Sedgemop 

Please let me know when you don't want this one anymore. Been wanting to try this era International for years. To your weight point, I do think the changes you made to the bike would equal about 2 pounds. It probably started out a little heavier than the listed weight, being a larger frame, though. Thanks for posting this one.

Sedgemop 

Don't know what the bike market is like in your area, but if you start searching tubing names like "Reynolds" and "Columbus", that should start turning up some lighter bikes. That'll get you away from the lower end, heavier, gas pipe tubed bikes like the Raleigh Grand Prix you mentioned. Seems to me that in many places in the US, searching "Reynolds 531" will at least turn up some 80's Treks for you to check out. With decent component, a full 531 Trek will get you to the weight you want.

79pmooney

My Fuji Professional weighed about 21 pounds with the stock wheels. About a pound less with race wheels. But, I've got to admit it was not a vintage bike so I guess it doesn't qualify for this thread. That was 1977 and the bike was brand new.

repechage

aluminum caged pedals prob save 100-120 grams, clinchers… things add up fast!
the stock tubular rims about 350grams each, 300-350 grams for each tubular tire. Maybe not a kilo more, but could be that all in with clinchers.

steelbikeguy

I still have the original rims and tires. Putting them on the kitchen scale indicates that one rim and tire is 640 grams.

I've got some NOS MA-2 rims, and one of those is 470 grams, so that does make a difference.
The clincher tires are Veloflex Corsa EVO, 25mm... not sure what they weigh, but they are relatively light. I've got some new 28mm versions, and they are 122 grams each.
The tubes are some light Michelins.. a bit under 100 grams, I think.
As such, the gain is only 50 grams per wheel.

I should include the T.A. handlebar bottle cage in the modifications. Approximately 4 1/2 ounces, per Cyclo-Pedia.


Between the rims, tires, and cage, the total gain only looks like 227 grams, or about a half pound.

Steve in Peoria

smd4

My 58 cm Cinelli with full Dura Ace 7700 parts weighs 21.5 pounds (Columbus SLX). I made lots of titanium and aluminum upgrades and lighter cable housing.

My 60 cm 1986 Paramount (Columbus SL/SP), which also had full 7400 DA, barely came in under 24 pounds. That used to tick me off!

nlerner

Maybe the question should be, which vintage steel road bikes + rider weigh less than 200 lbs?

steelbikeguy

No promises on the International, but it is in excellent condition and really shines in the sun!
While it rides nicely, I'd say that I like my Hetchins (made with 531C) and Raleigh Team (built with 753) better. These are both very nice and special bikes, so that's not unreasonable.
It's going to be a while before any of these slip out of my grip (fingers crossed!).

Steve in Peoria

reissue59

Like others have said, double butted frames.
To get even lighter, go restomod
A recent group with brifters, rim brakes and light modern wheels.
my bikes are lighter than comparable modern bikes with disk brakes, nough said

zukahn1 

This recent junk build coaster SS curbed at 20 and change.

repechage

based on my fresh un-mounted 28 c soma supple vitesse SL and specialized cotton 26c tires, I think you have undercounted the tires by at lease an ounce each.
good to note the bottle cage weight but there are probably rim strips…unless you have those new mass-less, weightless offerings.

the classic TA aluminum welded cage was a claimed 25 grams! And no rust.

steelbikeguy

do you want a photo of the tire on the scale?
It's a very light tire.

edit: I looked it up, and it was higher.. so I went back and weighed it again. 227 grams. So I was about 3 ounces under before, per wheel.

Steve in Peoria

USAZorro

Accessories/components that vary quite a bit in weight include:

rims
spokes
tires
crankset
pedals
freewheel
stem
seatpost
rear derailleur
saddle

then, of course if you add a rack and a bag and light and a pump

I have some rather nice bicycles that are lightweight, but could be a pound less because I insist on a Brooks saddle and I'm too cheap to spring for titanium rails. Every last one of my bikes fails the nlerner test as of today, but hopefully, by next spring...

repechage

much more believable, I have some lightweight Pista tires in the 140 gram range, no way I would want a road tire anywhere near that mass.
‘And my first road race front tire way back was a Clement criterium seta extra 195 ! But I weighed 130# and my races were 25 miles or less.

Kabuki12

My 1975 Colnago Super is 62cm and weighs 21.5 without pedals , which are Ti spindle Superleggeri. I am running Gentleman clincher wheels and Panaracer tires 700 x 28. I guess it could be lighter , but I like it the way it is.

Russ Roth

They meant the actual frame? As others pointed out, it isn't just the label but the variety of tubing shown. There's still plenty of bikes built in reynolds 853 but the weight and ride quality will vary heavily based on the tubing selection.
I built a Carrera Volans with 10sp record when it came out with carbon everything and managed to get it in a 17lbs and a couple o ounces by being selective. Can't imagine a high end late 70s, early 80s frameset with a careful selection of expensive vintage/(esque) parts wouldn't easily scrape the 18-19lb range. Something like older record cranks but a new phil ti spindle BB, careful selection of tubular rims and high end tires built with modern butted racing spokes. I had an aluminum seatpost from early 80s in a Gitane, can't remember the brand, that was lighter than any carbon post I have. The tube walls seemed scary thin and I didn't trust it with my weight but for a lightweight classic build I'm sure it was popular BITD. Really be a matter of choosing weight for a classic racer vs enjoyable classic ride quality.

88ss

I don't consider anything that came with more than five speeds on the rear hub vintage. the ten or 15-speed bikes that were 25 pounds or less were more rare and special than the later bikes phased in during the 1980s when 25 pounds became a lot more common and affordable. That is a historical take. From a practical point of view any road bike with butted frame tubes is going to be a quality bike worth getting and riding.

CliffordK

It isn't as much age of the bike... how old of bikes are you looking at?

At least by the 1960's or 1970's, the technology was there for lighter weight bikes.

Double butted tubing. Aluminum rims. Double butted spokes. Etc.

However, the top of the line bikes were much more expensive than the bottom of the line bikes.

@repechage posted an old Raleigh catalog page. It reads much like a Motobecane page. Perhaps also like Schwinn.

The 1970's were considered the bike boom era. Also the OPEC Oil Crisis era. Companies churned out bikes by the millions.

Schwinn made the Schwinn Varsity. Electroforged and slammed together with plain steel.

They also made the Schwinn Paramount which was a hand built frame, double butted, lugged.

I remember going to the Schwinn stores. The expensive bikes on the wall were out of my price range, and the Varsity bikes were just too plain cheap.

Perhaps back into the 1940's and 1950's, and it would get harder to find lightweight frames.

The vintage steel market isn't bad. There are still quite a few high end vintage bikes. You'll pay a little more for them, but you can find them if you hunt. Some of the big brands like Colnago might command a good price, but there are many lesser known bikes that are just as good, or in some cases even better for a lot less.

AdventureManCO 

Even w/ it's giant chunko Brooks saddle, here's a sub-25lb bike




'Course, you probably don't want to know/do what it would take to get a similar one down to that level, and I wouldn't blame you! Those people are crazy


Not hard to get way, way under that IMO w/ any decent db Ishiwata, Reynolds, Vitus or Columbus tubed bike. A bit more of an ask w/ gaspipe, though.

iab

1933 Frejus - 24.7 pounds
Frejus001 by iabisdb, on Flickr

1942 Frejus - 21.5 pounds
Frejus 01 by iabisdb, on Flickr

1959 Cinelli - 25.0 pounds
Cinelli_Model_B 004 by iabisdb, on Flickr

777funk

Maybe part of my lack of light bikes is price. I search most of these bikes and I'm finding prices nearing $1k. That's part of the appeal of vintage to me (sometimes more affordable). But they also ride a little different (in a good way). I do have a few 90s and 00s Treks that I found at good prices that are decently light weight. The steel Trek 520 rides very nice at 25lbs. I liked it so much that I gave it to my wife. Maybe a second 520 or similar steel Trek is what I need. They seem to be more affordable (in the low hundreds) than some of the vintage light bikes.

steelbikeguy

I think you need to talk to 52telecaster about how to find bikes. He seems to dig up some well used, but very nice bikes at good prices. The latest, a resprayed Paramount, was in very nice condition and at a rather low price.

Steve in Peoria
(it's possible that the secret is to be in the middle of the midwest?)

iab

As nlerner alluded to, it is much cheaper to have a 30 pound bike and lose 5 pounds from your body. Being a weight weenie is a perception at best, delusional in reality.

MooneyBloke

That depends on your weight. At a certain point you're getting into eating disorders and malnutrition. For a lot of this season, I was sub 64Kg, and I'm just shy of 175cm tall. I don't have that many pounds to lose before I get into serious trouble, and medical intervention is far more expensive than a bike. That being said, my main bikes are fine at just under 9Kg.

777funk

Yes, for many, losing 5lbs (body weight) would be the easiest/best route. I have a pretty thin build. I guess maybe because of that, I notice the difference between my usual 35lb bike (which I like) and the 25lb Trek.

In reality, the quest is a little foolish, I will admit. Once I get up to speed, the weight difference in my 35lb bike vs the 25lb Trek 520 my wife rides is close to nothing. My bike has enough miles on it, that it's polished and rides very smooth, which is what I like about it.