bradtx

shoota, I voted 22-24 lbs. After about the early to mid '80s I think the sub 22 lb. bikes became more common, but there were still a slew of bikes just over 22 lbs. Maybe it was this same period where sub 20 lb. bikes began to make a presence...just going from memory so YMMV.

Brad

Gary Fountain

+1

Velognome 

In the 30's-40's small frames and modified frames with fixed gears were the "race bikes' of England, still I doubt they dipped below 22lbs.

bradtx

T-Mar, Generic term indeed! As a kid in the early '60s the bicycles we kids rode were labeled lightweight, middleweight and heavyweight based on their tire size.

Brad

big chainring 

Exactly. This is what I remember, is the term British or English lightweight, and referring to a 3-speed Sports model. And the lightweight term was used to distinguish these English imports from the heavyweight single speed Schwinns every American kid grew up with. But thats my recollection.

Lightweight when it comes to vintage 10-speeds, I always considered anything under 30 pounds. You have to remember that any low end Boom era bike came with steel rimmed wheels, some with 3 piece steel hubs. I have a set of wheels with Dolomiti rims that are really wide, even by 1970's standards. The wheels are very heavy. The rims from the 60's and early 70's were chunky, and the tires were a real 1 1/4" wide, and bulged with age to even plumper proportions. Add in steel cottered cranks, steel Huret derailleurs, steel bar and stem, and your lightweight 10-speed topped out at 30+ pounds. And your friends marveled at how light your 30 pound bike was!

rat fink

Yeah, but how many C&V frames does this apply to? The frames in question, Vitus carbon and aluminum frames, ALAN, etc. These are arguably not the rule for vintage frames. Most C&V frames discussed on these pages are steel. Sure, even steel can be made to build up to under 18 pounds, but steel frames that light didn't really come about until the 1990s. I think, as a rule, to get under ~19 pounds with a C&V frame, it will have to be made out of something other than steel or have a non-steel fork.

Phil_gretz

I remember reading through an encyclopedic bicycling catalog published sometime around 1975 with my high school riding friends. It showed most production bikes available in the U.S., hundreds of bikes across most manufacturer's product lines. The best bikes from Bianchi, Atala, Gitane, Cinelli, etc. all had professional models that were in sweet spot between 20.5 and 22 lbs. Even the 22 lb bikes were "called out" for a weight penalty. We scoured this catalog for several years - how I wish we still had it now - probably scrapped with old newspapers by my neighbor's mom (a sweet lady, FWIW).

So, my vote was between 20 and 22 lbs.

peter_d

20lbs as shown. Most of my other C&V bikes are between 22 and 26lbs

ThermionicScott 

I vote that we spend more education $ on the difference between ">" (greater than) and "<" (less than.)

Chombi

I think I can get my 19.25 pound Steel 84 Peugeot PSV currently with my 32 spoke GL330 wheelset on it, to under 19 pounds easy with the right aluminum FW, Ti BB........and my CLB brakeset.......easy....
And there were certainly enough C&V bikes made with tubesets as light as Supervitus 980 (Reynolds 753 frames, for example...)....
In the end, I think sub 19 pound bikes should belong to a sub category for C&V lightweight bikes called "Lightweight Weenie" bikes. As they are not the "typical" lightweight bike for pre-modern eras.....

Standalone 

My Hi-Ten Panasonic was spec'd at around 24 lbs. 23 and 24 pound 12 speeds are common enough that I think sub-22 pound is a better way to think of as a real "lightweight."

For my purposes, though, anything under 25 lbs tends to make for a very rideable and reasonably fast bike.

Sixty Fiver

My 1955 Raleigh Lenton was an all rounder and built when the 26 by 1 1/4 wheel was still being used by the British on many performance oriented bicycles. The Brits had not embraced aluminium and the wheels on the Lenton are Dunlop stainless instead of the chromed steel seen on lesser models.

There is not a spec of aluminium on the bike and the fenders are celluloid... it hits the curb at 30 pounds and is still very capable of time trialling and high speeds over flatter routes.

Bikedued

I still miss my 22.15 Fuji Ace. That was with tubulars, steel toe clips, and topline cranks. Unheard of weight for a mid 70's. At least IMHO.,,,,BD

gaucho777 

I voted 22-24 pounds. In the grand scheme of bike options, I wouldn't fault any bike manufacturer for labeling a bike in the lower 20s as a lightweight. Above 25 pounds and you likely have steel rims/parts and gaspipe tubing. Below, say, 19-lb., and you start getting into true weight weenie bikes, flyweights even.

IMO, Schwinn was a bit too loose with the "lightweight" designation. I had a '68 Schwinn Speedster with fenders, giant chromed odometer, and steel just-about-everything. It was a tank. Must have weighed around 40 pounds, yet it was sold as a lightweight: https://schwinncruisers.com/catalogs/1968.html#speedster

They do exist, but aren't as common as the claims. My '73 Ron Kit/Speedwell Ti with period-correct parts weighs in at 18.7 pounds on a digital scale, as shown below, and could easily get into the 17-pound range with a Ti bottom bracket, alloy freewheel, lighter stem/tires/saddle. If I wanted to shave still a few more grams, I could build up an even lighter wheelset using some Hi-E hubs I have squirreled away instead of these (comparatively heavy) high-flanged record hubs shown below.

shoota 

Nice ride Gaucho wow! You own an 18lbs bike and you still voted 22-24

Zinger

25 lbs or less

randyjawa 

I took the time and had the opportunity to compare vintage lightweights weights. Here is what I found to be true, according to personal experience...

After owning hundreds of vintage road bicycles, only two or three come in under the twenty pound mark...

An ALAN and a Vitus. Next came the 20 - 23 pound group which were mostly pretty darn high end machines. The 23 to 26 pound group still offered good quality bike shop bikes. Anything over 27 pounds fits into my entry level department store issue offerings from the sixties, seventies and into the eighties.

Anyway, here are some of the actual bikes and actual weights. I weighed each bike three times and averaged the result.

Wino Ryder

I voted for the 20-22 lb range that IMO was more realistic of a high end vintage lightweight with racing or hi-performance geometry as sold to the public. In Sept. 2001 I bought an original mint '91 Tommasini 'Comp' (competizione) that only had a few hundred miles on it. It looked brand new. The bike was all Columbus SL and all chrome underneath the paint. Everything on that frame was original to the bike as purchased by the buyer and was (we believe) sold through 'William Lewis Imports'. It came equipped with all Shimano '600' tri-color with 8-speed STI, Selle Italia 'Turbomatic 3 saddle, 3TTT bars and stem, and Mavic 'Open 4 CD wheels. I know the bike is probably not exactly 'vintage' but it is Classic, and it was all original.

The bike weighed 22 lbs with bottle cages, bar tape, pedals (just like you would ride it) on the LBS calibrated scales. At the time I was a little let down because I thought it was supposed to be around 20

mkeller234

I think his answer is correct. I think your getting those answers because your asking the wrong question. Do you want to know what the average weight of a vintage racer, or do you want the lowest known vintage weight? Those questions have two different answers.

shoota 

I just want people to discuss what "lightweight" means to them. There's no right or wrong answer here..

Ex Pres 

The more vintage I've become, the more of a lightweight I am. I can't imagine downing a 6-pack now. Back in the 70's, a 12-pack didn't always faze me .

shoota 

Ha! Now that was funny.

jethin

I voted 20-22, because I would consider that a true "lightweight" "vintage" weight today. Back then (at least when I consider back then) I would say 22-24 was more typical and respectable.

rootboy 

When I bought my PX-10 in 1971-72, it was rated in the specs at 21 pounds. I think that was pretty close to right on as I remember. But of course, it had plastic parts on it and the lightest, cheapest handlebars they could find.

Velognome 

The existence of Drillium is proof that vintage lightweights were not light....enough