Grand Bois

I don't think "well below 25#" is possible with a heavy frame. My 3 speed has a butted Reynolds 531 frame and all lightweight components and it weighs just under 25#. Three speed hubs are heavy, even aluminum-shelled ones like mine.

TejanoTrackie 

1975 Schwinn Speedster 3-speed as shown with SA drum brake hubs, rack, basket, generator lights, pump, large ding-dong bell = 46 lbs.

TejanoTrackie 

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.

Grand Bois

There's only one way to prove it. Build it.

HSean

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

rfomenko

29 lb


https://picasaweb.google.com/romanfom...02598098876770

Cyclespanner

I got one down to 0 lbs.

Threw it in a dumpster!
Trouble is...I have that weight on my mind now.

MooneyBloke

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.

Cyclespanner

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.

Bad Lag

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).

Bad Lag

Truly!

There is no advantage to a heavy bicycle and rider.

Cyclespanner

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.

clubman 

Well, the aesthetics can be advantageous...no one ever laughed at the girth of my belly on a Raleigh Superbe.

But I've lost 35 lbs this year and it wasn't because I changed bikes.

Quite the zombie thread.

clubman 

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.

nlerner

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).

Bad Lag

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.

bluesteak 

Mine weighs 30.4 lb., with steel mud guards, alloy FM, CR 18 700c rims

Cyclespanner

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'.

Small cog

A tad under 30 lbs for my Lenton with lots of alloy and Bluemels mudguards.

Cyclespanner

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.

ron521

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.

markk900

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.

Cyclespanner

Hi Mark,
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.

markk900

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 )

Salubrious

My Bates is a sweet 22 pounds (the saddles rails are Ti).