Weight difference between 2030 and 531 frames
#1
Full Member
Thread Starter
Weight difference between 2030 and 531 frames
I've read alot about how much better a 531 frame is to a lower end 2030 frame, but what is the weight difference? Had anyone weighed a frame from, say, a Super Course against the same era and size Grand Prix? What kind of weight savings are we talking about here?
Likes For swampyankee2:
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 17,153
Mentioned: 481 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3807 Post(s)
Liked 6,676 Times
in
2,607 Posts
The 1971 Raleigh catalog shows just a one-pound difference between the two:
https://www.kurtkaminer.com/1971rale...t_us_04_lg.jpg
https://www.kurtkaminer.com/1971rale...t_us_04_lg.jpg
Likes For nlerner:
#3
Full Member
Thread Starter
The 1971 Raleigh catalog shows just a one-pound difference between the two:
https://www.kurtkaminer.com/1971rale...t_us_04_lg.jpg
https://www.kurtkaminer.com/1971rale...t_us_04_lg.jpg
Likes For swampyankee2:
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: The Urban Shores Of Michigami
Posts: 1,749
Bikes: ........................................ .....Holdsworth "Special"..... .......Falcon "Special".......... .........Miyata 912........... ........................................
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 702 Post(s)
Liked 672 Times
in
420 Posts
I asked myself the same thing a few months ago
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...e-weights.html
I've had several Raleigh frames hanging in my shop waiting to be built up so while cleaning up, thought I'd weigh them to see if there were any significant differences between the Grand Prix, Super Grand Prix and the Super Course.
All three frames are 23-1/2", the Grand Prix and Super Course are 1972 models. The Super Grand Prix is from 1977
Both the Grand Prix and Super Grand Prix have 2030 "High Tensile" tubing throughout. The Super Course has Reynolds 531 Straight Gauge frame tubes and "High Tensile" fork blades and rear stays
The weights are as follows:
Grand Prix
Frame: 2648 grams
Fork: 862 grams
Super Grand Prix
Frame: 2706 grams
Fork: 852 grams
Super Course:
Frame: 2538 grams
Fork: 834 grams
The Grand Prix and Super Course have identical frame geometries so the weight differences are attributed to the tubing types, not sure why the forks have different weights
The Super Grand Prix, although the tubing is the same as the Grand Prix, the frame geometries and designs are completely different. The SGP is designed for 700C wheels, has a shorter wheel base and much beefier seat stays, it is more of a racing geometry than the Grand Prix. I've restored a couple of Super Grand Pix's and they were a stiffer and more responsive ride than the GP's I've ridden.
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...e-weights.html
I've had several Raleigh frames hanging in my shop waiting to be built up so while cleaning up, thought I'd weigh them to see if there were any significant differences between the Grand Prix, Super Grand Prix and the Super Course.
All three frames are 23-1/2", the Grand Prix and Super Course are 1972 models. The Super Grand Prix is from 1977
Both the Grand Prix and Super Grand Prix have 2030 "High Tensile" tubing throughout. The Super Course has Reynolds 531 Straight Gauge frame tubes and "High Tensile" fork blades and rear stays
The weights are as follows:
Grand Prix
Frame: 2648 grams
Fork: 862 grams
Super Grand Prix
Frame: 2706 grams
Fork: 852 grams
Super Course:
Frame: 2538 grams
Fork: 834 grams
The Grand Prix and Super Course have identical frame geometries so the weight differences are attributed to the tubing types, not sure why the forks have different weights
The Super Grand Prix, although the tubing is the same as the Grand Prix, the frame geometries and designs are completely different. The SGP is designed for 700C wheels, has a shorter wheel base and much beefier seat stays, it is more of a racing geometry than the Grand Prix. I've restored a couple of Super Grand Pix's and they were a stiffer and more responsive ride than the GP's I've ridden.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: The Urban Shores Of Michigami
Posts: 1,749
Bikes: ........................................ .....Holdsworth "Special"..... .......Falcon "Special".......... .........Miyata 912........... ........................................
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 702 Post(s)
Liked 672 Times
in
420 Posts
you're welcome
#6
Full Member
Thread Starter
Likes For swampyankee2:
#7
Senior Member
The big difference is from plain gauge steel to double-butted, and it's not the weight weight that the makes the difference. I don't know how to describe the difference, but it's there. OTOH, I suspect you can make a Grand Prix right ride closer to a full DB frame by riding on light, well-made tubular wheels and sewups. Of course, you may spend more on tires and more time on fixing flats and sewing with sewups....
Last edited by philbob57; 05-04-22 at 04:25 PM.
Likes For philbob57:
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
I asked myself the same thing a few months ago
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...e-weights.html
I've had several Raleigh frames hanging in my shop waiting to be built up so while cleaning up, thought I'd weigh them to see if there were any significant differences between the Grand Prix, Super Grand Prix and the Super Course.
All three frames are 23-1/2", the Grand Prix and Super Course are 1972 models. The Super Grand Prix is from 1977
Both the Grand Prix and Super Grand Prix have 2030 "High Tensile" tubing throughout. The Super Course has Reynolds 531 Straight Gauge frame tubes and "High Tensile" fork blades and rear stays
The weights are as follows:
Grand Prix
Frame: 2648 grams
Fork: 862 grams
Super Grand Prix
Frame: 2706 grams
Fork: 852 grams
Super Course:
Frame: 2538 grams
Fork: 834 grams
The Grand Prix and Super Course have identical frame geometries so the weight differences are attributed to the tubing types, not sure why the forks have different weights
The Super Grand Prix, although the tubing is the same as the Grand Prix, the frame geometries and designs are completely different. The SGP is designed for 700C wheels, has a shorter wheel base and much beefier seat stays, it is more of a racing geometry than the Grand Prix. I've restored a couple of Super Grand Pix's and they were a stiffer and more responsive ride than the GP's I've ridden.
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...e-weights.html
I've had several Raleigh frames hanging in my shop waiting to be built up so while cleaning up, thought I'd weigh them to see if there were any significant differences between the Grand Prix, Super Grand Prix and the Super Course.
All three frames are 23-1/2", the Grand Prix and Super Course are 1972 models. The Super Grand Prix is from 1977
Both the Grand Prix and Super Grand Prix have 2030 "High Tensile" tubing throughout. The Super Course has Reynolds 531 Straight Gauge frame tubes and "High Tensile" fork blades and rear stays
The weights are as follows:
Grand Prix
Frame: 2648 grams
Fork: 862 grams
Super Grand Prix
Frame: 2706 grams
Fork: 852 grams
Super Course:
Frame: 2538 grams
Fork: 834 grams
The Grand Prix and Super Course have identical frame geometries so the weight differences are attributed to the tubing types, not sure why the forks have different weights
The Super Grand Prix, although the tubing is the same as the Grand Prix, the frame geometries and designs are completely different. The SGP is designed for 700C wheels, has a shorter wheel base and much beefier seat stays, it is more of a racing geometry than the Grand Prix. I've restored a couple of Super Grand Pix's and they were a stiffer and more responsive ride than the GP's I've ridden.
Last edited by Road Fan; 05-04-22 at 06:24 PM.
Likes For Road Fan:
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: The Urban Shores Of Michigami
Posts: 1,749
Bikes: ........................................ .....Holdsworth "Special"..... .......Falcon "Special".......... .........Miyata 912........... ........................................
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 702 Post(s)
Liked 672 Times
in
420 Posts
So the density of 531 and 2030 are the same, so if a 531 frame has lower mass, it must have thinner tubing walls compared to the GP. This is reasonable because 531 is a stronger alloy than 2030, so if you make identical frames out of one and the other and aim for the same durability, you can have less weight in the 531 frame without the risk that your frame is going to fracture.
this is with all tube lengths and ODs the same tube for tube, but the wall-thicknesses are reduced for the 531 tubes. This also allows the 531 tubes to hav a little more flexibles, a little more supple ride quality.
this is with all tube lengths and ODs the same tube for tube, but the wall-thicknesses are reduced for the 531 tubes. This also allows the 531 tubes to hav a little more flexibles, a little more supple ride quality.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Yes, so that demonstrates the thicker walls to be found on the 2030 frames. The seat post wall Is a little thicker than for the 2030, but I bet the net mass reduction sstill goes to the 531 tubes.
Last edited by Road Fan; 05-04-22 at 06:59 PM.
#11
Extraordinary Magnitude
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,646
Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2608 Post(s)
Liked 1,699 Times
in
935 Posts
Granted this doesn't have everything- but you get an idea of how much a tube set weighs- roughly between 1600 and 3200 grams. There's probably also much heavier tubing than listed here.
As someone who bolts racks, loads up water bottles, connects bags filled with junk onto my bike... that weight is negligible. However, to someone counting those grams it's significant.
The other point is the thickness of the tubes make a difference in the compliance of the ride. It's not just the sheer mass, it's the way the tubes respond- and that's partially due to the mass and hardness of the tubing... I'm probably using the wrong engineering terminology.
As someone who bolts racks, loads up water bottles, connects bags filled with junk onto my bike... that weight is negligible. However, to someone counting those grams it's significant.
The other point is the thickness of the tubes make a difference in the compliance of the ride. It's not just the sheer mass, it's the way the tubes respond- and that's partially due to the mass and hardness of the tubing... I'm probably using the wrong engineering terminology.
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Likes For The Golden Boy:
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Toledo Ohio
Posts: 1,493
Bikes: 1964 Huffy Sportsman, 1972 Fuji Newest, 1973 Schwinn Super Sport (3), 1982 Trek 412, 1983 Trek 700, 1989 Miyata 1000LT, 1991 Bianchi Boardwalk, plus others
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked 697 Times
in
393 Posts
I certainly don’t know much about it, but I think the magic is in the tubing. Some/most of my bikes were also purchased to experience the different tubings. I am an old slow rider, but can sometimes enjoy the difference. As stated, all the other peripherals contribute greatly.
I bet others can chime in on more than just the weight being important. Golf club shafts, fishing rods, musical instruments and many others I would bet show the differences of the higher end tubing.
I bet others can chime in on more than just the weight being important. Golf club shafts, fishing rods, musical instruments and many others I would bet show the differences of the higher end tubing.
Likes For sd5782:
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 3,265
Bikes: '82 Univega Competizione, '72 Motobecane Grand Record, '83 Mercian KOM Touring, '85 Univega Alpina Uno, '76 Eisentraut Limited
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1088 Post(s)
Liked 1,205 Times
in
701 Posts
Granted this doesn't have everything- but you get an idea of how much a tube set weighs- roughly between 1600 and 3200 grams. There's probably also much heavier tubing than listed here.
As someone who bolts racks, loads up water bottles, connects bags filled with junk onto my bike... that weight is negligible. However, to someone counting those grams it's significant.
The other point is the thickness of the tubes make a difference in the compliance of the ride. It's not just the sheer mass, it's the way the tubes respond- and that's partially due to the mass and hardness of the tubing... I'm probably using the wrong engineering terminology.
As someone who bolts racks, loads up water bottles, connects bags filled with junk onto my bike... that weight is negligible. However, to someone counting those grams it's significant.
The other point is the thickness of the tubes make a difference in the compliance of the ride. It's not just the sheer mass, it's the way the tubes respond- and that's partially due to the mass and hardness of the tubing... I'm probably using the wrong engineering terminology.
Likes For noobinsf:
#14
Full Member
Thread Starter
Thanx for all the replies and info. To sum it up, of my 3 vintage bikes, one is a 531 frame Dawes, the others are standard Raleigh Hi-ten - a Sports and a 10 speed Robin Hood Lenton Sports. The Lenton Sports has chrome steel drop bars and stem, and steel fenders so the extra frame weight isn't a factor. For what it's worth, it does have a very comfortable ride and a good enough turn of speed for an old duffer like me. But the Dawes is my poor man's Super Course, although I'm not sure I'm conditioned enough to notice the advantage of it being 531 framed.
Last edited by swampyankee2; 05-05-22 at 12:26 PM.
Likes For swampyankee2:
#15
Bike Butcher of Portland
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,634
Bikes: It's complicated.
Mentioned: 1299 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4678 Post(s)
Liked 5,795 Times
in
2,281 Posts
Granted this doesn't have everything- but you get an idea of how much a tube set weighs- roughly between 1600 and 3200 grams. There's probably also much heavier tubing than listed here.
As someone who bolts racks, loads up water bottles, connects bags filled with junk onto my bike... that weight is negligible. However, to someone counting those grams it's significant.
The other point is the thickness of the tubes make a difference in the compliance of the ride. It's not just the sheer mass, it's the way the tubes respond- and that's partially due to the mass and hardness of the tubing... I'm probably using the wrong engineering terminology.
As someone who bolts racks, loads up water bottles, connects bags filled with junk onto my bike... that weight is negligible. However, to someone counting those grams it's significant.
The other point is the thickness of the tubes make a difference in the compliance of the ride. It's not just the sheer mass, it's the way the tubes respond- and that's partially due to the mass and hardness of the tubing... I'm probably using the wrong engineering terminology.
@Doug Fattic posted somewhere here awhile back about frame weight being somewhat helpful in guesstimating what tubing wall thickness was used. It was a great explanation, if I could find it I'd provide a link.
If one had a set of 2030 tubing made up dimensionally the same as a 531 double butted set and made a frame, theoretically they'd ride exactly the same. The difference would be the strength of the frame - the 2030 frame needs more material for the same strength.
The ASFE* has promoted the idea that steel frame tubing can be made stiffer and lighter.
*American Society of Fraudulent Engineers
__________________
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
Last edited by gugie; 05-05-22 at 02:16 PM.
#16
Shifting is fun!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Holland, NL
Posts: 11,003
Bikes: Yes, please.
Mentioned: 280 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2197 Post(s)
Liked 4,599 Times
in
1,764 Posts
That's an interesting thought. It might just be the other way around.
Anyway, I have 25" examples of both in my project queue, and hope to be able to build up at least one of them this summer. One day I'll be able to actually compare them.
The crusty Super Course:
The dilapidated Dawes Galaxy:
Anyway, I have 25" examples of both in my project queue, and hope to be able to build up at least one of them this summer. One day I'll be able to actually compare them.
The crusty Super Course:
The dilapidated Dawes Galaxy:
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
This, yes. I am no expert, but I know that master framebuilders use different tubes for different parts of each frame based on the expected riding behavior of the customer, and they base this on what they know about the characteristics of the tube design and how they're mated together. I know I'm not responding to what the OP asked, but if OP is wondering about weight differences in a "what's the point" kind of way, then this is a good, albeit vague, response to that.
So lighter, more supple frames with good durability are inherently more expensive due to time, materials, and labor, sometimes special tools. For the bicycle (frames plus parts kit) cost is based on the frame and the fact that a higher-end frame justifies the cost of higher end parts. The bicycle upcharge is due to teh frame AND the parts.
#18
Full Member
Thread Starter
Hah! Searching for my first vintage 10 speed, I was enamoured by an early Super Course for $300, but found a slightly rougher Galaxy for $70 and closer by. Hence, my Dawes was my poor man's alternative. And I've learned alot while bringing maintenance up to date and upgrading stuff.
Likes For swampyankee2:
#19
ambulatory senior
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Peoria Il
Posts: 5,998
Bikes: Austro Daimler modified by Gugie! Raleigh Professional and lots of other bikes.
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1955 Post(s)
Liked 3,661 Times
in
1,679 Posts
Hah! Searching for my first vintage 10 speed, I was enamoured by an early Super Course for $300, but found a slightly rougher Galaxy for $70 and closer by. Hence, my Dawes was my poor man's alternative. And I've learned alot while bringing maintenance up to date and upgrading stuff.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,223
Mentioned: 654 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4722 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,036 Times
in
1,874 Posts
The difference in frame weight is easy to calculate if we make some assumptions:
1. The gauge used in the top and down tubes are the same as the seat tube.
2. The density of 2030 and 531 is the same.
3. Fork, stay and head tube material is the same.
4. Frame fittings are the same.
5. Geometry is the same.
Assumptions 3,4 and 5 reduces the difference to a comparison of the main tubes. At that point it comes down to an easy calculation of the volumes based on measurements of the frame tubes and applying the steel density.
I did this excercise for two 23" mid-1970s CCM frames, a Targa with hi-tensile steel and a Mistral with Reynolds 531 plain gauge. This would be comparable to comparing a Raleigh Record and Super Course. The difference came out to just over 500g or about 1.1 lbs.
1. The gauge used in the top and down tubes are the same as the seat tube.
2. The density of 2030 and 531 is the same.
3. Fork, stay and head tube material is the same.
4. Frame fittings are the same.
5. Geometry is the same.
Assumptions 3,4 and 5 reduces the difference to a comparison of the main tubes. At that point it comes down to an easy calculation of the volumes based on measurements of the frame tubes and applying the steel density.
I did this excercise for two 23" mid-1970s CCM frames, a Targa with hi-tensile steel and a Mistral with Reynolds 531 plain gauge. This would be comparable to comparing a Raleigh Record and Super Course. The difference came out to just over 500g or about 1.1 lbs.
Likes For T-Mar:
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
The difference in frame weight is easy to calculate if we make some assumptions:
1. The gauge used in the top and down tubes are the same as the seat tube.
2. The density of 2030 and 531 is the same.
3. Fork, stay and head tube material is the same.
4. Frame fittings are the same.
5. Geometry is the same.
Assumptions 3,4 and 5 reduces the difference to a comparison of the main tubes. At that point it comes down to an easy calculation of the volumes based on measurements of the frame tubes and applying the steel density.
I did this excercise for two 23" mid-1970s CCM frames, a Targa with hi-tensile steel and a Mistral with Reynolds 531 plain gauge. This would be comparable to comparing a Raleigh Record and Super Course. The difference came out to just over 500g or about 1.1 lbs.
1. The gauge used in the top and down tubes are the same as the seat tube.
2. The density of 2030 and 531 is the same.
3. Fork, stay and head tube material is the same.
4. Frame fittings are the same.
5. Geometry is the same.
Assumptions 3,4 and 5 reduces the difference to a comparison of the main tubes. At that point it comes down to an easy calculation of the volumes based on measurements of the frame tubes and applying the steel density.
I did this excercise for two 23" mid-1970s CCM frames, a Targa with hi-tensile steel and a Mistral with Reynolds 531 plain gauge. This would be comparable to comparing a Raleigh Record and Super Course. The difference came out to just over 500g or about 1.1 lbs.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,223
Mentioned: 654 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4722 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,036 Times
in
1,874 Posts
Yes but that is easily calculated, at least for the seat tube, as we know the seat post diameters, while dimensions for seat post clearance and the outside diameter of the seat tube are standard. Then we have to apply assumption 1 for the top and down tubes..
Likes For T-Mar:
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
I would worry that errors in the assumptions could cloud the accuracy of this assessment method.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,223
Mentioned: 654 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4722 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,036 Times
in
1,874 Posts
Likes For T-Mar:
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
If you want highly accurate predictions, I question the need for that goal. For me while low weight feels nice when I lift the bike, it is not significant for my riding. I want to be able to trust that a double-butted frame is actually what it says, but a few once’s of frame is undetectable. I can detect the pedaling response much more than weight.
Likes For Road Fan: