Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: CC Weight

  1. #1
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,290

    CC Weight

    Not that I'm a weight weenie but anyone know the weight of a 54 or 56 CC? Hopefully it's less than a LHT or an Ogre. Thanks in advance.
    1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992 Stumpjumpers. 1995 Waterford 1200, 1999 Waterford RSE, plus a garage full of steel frames.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    811
    Yes, the frame weighs less. Check the Surly website for the numbers. The complete weighs less too, mainly because the stock CC complete is specced with road components and the LHT and Ogre are both specced with heavier touring and mtb components. If you put a triple crankset, mountain gearing, and 36-spoke wheels on a CC, it would weigh more too. Nevermind a Brooks saddle and full compliment of racks and such. In the end, I think the weight difference is fairly neglible and depends mostly upon your choice of components and accessories.

  3. #3
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,290
    Thanks bolandjd, I've always heard the LHT being a dedicated touring bike used heavier tubing.
    1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992 Stumpjumpers. 1995 Waterford 1200, 1999 Waterford RSE, plus a garage full of steel frames.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seat_boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,623
    Not just heavier tubing, but the LHT uses larger diameter tubing, notably in the top tube (IIRC 31.8mm vs 28.6) I really like the way smaller diameter tubing rides: my CC is nicer than my Fargo or mountain bikes, and my Rawland (25.4mm diameter top tube) beats them all.

  5. #5
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by seat_boy View Post
    Not just heavier tubing, but the LHT uses larger diameter tubing, notably in the top tube (IIRC 31.8mm vs 28.6) I really like the way smaller diameter tubing rides: my CC is nicer than my Fargo or mountain bikes, and my Rawland (25.4mm diameter top tube) beats them all.
    My main ride now is Reynolds 531. It's a nice bike but not as versatile as I'd like. The CC always impressed me as a good do it all bike.
    1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992 Stumpjumpers. 1995 Waterford 1200, 1999 Waterford RSE, plus a garage full of steel frames.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    811
    Okay, according to Surly:
    CC- 56cm frame - 4.88 lbs, fork - 2.19 lbs
    LHT - 58 cm frame - 5.15 lbs, fork - 2.25 lbs
    Ogre - 20" frame - 5.94 lbs, fork - 2.6 lbs

    So, a little bit of apples and oranges with the sizes, but probably fairly neglible. A good pound and half difference between CC and Ogre, but much less than a pound between CC and LHT or LHT and Ogre. So, I think when you're talking about a 25-30 lbs bike after its built up and 30-40 lbs outfitted with fenders and racks and bags and lights and whatever else you hang on it and 70-80 lbs when you're loaded for a tour or a week's worth of groceries and add the rider's weight on top of all that - an extra pound of frameset weight ain't so bad.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    699
    Pretty much.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •