times
in
432 Posts
1975 Schwinn Speedster 3-speed as shown with SA drum brake hubs, rack, basket, generator lights, pump, large ding-dong bell = 46 lbs.
Likes For TejanoTrackie:
#28
Veteran Racer
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ciudad de Vacas, Tejas
Posts: 11,760
Bikes: 32 frames + 80 wheels
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1337 Post(s)
Liked 766 Times
in
432 Posts
I'd say that steel shell 3-speeds are not much heavier than corresponding aluminum 5-speed hubs with freewheel and typical derailleur. I weighed a Normandy HF 120mm hub, quick release, Atom 5-speed freewheel and Shimano 600 long cage derailleur and got a total of 2.1 lbs. I weighed a Shimano 333 3-speed (steel shell) including sprocket and bell crank and got 2.4 lbs, which is a difference of 0.3 lbs. Your aluminum shelled 3-speed will be lighter, so it might actually be lighter than a derailleur system. So, I think it is not unreasonable to get a relatively lightweight 3-speed in comparison with a derailleur setup on a similar frame.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pinole, CA, USA
Posts: 17,392
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 28 Times
in
26 Posts
I'd say that steel shell 3-speeds are not much heavier than corresponding aluminum 5-speed hubs with freewheel and typical derailleur. I weighed a Normandy HF 120mm hub, quick release, Atom 5-speed freewheel and Shimano 600 long cage derailleur and got a total of 2.1 lbs. I weighed a Shimano 333 3-speed (steel shell) including sprocket and bell crank and got 2.4 lbs, which is a difference of 0.3 lbs. Your aluminum shelled 3-speed will be lighter, so it might actually be lighter than a derailleur system. So, I think it is not unreasonable to get a relatively lightweight 3-speed in comparison with a derailleur setup on a similar frame.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,143
Bikes: Many. Ralieigh sports`s, Raleigh Superbe, sears Spaceliner, Firestone supercruisers, many vintage mountain bikes, random cruisers, and other unique bikes.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
God mine must be a fatty. I've got a 3 speed Firestone super cruiser. it's like 59lbs without accesorys. I know because shipping was more then the bike lol. though I changed it to a 3 speed because peddling that thing was a huge pain. heres a pic. I currently don't have an upgraded one of it as a 3 speed because It's wrapped up in a tarp for winter now
#31
sic transit gloria mundi
#33
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Posts: 493
Bikes: Two Peter Mooney customs, a 1980 Trek 510 townie, a Marin Stelvio set up for TTs.
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 241 Post(s)
Liked 314 Times
in
172 Posts
I think the OP's question just isn't that well formed. What is a three speed? The Robin Hood and Royal I used to have certainly count. I'm sure there are countless Raleighs and Schhinns that do as well, but what about my old Trek 510? The weight range would seem enormous depending on whether you're talking about a vintage gaspipe town bike or something whipped up out of a far lighter frame and parts.
#34
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 184
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 171 Times
in
95 Posts
Weight only has to be overcome by more effort when accelerating or climbing a hill.
Just steadily cruising along on the flat, your main enemy is friction (bearings and tyre type). Go faster, then you encounter wind resistance.
Really that's all there is to it.
Less weight allows quicker acceleration and less effort on hills.
The steady cruise isn't affected by weight, assuming the tyres are properly inflated and your bearings are spinning freely.
Countless times I've ridden with riders on much lighter bikes ... here's what surprises them ... after a gentle descent, chatting away, we continue coasting along the flat. I'm not fit on a 30lb clunker, the other is Mr Fit on his expensive 15lb drop bar 'racer'.
Who do you think has to start pedaling first? Rarely me!
My upright clunker and me have the Great God, Inertia on our side.
The rotating mas of a heavy wheel, once rolling at your chosen speed, acts as a flywheel, conserving energy more efficiently and therefore longer before any effort is required to maintain that speed.
That's why the heavier, more traditional 3 speed bike often seems to breeze along without being pedaled furiously.
As I indicated above, a lighter bike will have advantages going up hills, which I, on a heavier bike, can't match.
Down hill, that weight is your friend; much of the distance lost going up can be considerably regained going down the other side.
See, there's always a down side.
Try it yourself ... there's a lot of what my old teacher used to call 'kidollogy' in cycling.
The main thing is to have fun.
Just steadily cruising along on the flat, your main enemy is friction (bearings and tyre type). Go faster, then you encounter wind resistance.
Really that's all there is to it.
Less weight allows quicker acceleration and less effort on hills.
The steady cruise isn't affected by weight, assuming the tyres are properly inflated and your bearings are spinning freely.
Countless times I've ridden with riders on much lighter bikes ... here's what surprises them ... after a gentle descent, chatting away, we continue coasting along the flat. I'm not fit on a 30lb clunker, the other is Mr Fit on his expensive 15lb drop bar 'racer'.
Who do you think has to start pedaling first? Rarely me!
My upright clunker and me have the Great God, Inertia on our side.
The rotating mas of a heavy wheel, once rolling at your chosen speed, acts as a flywheel, conserving energy more efficiently and therefore longer before any effort is required to maintain that speed.
That's why the heavier, more traditional 3 speed bike often seems to breeze along without being pedaled furiously.
As I indicated above, a lighter bike will have advantages going up hills, which I, on a heavier bike, can't match.
Down hill, that weight is your friend; much of the distance lost going up can be considerably regained going down the other side.
See, there's always a down side.
Try it yourself ... there's a lot of what my old teacher used to call 'kidollogy' in cycling.
The main thing is to have fun.
Likes For Cyclespanner:
#35
Senior Member
Wasn't it weight that defined the "English Racer" (if you remember that term)?
In an era of 40 pound bikes, dropping the weight under 30 pounds defined a new "species".
They had plastic fenders like Bleumel's, not steel. They used lighter weight frames, thinner (lighter) tires,... I do not recall whether they had steel or aluminum rims (I suspect steel was still used).
In an era of 40 pound bikes, dropping the weight under 30 pounds defined a new "species".
They had plastic fenders like Bleumel's, not steel. They used lighter weight frames, thinner (lighter) tires,... I do not recall whether they had steel or aluminum rims (I suspect steel was still used).
Likes For Bad Lag:
#36
Senior Member
#37
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 184
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 171 Times
in
95 Posts
Once a heavy thing is traveling at the same velocity as a lighter one, the inertia/kinetic energy the heavy thing has will take it further than the lighter one, which has less inertia/kinetic energy.
Here's a simplistic illustration of what I'm trying to explain....
Both riders traveling at the same speed stop pedaling at the same moment on a flat surface.
Due to friction both will slow, but the lighter will slow quicker as his/her inertia has less kinetic energy.
So after 50 feet the lighter rider will have only traveled (say) 49 feet, so to keep up with the heavy rider must pedal/expend his own energy to match the intrinsic inertial/kinetic energy the heavy rider still has.
I'm no mathematician or physicist, but the above intuitively seems to me to express something fundamental to this topic.
Perhaps someone better qualified would like to comment, please.
I may be wrong.
But I do care.
Here's a simplistic illustration of what I'm trying to explain....
Both riders traveling at the same speed stop pedaling at the same moment on a flat surface.
Due to friction both will slow, but the lighter will slow quicker as his/her inertia has less kinetic energy.
So after 50 feet the lighter rider will have only traveled (say) 49 feet, so to keep up with the heavy rider must pedal/expend his own energy to match the intrinsic inertial/kinetic energy the heavy rider still has.
I'm no mathematician or physicist, but the above intuitively seems to me to express something fundamental to this topic.
Perhaps someone better qualified would like to comment, please.
I may be wrong.
But I do care.
Likes For Cyclespanner:
#38
Phyllo-buster
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,864
Bikes: roadsters, club bikes, fixed and classic
Mentioned: 133 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2300 Post(s)
Liked 2,069 Times
in
1,261 Posts
Likes For clubman:
#39
Phyllo-buster
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,864
Bikes: roadsters, club bikes, fixed and classic
Mentioned: 133 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2300 Post(s)
Liked 2,069 Times
in
1,261 Posts
This Raleigh Sports has alloy parts except for the steel crank and a heavy Duomatic hub.
27 lbs without fugly pedals. An alloy crank and Sturmey shell would likely get it down to 25. Brooks saddle adds a pound as well.
27 lbs without fugly pedals. An alloy crank and Sturmey shell would likely get it down to 25. Brooks saddle adds a pound as well.
Likes For clubman:
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 17,263
Mentioned: 486 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3857 Post(s)
Liked 6,991 Times
in
2,684 Posts
The 1938 Maclean I took on the Lake Pepin 3-speed tour weighs about 27 lbs as shown (alloy EA1 rims, alloy bars and post, steel pretty much everywhere else).
Likes For nlerner:
#41
Senior Member
Do 8-speeders qualify for this thread or should I delete this picture?
I would guess this weighs about 40 pounds with the steel fenders, rack, bags, lights, lock, tools and other stuff inside the bags.
In keeping with Cyclespanner's "juggernaught" theory of bike speed and despite the upright riding position, I can say it is no slouch when it comes to speed on the flats.
I would guess this weighs about 40 pounds with the steel fenders, rack, bags, lights, lock, tools and other stuff inside the bags.
In keeping with Cyclespanner's "juggernaught" theory of bike speed and despite the upright riding position, I can say it is no slouch when it comes to speed on the flats.
Last edited by Bad Lag; 06-17-23 at 10:24 PM.
Likes For Bad Lag:
Likes For bluesteak:
#43
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 184
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 171 Times
in
95 Posts
With any cycle, you get to a point of diminishing returns.
Shaving that last ounce is neither here nor there.
A good dump in the lavatory before you set off is a lot cheaper than a few alloy or titanium widgets.
A well set up 3 speed can be very rewarding.
To paraphrase Lawrence of Arabia....'it's not the weight which is the problem, it's not minding the weight'.
Shaving that last ounce is neither here nor there.
A good dump in the lavatory before you set off is a lot cheaper than a few alloy or titanium widgets.
A well set up 3 speed can be very rewarding.
To paraphrase Lawrence of Arabia....'it's not the weight which is the problem, it's not minding the weight'.
Likes For Small cog:
#45
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 184
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 171 Times
in
95 Posts
1965 'Riviera'.....30lbs exactly.
Totally standard spec, 'all steel', complete with full lighting set and Dynohub.
No alloy or plastic or fancy tubing.
I'm very surprised how it compares to your 'Lenton', small cog.
Totally standard spec, 'all steel', complete with full lighting set and Dynohub.
No alloy or plastic or fancy tubing.
I'm very surprised how it compares to your 'Lenton', small cog.
Last edited by Cyclespanner; 01-28-24 at 04:57 AM. Reason: addition
#46
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
2 Posts
I've got a Linus Roadster Sport, which weighs 35.5 lbs. In the late '70s, I had a Raleigh Sport 3 speed, but I never weighed it so don't know it's weight, it didn't seem heavy at all, despite every single part which is alloy on the Linus (which amounts to everything except the frame itself) being chromed steel on the Raleigh.
My wife rides a Creme Cafe Racer, which weighs 32.5 lbs.
As mentioned by others, on level ground or slight descents, these glide along with almost no effort, making long rides easy and comfortable. The biggest improvement I made on the Linus was to discard the stock "Elysium" tires, which were both heavy and not supple. Better tires transformed the bicycle. My wife's Creme came with Schwalbe Delta Cruisers, which have proven to be quite nice.
My wife rides a Creme Cafe Racer, which weighs 32.5 lbs.
As mentioned by others, on level ground or slight descents, these glide along with almost no effort, making long rides easy and comfortable. The biggest improvement I made on the Linus was to discard the stock "Elysium" tires, which were both heavy and not supple. Better tires transformed the bicycle. My wife's Creme came with Schwalbe Delta Cruisers, which have proven to be quite nice.
Likes For ron521:
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,678
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 486 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
353 Posts
My Trek 600 based IGH is 24.6lbs; pretty much everything is alloy except the AW hub….
A very responsive ride.
Apologies for the background - it’s miserable outside.
Oh and regarding all those comments about how much further a heavier 3 speed will roll; don’t forget basic physics: you had to add more potential energy to get that extra weight up to speed - no free lunch! Having said that it is nice that these bikes all feel good to ride.
A very responsive ride.
Apologies for the background - it’s miserable outside.
Oh and regarding all those comments about how much further a heavier 3 speed will roll; don’t forget basic physics: you had to add more potential energy to get that extra weight up to speed - no free lunch! Having said that it is nice that these bikes all feel good to ride.
Likes For markk900:
#48
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 184
Bikes: Several
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 171 Times
in
95 Posts
My Trek 600 based IGH is 24.6lbs; pretty much everything is alloy except the AW hub….
A very responsive ride.
Apologies for the background - it’s miserable outside.
Oh and regarding all those comments about how much further a heavier 3 speed will roll; don’t forget basic physics: you had to add more potential energy to get that extra weight up to speed - no free lunch! Having said that it is nice that these bikes all feel good to ride.
A very responsive ride.
Apologies for the background - it’s miserable outside.
Oh and regarding all those comments about how much further a heavier 3 speed will roll; don’t forget basic physics: you had to add more potential energy to get that extra weight up to speed - no free lunch! Having said that it is nice that these bikes all feel good to ride.
your last paragraph.....without hunting for my previous statements, I'm sure I recognised the point you are making about 'no free lunch'. Adding the extra potential energy can be done in increments; by their nature there's no point in putting extra energy in to accelerate the weight up to speed. It's all about taking ones time. No point thrashing away on a 3 speed. How dignified is that?
However, I feel I was correct about the heavier bikes mass carrying you further. It's that weight which contributes to the apparent ease these 3 speeds just bowl along.
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,678
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 486 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
353 Posts
Cyclespanner : no intent on my part to contradict or prove anyone wrong! Just musing on the fact that because of physics any perceived ease in one condition comes at the expense of additional effort in another. Typically that huffing and puffing up a long hill on a 3speed is soon forgotten with the exhilaration of the long and stately descent on the other side 😎(assuming recently refreshed brake pads…. Otherwise potential energy is NOT your friend )
Likes For markk900: