@Jason
Thanks for doing that. I'm keenly interested, because I do believe frame
weight tells a story about how a bicycle rides. A 2000 g steel frame will
not be happy as a loaded tourer, but may feel wonderful with a light rando
load.
Riv forks tend to be fairly light weight, even on tourers.
Here's what Ted Durant wrote in another thread ("Sam Hillbornes go live
tomorrow"):
"51cm Sam just arrived, it is 2637 grams for the frame (including headset
cups, water bottle bolts, and seat post binder bolt) and 844 grams for the
fork (including crown race)."
That's more than a pound difference for the same frame size, and 16 g --
basically nothing -- for the fork.
Nuts.
I just got a first-run 56 cm frame, single top tube, no headset installed.
With everything off -- only the binder bolt and BB cable guide still in the
frame -- the weight was 2398 g per my kitchen scale.
The fork weighs 954 g, 110 g more than Ted's. Given the difference in frame
size, that's probably from all from the longer steerer tube.
cheers -m
On Sunday, March 1, 2026 at 1:26:18 AM UTC-5 Armand Kizirian wrote:
> Wow, I'm actually shocked at the hillborne. 860g for a steel fork is
> impressive, most modern unicrown steel forks with similar tire clearances
> are typically 1100g. The 2100g frame, with lugs to boot, is actually very
> lightweight. I know Fairlights heavily engineered reynolds tubeset on their
> secan/faran models weight about the same. Granted yours is a smaller frame
> size, not sure how much those numbers jump in the 54-57cm+ sizes.
>
> I'm going to be stripping down my platypus soon and was also curious to
> weight it just for kicks.
>
> On Saturday, February 28, 2026 at 7:44:01 PM UTC-8 Jason Fuller wrote:
>
>> Like just about every Rivendell rider, I am not a weight weenie. But I
>> have always wondered where the weight of my 51cm Hillborne and 52cm
>> Bombadil (2TT) would land in the grand scheme of things. I do think frame
>> weight is a helpful indicator of how a frame will feel, provided you have
>> the background knowledge of how to compare that value to the frame geometry
>> and tube diameters.
>>
>> My expectation was that while the Bombadil is obviously a more stout
>> bike, being Waterford-built in 2009 it might be surprisingly moderate in
>> weight. And the Hillborne, being ten years newer and MIT, I figured would
>> have stouter tubing than one might expect and therefore the two frames
>> could be not too far apart in weight.
>>
>> I was wrong!
>>
>> The forks were not too far apart: 860g for the Hillborne's, 940g for the
>> Bombadil's. The Bombadil has 10mm more steerer tube. This is with crown
>> race for both.
>>
>> The bare frames with headset cups and bearings (the latter didn't want to
>> move so I didn't force things) were: 2827g for the Bombadil and a scant
>> 2144g for the Hillborne. My guesses were 2600 and 2400 respectively, so
>> this was quite surprising!
>>
>> Knowing this doesn't make me feel any differently about either bike, they
>> both ride superbly. In fact it gives me renewed faith that the Hillborne is
>> not overkill as an all-road bike!
>>
>> [image: PXL_20260301_031323451.jpg]
>>
>>
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/1275a342-d8b6-4bef-968b-536c46c1d231n%40googlegroups.com.
