Re: [CR]Spec Weight vs. Reality

(Example: Framebuilding:Paint)

Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:08:21 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jay Van De Velde" <jaysportif@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Spec Weight vs. Reality
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <a05210620be22cad8ab35@[68.167.191.8]>


I believe the all time champion in catalog spec hyperbole has to be Caminade/Caminargent. The 1936 catalog states the complete bike weight of the Bordeaux-Paris model is 12.25 lbs. The all aluminum bike is quite light and is a tribute to Caminade's design skills, however the real life weight of a complete bike is 17 lbs. That is still remarkable for a bike of that era, though. Jay Van De Velde Seal Beach,CA

Jan Heine <heine93@earthlink.net> wrote:One wonders about specs in general. Consider that many brochures are written before the bike exists, so the specs are at best a guess. And if you are guessing anyhow, why not be optimistic? Maybe they take a "naked" frame without paint or braze-ons, in the smallest size. Then they add the parts, probably conveniently forget a few nuts and bolts here and there. Toeclips, pump and tires - who needs them?

I don't know much about spec weights, but that is one reason why VBQ doesn't like to publish weights that haven't been verified independently. For example, at the technical trials, the weights were done all on the same scale, by independent observers.

An exception to the VBQ policy was the Merckx hour record bike, which was "reputed" to weigh 5.9 kg. In that case, Rebour did an analysis, and figured that if the bike indeed was that light, it must have had ti spindles, axles, etc. (This was before Super Record was available.) Later examination (by Rebour and others) bore out this suspicion: The quoted weight probably wasn't too far off, considering all the special parts.

I am facing a similar conundrum currently: The next issue will have a test of a Co-Motion Nor'Wester with oversize fork and steerer. The bike is heavy, and the fork seems to contribute greatly. I could not disassemble the bike, so I have to go with the weight the manufacturer specs for the fork. I compared to a standard sport-touring fork of an 61 cm Alex Singer (measured myself!), and the difference is barely 100 g. But I suspect the difference is greater than that - maybe Co-Motion weighed a "naked" fork with the shortest possible steerer?

I have heard that in the 1960s, Italian (and other) car manufacturers were very optimistic with their power output figures. And American makers measured power figures without any of the (necessary) ancillaries, such as water pump, fan, etc. So that 380 hp muscle car may have had only 280 true horsepower arriving at the rear wheels.

I'd be surprised if bike makers didn't use similar liberties - and probably still do. -- Jan Heine, Seattle Editor/Publisher Vintage Bicycle Quarterly c/o Il Vecchio Bicycles 140 Lakeside Ave, Ste. C Seattle WA 98122 http://www.mindspring.com/~heine/bikesite/bikesite/


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Geurds"
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [CR]Spec Weight vs. Reality



> My calculator's not handy, 59cm is what 231/2"?
> You can bet they weighed the 201/2" model for the catalog.
> Also, cynical me wonders if the pump, and the clips&straps made it on for
> the weigh-in.
>
> Pete Geurds
> Douglassville, Pa

Yes... 59 cm is approx 23 1/2" c-t-t.

No pump but the spec chromed steel Cristophe toe-clips.

I suspect, as others have privately e-mailed, spec weights were based on 56 cm. But that's not enough to account for 2 lbs. Maybe that titanium axle, give or take some for a imprecise scale and more for some brochure chicanery equals more or less what I got! I know... I still have the crank dustcaps on... that's what's doing it.

Peter Kohler
Washington DC USA