Do catalog weights typically include racks?
 

I’m thinking this answer is probably “depends on the year and manufacturer.” I was looking at the Voyageur comparison chart and noticed that the 1983 SP is listed as 27lbs and comes with front and rear rack. An 84 is 26 lbs with only one rack. The 85 onward are 24lbs with no racks, and IME racks on average weigh around a pound.

But can we assume these weights include racks? Meaning the 83 SP would be closer to 25/24 without?

I know that the listed weights of catalogs can be highly debatable, and a pound here or there on a touring bike is superfluous, but I’ve got my reasons for pondering this.

Thoughts?

Side note: The front rack attachment on the 83 SP is not one I’ve seen on any other bike and was removed the following year in favor of low rider mounts. A failed experiment or the attachment just didn’t make sense once low riders became popular?

If a mod could add “include” to the title that’d be cool :)

For future reference, if you need mod help, the best way to get it is to report a post. I'll change the thread title.

I would say yes if the racks are included with the bike. There is usually a disclaimer on the spec sheets that says "weights do not include accessories", but I always understood that to mean things the buyer adds afterwards. The weight should include everything that comes in the box. With all the variations of clipless pedals, most bikes don't include pedals, so all the newer spec sheets state "weights do not include pedals".

Thanks. I considered it but the note on the report page always deters me from using it for anything other than what it says:

“Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.”

Maybe the mods don’t care so much though.

I'm skeptical that published weights include racks for bikes that came stock with them. My gut feeling is that manufacturers will do whatever they can do to keep the published weights as low as possible.

That was my thought as well, other than the weights on the charge drop by the amount of weight per rack (assuming ~1lb per rack and some bikes have one or two). However, weight drop is also consistent with tube quality improvement. Not sure how much “lesser” or heavier Tange 2 is compared to Columbus.

I've always operated on the premise that if the accessories (i.e. racks, lighting systems, fenders, etc.) were factory installed, then they are included in the claimed weight. There may be some exceptions, but my observations are that the vast majority of manufacturers followed this policy. For instance a 1974 Peugeot UO8 had a claimed weight of 28 lbs., while a UE8, which was an identical model but with the addition of fenders, lighting system and a rear rack, had a claimed weight of 31 lbs.

The one area where claimed weights often didn't align with reality, was when it comes to frame size. Many manufacturers would state the claimed weight based on the smallest frame size available for the model. Eventually, this practice was largely replaced by specifying the frame size for which the claimed weight was given, usually one one of the medium frame sizes. While it was more representative for the average consumer, the referenced size used for the claimed weight could still vary from brand to brand.

UO8 vs UE8 is a good anecdote there, thanks. I must say, even 28 lbs seems generous for a stock UO8 though :lol:

Agreed that may be generous. My UO 10 weighs 27 lbs but it has alloy rims and an alloy cotterless crank. The UO 8 has steel rims and a steel cottered crank.

I doubt either of you are riding the smallest frame size, which was likely the basis for the claim. It also wouldn't surprise me if they took the additional advantage of rounding down to a full pound after their conversion from metric to imperial measure, as there are no fractional or decimal weight measures.

All true. There just can’t be a thread mentioning a UO8 and weight without a sly remark, so I made it happen.

fair enough but Peugeot used fractional weights, 22.7 lbs, on a much larger frame, a 58 cm, in its 1982 catalog for a PXN 10. I own and ride that bike. I think, and you would know the answer better than I do, that manufacturers often offered a weight for a middling size since that is more typical of what most people ride.

I always thought that the reference that had to be made in a U08 mention was it being indistinguishable from a PX10. To this end, I knew a guy who was incapable of feeling the weight difference between a UO8 and PX10. True story from T-Mar's Believe It Or Not

I was referring to the 1974 Peugeot catalogue of my original post, In that original post I also mentioned that most manufacturers subsequently went to more realistic weights using more representative, medium sized frames. Peugeot was part of that shift in claimed weight policy.

Legend has it that man is still lying through his teeth to this day.

As a 13y.o. I rode my Raleigh Sports 3 spd. all Summer with a stretched shifter cable leaving it in 3rd gear only. Eventually rescued by a friend who demonstrated how to adjust it, but at that time, to my legs, a UO8 vs PX10 would have been indistinguishable in high gear also. Don

While riding it? Or carrying it up the stairs to his apartment? If the former, count me in that group. :lol: