Classic & Vintage - Weight of "Typical" Steel Racing Frame ?

Any idea how much a typical or standard 1980s old-school race frame would weigh ? Something like a 56 cm, full 531 tubes, Campy dropouts etc ??

I have such a beast with 1980s components (Campy, Modolo, Cinelli etc.., but don't want to strip it down just to weigh it. It's noticably heavier than my CAAD8, running part Campy, Kyserium wheels, and other un-interesting parts.

Why? What does it matter?

I agree it shouldn't matter, but if you really want the numbers, go to the weightweenie site, where there are tables of weights for all manner of bike stuff. See if you can look up a Raleigh Professional from maybe 1974 or a Colnago from around 1980. They'll be a good indication of what you can expect. Don't be surprised if your frame does not match what you find out there, and if it is around 2 pounds heavier than an aluminum Cannondale. Just google weightweenie, it'll pop up.

If it might make you unhappy, or make us unhappy if you start a thread crying about vintage bike weight :innocent:, don't go there. We already expect vintage steel, even the lightest of the day, to weigh more than aggressively light aluminum (no, we are not considering mid-30s constructeur machines here), but we don't care. Some modern steel can give modern "other" a run for their money! Otherwise, knock yourself out and have fun with bike geek numbers!:)

Why? What does it matter?

Just curious

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y18/CalOso/Bikes/DSC02725-1.jpg

My '86 Gazelle, with a modern 10-speed Campy group and 32 spoke Open Pros, weighs about 21.5 pounds. It could easily lose 3 pounds with a carbon fork and tubulars. But it's no beast. It wants to roll forever, is solid in a cross wind but nimble over crappy pavement. A bike for the Classics!

My non weight weenie, 1980's steel bikes weigh in just under 21 lbs, less if they are the TI component versions.

With two full water bottles, a multitool, a spare tubular, pump and Pit Stop, cell phone, snack and my fat @ss, it might be slightly more.:D

Bought a Raleigh Team USA racing on eBay last year (along with a few others, but the Raleigh was the only one I thought to weigh because it was the only one that didn't have a headset already installed.)
52 cm, 531C tubing, Campy dropouts, steel fork. I forget what the two came out to together -- 'cos really, it doesn't matter -- but I know it was possible to weigh at least the frame without fork on my wife's kitchen scale that maxes out at 2.2 kg. It's quite easy (with non-super-light parts of the era) to build a 19-20 lb bike in a frame that size, and that's with a leather Brooks saddle.

I recently purchased a digital scale to hang and weigh my bicycles with. I was surprised at the results and all of my bikes were weighed with pedals installed. What did I find?

Not very many vintage road bicycles come in under 20 pounds (I ride 54-56cm bikes). The top dogs in my collection weigh between 21 and 23 pounds. The mid level rides between 24 and 26 and the entry level Bike Shop bikes between 27 and 30 pounds. Department store offerings always come in over the 3o pound mark and I have weighed about fifty bikes so far.

As for frame set, I haven't taken the time to break the bikes down to check and will not do so unless I have a reason. Weight of a bicycle is dependent on both the frame type, make-up and size plus the components used. In closing, if you want a light old road bike, you must be prepared to sacrifice user friendliness and install tubulars at the very least. The question is, why are we so worried about this factor?

The lighter the bike the lighter the rider must be. I have let great bikes go simply because I am too big to ride them safely. By safely, I refer to damaging the frame set itself due to over loading of the bike.

For those of you who want to understand the weight issue a bit better, check out the engineering specifications of the different high end tube sets. You just might be surprised.

It matters!

I think the OP was asking about frame weight. A high-end Columbus SL or Reynolds 56cm (or smaller) bare frame and fork should weigh between 5.5 to a bit over 6 lbs. depending on the builder.

My 54cm late 70's Guerciotti with Columbus SL frame, Campy SR, Cinelli Bar/stem weighs about 24lbs. My newer Guerciotti Ares with medium carbon frame, Campy Chorus weigh in at about 16lbs.

Surprisingly, my older Guerciotti gets more attention from other cyclist.

My '83ish Gazelle weighs in at 22 lbs built up with Ultegra 9 speed and 36 spoke wheels. The weight of the frame listed in the Gazelle catalog is 2.7 kgs (5.95 lbs).

Most of them I've weighed are in the 6# range.

It matters!

I think the OP was asking about frame weight. A high-end Columbus SL or Reynolds 56cm (or smaller) bare frame and fork should weigh between 5.5 to a bit over 6 lbs. depending on the builder.

Why do you think it matters?

we're talking about road bikes here. It mattered when the frame was new, and some people are curious to know, we all have a little weight weenie in us or we'd be happy riding varsities.

we're talking about road bikes here. It mattered when the frame was new, and some people are curious to know, we all have a little weight weenie in us or we'd be happy riding varsities.

The man has a point. I tend to agree myself. If for no other reason than curiosity. My '82 Viner weighs in about 21 and some change pounds with pedals, cages, and a B17 saddle.

The lighter the bike the lighter the rider must be. I have let great bikes go simply because I am too big to ride them safely. By safely, I refer to damaging the frame set itself due to over loading of the bike.
Can you offer any pointers or places to look regarding how much weight older tubing styles and frame sizes can support?

Why do you think it matters?

A bicycle is to convert human power to forward motion for transportation, recreation, sport, etc. A good bicycle will capitalize on design and materials to make it as efficient as possible for its intended use. Power to weight ratio is everything, and the weight of the bike counts.

Why do you think it does not matter?

Back in the day (early 70s) 21 pounds was considered pretty light. Less than that, you were superhuman. I'd guess average race-type bikes of the day were 22-25 pounds, depending if clinchers or sewups, and what junk you added.

In those days, wheel weight was considered most important.

So far I've only had the opportunity to weigh one frame, a mid-60's Bottecchia built from Falck tubing. Not much is known about Falck tubing of the period including whether or not it's even butted but here are results for a 56cm frame:

Frame weight: 4 lb 12.4 oz (2165g)
Fork weight: 1 lb 11.1 oz (767g)

I would expect an 80's frame to be a bit less but there are many variables.

Why do you think it does not matter?

I never said that. I was asking (you guys, collectively) why you think it matters. Just because someone asks a question, do not assume they disagree with you.

I think the weight of the rider is more important than the weight of the bike. I will offer that much. Still, I'd like to know why weight is important.

I have ridden bicycles extensively, literally ridden them into the ground, that were of such poor quality that a Schwinn Varsity was truly a MAJOR step up from what I was riding. I do not like the Schwinn Varsity but I do respect them.

The average lugged, double butted steel framesets from the '80s were about 5.5 ~ 6 lbs. They usually built up into a 21 ~ 23 lb. complete bike.

A bicycle is to convert human power to forward motion for transportation, recreation, sport, etc. A good bicycle will capitalize on design and materials to make it as efficient as possible for its intended use. Power to weight ratio is everything, and the weight of the bike counts.

Why do you think it does not matter?

One reason is that at most riding speeds without steep hills, the dominant source of resistance to motion is air resistance. Weight has nothing to do with applying this amount of pedal power.

Weight does affect the resistance due to rolling resistance, but the relative value of this factor is usually considerably less than the air resistance.

Caveats: Not if you're going uphill or downhill, and not if you don't ride "fast enough," and not if you accelerate a lot on some specific route.

Plus over brevet distances, even small loss factors can make a measureable difference.

So it isn't really right to say it DOES NOT MATTER, because there are condition where it might be dominant. The question is, how significant are these brief events considered over a lengthy ride. It is correct to say it is not significant for most riding, at least in my town.

If you think it is very significant, what are you doing messing around with old steel bikes?

I just want to make a (very) minor technical point - when going down hill, weight is a "good thing". It gives you faster downhill accelleration and higher top speed while going down.

I'm still watching this thread to better understand what's the deal with light weight bicycles.

Back in the day (early 70s) 21 pounds was considered pretty light. Less than that, you were superhuman. I'd guess average race-type bikes of the day were 22-25 pounds, depending if clinchers or sewups, and what junk you added.

In those days, wheel weight was considered most important.

I agree...

An old rule of thumb was that one ounce of rotating weight was worth 9 ounces of static weight.


Greg

I can attest to curiosity being the factor. I love to know everything about my bike even if it's not ride affecting.

With that said my Peugeot PSV10 is around 19 lbs. I'm using clinchers, a brooks team pro, a mini pump attached to the frame, and without using any special weight saving components :)

My 1973 Raleigh Gran Sport, which was not even a top of the line model weighs in at just under 22 pounds with a (heavy) Lycette L'Avenir saddle and just a spec over 21 with a modern racing saddle... it's a 50 cm frame.

It's a 531 frame and fork and my guess on weight when I had it stripped down was about 6 pounds... I run Avocet folding tyres which are < 200 grams each, the 27 inch wheels are reasonably light, and the drive train is vintage Shimano 600 Arabesque with Dura Ace Centre pulls.

If I come across some 600 brakes I will swap those in and lose a little weight and have a first generation Cyclone rear d I am going to use that will also knock off quite a few grams but the important thing is that the bike will run more smoothly and have a greater gearing capacity.

I am obviously not a weight weenie.

I agree...

An old rule of thumb was that one ounce of rotating weight was worth 9 ounces of static weight.


Greg

Now this is starting to make some sense to me. Rotating mass can be perceived by the rider. You can feel it when you try to accellerate and when you turn. A light wheel has a more lively feel to it (springy?). It is also something we can all relate to as we all use the same size wheel. Where we start to differ and lose some clarity in the discussion is that a light rider (130 lb) can use a lighter spoke, rim and tire than a "grunt" like me (230 lb). If I tried those wheels I'd be flatting them, denting the rims and probably be breaking spokes. So even here, it is important to provide more information when quoting a weight.

There's another minor technical point I'd like to make. Saying, "My bike frame/weighs X pounds." does not really tell us very much. Compare the to this, "I have a road frame in 52 cm that was designed for minimum weight and weighs only 4 lb. It is not very stiff in the sprints but it is very light."

If I use a 60 cm frame size and I want similar ride characteristics, there is no way my frame is going to weigh 4 lb. If you quote only a weight, the smallest frame size will be lightest. In a given frame size, the softest frame will be lighter than a stiffer frame.

I have not made my point very well but I hope you get it. There is more to it than just weight. I think it is also about communication and making comparisons between different riders.

My 62cm '87 Paramount (Columbus SL/SP mix) frameset (frame and fork only; no headset) weighs 6.9 pounds. The frame is 5.1 pounds, and the fork is 1.8 pounds.

In comparison, my 61cm '07 Waterford (Reynolds 953) frame weighs 3.6 pounds, or a pound and a half less than the Paramount frame which is 20 years older.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7/k4drd/Bicycles/1987%20Paramount%20620E%20WK%2087077/CIMG2430smcropped.jpg

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7/k4drd/Bicycles/1987%20Paramount%20620E%20WK%2087077/CIMG2431smcropped.jpg

The Paramount as shown below (Dura-Ace 7400 7-speed group) weighs 24.1 pounds.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7/k4drd/Bicycles/1987%20Paramount%20620E%20WK%2087077/1987Paramountmed.jpg

Now this is starting to make some sense to me. Rotating mass can be perceived by the rider. You can feel it when you try to accellerate and when you turn. A light wheel has a more lively feel to it (springy?). It is also something we can all relate to as we all use the same size wheel. Where we start to differ and lose some clarity in the discussion is that a light rider (130 lb) can use a lighter spoke, rim and tire than a "grunt" like me (230 lb). If I tried those wheels I'd be flatting them, denting the rims and probably be breaking spokes. So even here, it is important to provide more information when quoting a weight.

There's another minor technical point I'd like to make. Saying, "My bike frame/weighs X pounds." does not really tell us very much. Compare the to this, "I have a road frame in 52 cm that was designed for minimum weight and weighs only 4 lb. It is not very stiff in the sprints but it is very light."

If I use a 60 cm frame size and I want similar ride characteristics, there is no way my frame is going to weigh 4 lb. If you quote only a weight, the smallest frame size will be lightest. In a given frame size, the softest frame will be lighter than a stiffer frame.

I have not made my point very well but I hope you get it. There is more to it than just weight. I think it is also about communication and making comparisons between different riders.

Quite true. And we know that the pros have been known to do things like ride a super light frame up a big climb and then have the team car pull up with the stiffer, heavier bike and switch bikes for the decent. And of course their wheels only have to last one stage at most. Less when you consider that team car following them around with spares. So many people get caught up in super light weight not thinking about the fact that the equipment is not intended to be used on a daily basis over a wide variety of conditions. Or by a heavy rider necessarily. I think modern Campagnolo gear has a weight limit of 80kg. or about 176lbs. Of course I'm living proof that it won't disintegrate out from under just because you weigh a little more than that. Or a lot more than that :o But as you point out the weight of the bike as a whole is dependant on it's intended use if properly designed.

And the wheels certainly make a huge perceived difference. I say perceived because somebody will show with some mathmatical formula claiming that isn't true but when I switched from light tubulars to heavier clinchers (add 420gr per wheel) it made a dramatic difference in the feel of the bike. Changed the character entirely.

One reason is that at most riding speeds without steep hills, the dominant source of resistance to motion is air resistance. Weight has nothing to do with applying this amount of pedal power.

Weight does affect the resistance due to rolling resistance, but the relative value of this factor is usually considerably less than the air resistance.

Caveats: Not if you're going uphill or downhill, and not if you don't ride "fast enough," and not if you accelerate a lot on some specific route.

Plus over brevet distances, even small loss factors can make a measureable difference.

So it isn't really right to say it DOES NOT MATTER, because there are condition where it might be dominant. The question is, how significant are these brief events considered over a lengthy ride. It is correct to say it is not significant for most riding, at least in my town.

If you think it is very significant, what are you doing messing around with old steel bikes?

Good point. For me it's not so much that it doesn't matter as that I don't really care. There is a difference. I am certainly not going to jump on that bandwagon of guys trying to say that the extra weight won't slow you down. Maybe when I lived back in New Orleans and the only hill was the occasional overpass that might have been true to a point but certainly not here in Colorado. It's just that I usually ride by myself or with other guys who don't ride the latest and greatest super light unobtanium either.

The club I ride with usually splits the Sunday ride into a "fitness" ride and a "social" ride. If there is a big group there will usually be enough people on the fitness ride of differing abilities that I can find some slightly slower folks to ride with. Maybe they're on heavier bikes too or maybe they are riding modern bikes but just aren't as strong a rider. It's all good. If the group is smaller they'll usually be like six hammerheads on carbon bikes. In that case I just go with the social group.

One thing I do find amusing though is those folks that prove that for given hill and a given weight difference you're only going to be 30 seconds slower and use that as proof that it doesn't matter. 30 seconds doesn't sound like much but when your riding buddies are waiting at the top of the hill sipping on their water bottles and relaxing as you struggle to the top it can seem like an eternity. And you gotta love when finally make it to the top, completely out of breath after they been resting and they're like, "Ok, Kommisar's here, let's roll" and off you go still in oxygen deprevation. Yeah, doesn't matter at all. :twitchy: ;)

My 62cm '87 Paramount (Columbus SL/SP mix) frameset (frame and fork only; no headset) weighs 6.9 pounds. The frame is 5.1 pounds, and the fork is 1.8 pounds.

In comparison, my 61cm '07 Waterford (Reynolds 953) frame weighs 3.6 pounds, or a pound and a half less than the Paramount frame which is 20 years older.

The Paramount as shown below (Dura-Ace 7400 7-speed group) weighs 24.1 pounds.


That's interesting Scooper. It's a half pound heavier than my Bottecchia frame/fork. Even given the size difference (56 vs 62) I would not have expected that. Maybe that old Falck tubing wasn't such bad stuff.

That's interesting Scooper. It's a half pound heavier than my Bottecchia frame/fork. Even given the size difference (56 vs 62) I would not have expected that. Maybe that old Falck tubing wasn't such bad stuff.
I'm not too surprised. Last year, when bigbossman built up BlankCrows' 61cm 531 chrome plated early seventies Paramount, I recall the frameset was a little over 7 pounds.

I think the biggest difference in weight between 80s bikes and newer steel bikes like my 953 Waterford is in the components. The Waterford frameset is only 1.5 pounds lighter than the similar size '87 Paramount, but the overall weight of Waterford (10-speed Campy carbon Record group) is nearly five pounds lighter than the Paramount.

I can attest to curiosity being the factor. I love to know everything about my bike even if it's not ride affecting.

With that said my Peugeot PSV10 is around 19 lbs. I'm using clinchers, a brooks team pro, a mini pump attached to the frame, and without using any special weight saving components :)

It's hard to believe that your PSV10 weighs 2 1/2 pounds less than a PX10 with a 531 frame, silk tubulars and a lightweight plastic saddle, as my '74 was originally equipped. It now weighs 24 with clinchers a Team Pro and a triple crank and it's a smaller frame than yours. Did you forget to zero your scale?

It's hard to believe that your PSV10 weighs 2 1/2 pounds less than a PX10 with a 531 frame, silk tubulars and a lightweight plastic saddle, as my '74 was originally equipped. It now weighs 24 with clinchers a Team Pro and a triple crank and it's a smaller frame than yours. Did you forget to zero your scale?

Technically, I could be totally off as I'm using a bathroom scale (all I have), but I weighed myself, then weighed myself holding the bike. Comes out to ~19.5ish lbs difference.

However, from what I've read the Super Vitus 980 was lighter than 531 no? Also using a double crank, and wheelset is Mavic Open 4CD (no idea if these are light or heavy). I believe Kurt used to have a PSV10 and got it to somewhere around 18 lbs.

57cm frame with 531 through out minus the fork = 4.6 lbs.

Good point. For me it's not so much that it doesn't matter as that I don't really care. There is a difference. I am certainly not going to jump on that bandwagon of guys trying to say that the extra weight won't slow you down. Maybe when I lived back in New Orleans and the only hill was the occasional overpass that might have been true to a point but certainly not here in Colorado. It's just that I usually ride by myself or with other guys who don't ride the latest and greatest super light unobtanium either.

The club I ride with usually splits the Sunday ride into a "fitness" ride and a "social" ride. If there is a big group there will usually be enough people on the fitness ride of differing abilities that I can find some slightly slower folks to ride with. Maybe they're on heavier bikes too or maybe they are riding modern bikes but just aren't as strong a rider. It's all good. If the group is smaller they'll usually be like six hammerheads on carbon bikes. In that case I just go with the social group.

One thing I do find amusing though is those folks that prove that for given hill and a given weight difference you're only going to be 30 seconds slower and use that as proof that it doesn't matter. 30 seconds doesn't sound like much but when your riding buddies are waiting at the top of the hill sipping on their water bottles and relaxing as you struggle to the top it can seem like an eternity. And you gotta love when finally make it to the top, completely out of breath after they been resting and they're like, "Ok, Kommisar's here, let's roll" and off you go still in oxygen deprevation. Yeah, doesn't matter at all. :twitchy: ;)

Back in the day a bike's weight was a sign of how good the frame was. I like a bike to feel springy, lively, responsive, and smooth. Usually those sorts of qualities came in a 20-23 pound double-butted bike with alloy components and tubulars. The metric for weight has survived, but witness aluminum and carbon, not necessarily the subjective stuff. Now magazine writers are rediscovering it, and acting like steel is new technology!

I had a mid-60s Italian-made bike labelled Rossignoli, indicating it and probably the frame were made by Cicli Rossignoli of Milan (wanted a PX-10 but Turin was out of them). It had pointed lugs, Campy 1010L ends and dropouts, old Record, a racing cottered crank by FB with a Magistroni BB, Weinmann side-pulls, Campy Record hubs, Nisi rims, and otherwise decent light parts. It had no frame material sticker or other indication, and it weighed 27 # (ancient memory here!) with all those heavy but then-state-of-the-art parts. My rosy recollections are of a great ride, less twitchy than anything modern I have, very well-balanced, and smooth over Chicago bumps and divots. Low weight is NOT everything, but it's sometimes a sign that you're gonna get what you want.

My new digital bike scale has taught me that all of my bikes weigh more than I thought and that components used can make a big difference. My PA10 with a Carbolite 103 frame and light tubular wheels weighs less than my 531 PX10 with 1" clinchers.

There's no way I could get my PX10 under 20 pounds and it was one of the lightest production bikes you could buy at the time. I'll believe claims of 19 and 20 pound PSV10's when I see one hanging from my scale.

My new digital bike scale has taught me that all of my bikes weigh more than I thought and that components used can make a big difference. My PA10 with a Carbolite 103 frame and light tubular wheels weighs less than my 531 PX10 with 1" clinchers.

There's no way I could get my PX10 under 20 pounds and it was one of the lightest production bikes you could buy at the time. I'll believe claims of 19 and 20 pound PSV10's when I see one hanging from my scale.

Fair enough, I don't have a digital scale and don't plan on getting one so the little ol' bathroom scale will have to do. I'm more than curious now about the true weight of my bike.

Ready to ride:
My '89 RB-1, mostly stock, 23#.
'85 Panasonic Team with 10 spd alloy Chorus and 28mm Paselas, 23#.

Digital fish scale. YMMV.

KS

Fair enough, I don't have a digital scale and don't plan on getting one so the little ol' bathroom scale will have to do. I'm more than curious now about the true weight of my bike.

You can get a Hong Kong digital fish scale on ebay for like seven bucks and change shipped.

I think when accurately weighed you'll find your bike is at least 22 lbs. There's just no way a period production bike with a Brooks saddle and clinchers is breaking 20 lbs.

For reference, my '77 55cm Bianchi Specialissima weighs and honest 19.5 lbs. But not only is it a light frame/fork at 5.5 lbs, but it also has ti pedal axles, ti BB axle, ti der bolts, alloy freewheel, TTT SL saddle, TTT SL bars, alloy headset, and sub 290gram Nisi tubular rims. Honestly those are the kind of parts you need to drag one under 20 lbs. Not that I recommend using parts like that for a daily rider. But this was all original equipment for this model.

You can get a Hong Kong digital fish scale on ebay for like seven bucks and change shipped.

I think when accurately weighed you'll find your bike is at least 22 lbs. There's just no way a period production bike with a Brooks saddle and clinchers is breaking 20 lbs.

For reference, my '77 55cm Bianchi Specialissima weighs and honest 19.5 lbs. But not only is it a light frame/fork at 5.5 lbs, but it also has ti pedal axles, ti BB axle, ti der bolts, alloy freewheel, TTT SL saddle, TTT SL bars, alloy headset, and sub 290gram Nisi tubular rims. Honestly those are the kind of parts you need to drag one under 20 lbs. Not that I recommend using parts like that for a daily rider. But this was all original equipment for this model.

Thanks for the tip! I think $7 is worth it to satisfy my curiosity about weight. I don't even wanna save weight with this bike... It's light enough as it is and I'm happy with it.

With that said, I'm sure you guys are right. Not that it's a scientific way of doing it... but I went to the gym today and as I was running through my usual routine I thought about the bike and just grabbed a 20 lb weight. Tried to remember how it felt and later on lifted my bike. Like I said, not accurate at all, but it's def not sub 20 lbs.

Well, this thread has been interesting. I would ask the same question, but I wouldn't expect much weight to make much difference. I just want to know for the sake of knowing.

scooper, I'm glad to know your Paramount weighs so much. I just got a Surly Cross-Check, and the frame and fork weigh about 7.5 pounds! Wow. And it doesn't even have lugs. I wonder why it's so heavy. Maybe they make it heavy for the sake of reliability and durability. Also, heavy tubes cost less than light tubes. I'm not complaining, though. I put some very light wheels and tires on it, so it feels deliciously light. It's also the lightest bike I've ever owned, which is to say I don't have any truly light bikes. I'm a collector, but I'm a cheapskate, too, and I think all of my bikes weigh more than 25 pounds!

65er, I'd love to see your Gran Sport. I had one many years ago. I put tubulars on it when I was a teenager, and it rode well, though the frame geometry was fairly sleepy.

I think I'll buy a fish scale. The scale I used is a postal scale, which is extremely cumbersome for weighing bikes!

I'm not too surprised. Last year, when bigbossman built up BlankCrows' 61cm 531 chrome plated early seventies Paramount, I recall the frameset was a little over 7 pounds.

We might have weighed it after the bottom bracket was installed. I don't remember.