Ok so I have this mid 80's Specialized Sirrus and just because I am that bored I decided to whip out the scale. Two good things happened. First, me fully dressed weighed in 3 or 4 pounds less than I thought. Yay! Second, and of more interest to the forum, the bike weighed in at 23.2 pounds. Is that a good weight for a road bike, or for a Sirrus? Is it heavy or light or about where its expected to be?

That's pretty good for a vintage bike. Typically lightweight vintage road bikes are in the 22-24lb range. Getting under 22lbs usually requires especially light wheels and a lack of any heavy parts.

light or heavy Compared to what though?

a modern CF road bike? - Heavy
a modern Wal-Mart bike? - Lighter
for a similar steel bike? I'd say thats pretty light, but the guy with a Columbus SL frame and Brooks saddle with Ti Rails might disagree.

I'm not allowed to be a weight weenie until I drop 20 pounds though.

23 pounds is pretty much average for a mid level mid 80's steel bike. Shed a couple of pounds and you will be in typical "racing" territory (despite most beliefs, most racers weren't weenies when it comes to the weight of their bikes as 21 to 22 pounds seemed to have been the sweet spot for them. 20 and below pounds for steel bikes at that time will be weenie category. anything over 24 pounds was considered heavy by most back then.
Anyway, a pound here and there won't be noticable anyway, so you're in pretty good shape at 23.
JMOs

Chombi

+1 Pretty much average for a mid level or better 1980s racing bike.

Cool, thanks for the replies

Not bad! 22.17 lbs

Those Brooks saddles even with TI Rails are twice as heavy as a more modern looking race saddle. The Brooks will be around 400g while a modern race will hit in the 190-250g range.

Congratulations, nice surprise on your own weight - and that bike's no heavyweight either!

How did you weigh the bike? I do this by weighing myself, then I pick up the bike over one shoulder and weigh myself again. Subtract the first figure from the second and the difference must be the bike's weight. Is this an accurate method?

Provided a bike is under about 26lbs, I think the rider's body weight is more important. I ride better when my weight is lower on a heavier bike than when I weigh more on a lighter machine. You've got the best of both worlds! (YMMV)

I've been trying to figure out whether I would ever consider going with a Brooks saddle on my bikes, but them weighing in like a "bag of spanners", have always got in the way of doing so. I don't think we can neccessarily blame just Brooks for the heavy saddles, suspension type saddles just usually weigh so much because of their basic design architecture and materil requirements. "modern" saddle makers tried to solve this by coming up with saddles like the Selle Italia "Storika" or just provide similar aesthetics with saddles like the Concor Regal and Selle Italia Daytona with their similar to Brook"s big rivets that are mounted on their saddle for only cosmetic purposes.

Chombi

Long have I listened to the how much it weighs stories. With that in mind, I started weighing my bicycles myself and compiled the information on MY "TEN SPEEDS. Most vintage road bikes of any worth fall into the 22 - 25 pound range.

That offered, I recently picked up an early eighties ALAN Super Record and it weighs in at less than twenty pounds, when fitted with the original tubulars. More on that later.

ALAN_Build_1_Brid .jpg

I love Brooks saddles but they are definitely heavy. On my RB-2 I am trying to outfit it with lighter stuff and I decided to try out the WTB Rocket. It's slightly modern but still looks pretty great. I got the one with TI rails and it weighs in at 210g. THat is like 300g less than my B-17. I just prefer the looks of a classic Brooks over most modern saddles.

My Brooks Pro is the most comfortable compared to the Flite, even at twice the weight, thats what I ride.

Great!, Can't wait to check out your ALAN, Randy,
I suspect it's aluminum? (didn't ALAN also make a carbon version?).
Thought of looking for an ALAN for myself this year, but the Italian threading kinda threw me off as I was already putting together a group with BSA threading. Too bad, cause I really like the looks of the ALAN bikes. Maybe if I force myself to find and buy an italian threaded BB one day, it could give me an excuse to look for the frame......

Chombi

I'd like to see someone chime in on the relevance of weight when combined with the rider, a theory I've thought made pretty good sense.

For example, I'm 205lbs riding a 25lb bike, so I'm pushing 230lbs? If I rode my 22lb bike I'm pushing only 3lbs less, equal to a reduction of only 1.3% in total weight? I'm not sure I can feel 1.3%, is this theory, which most of you I'm sure have heard, just BS? In the long run I guess we all choose lighter when we have the choice.

That is another reason for choosing the Brooks. A friend of mine says "the heaviest part of my bike is on the saddle". I started this year at 208 on my 22lb bike and now I am down to 192. More than the difference of the Brooks vs the Flite.

I weigh 135 right now...2.3 % difference.

Gitane TDF w/Reynolds 531 and new seat: 22.5 lbs heaviest part seems to be the cassette, the rear holds a lot of weight for sure.

Binachi with full set of new component and Ishiwata Magny (Double Butted???) 20.5 - 21.5...I'm going to get it weighed by the LBS when I get my cables clamped.

I have 4 vintage bikes - large (60cm approx) with Brooks saddles. They are carbon, steel, and titanium. The weights are 21 - 23 lbs. I consider that light. I have two quality modern (2005, 2009) steel rides, one touring and one cyclocross. They weigh about 26 - 27 lbs.

I loved your site. The weight page was quite informative. I went through a similar process with weighing my bikes on a bathroom scale but finally broke down and got a digital fishing scale. You are certainly correct about the difference the bike's setup makes. When I first setup my '73 Bottecchia with tubulars, NR rear derailleur, and an Unicanitor saddle it weighed in on the bathroom scale at 22 1/2-lbs. It was also over-geared for Colorado, moderately uncomfortable to sit on, and prone to flatting darn near every ride. I reconfigured it with period alloy clincher rims and Panaracer Pasela TGs, a Campagnolo Rally long cage derailleur with a monster 14-34 freewheel, and a Brooks Team Pro and the weight jumped up to 24lb 12oz (with the digital scale). But now it is quite comfortable to ride, is geared to handle any hill, and never flats. The complete clincher wheel/tire setup was 420g heavier each or almost two pounds and yes, it was quite noticeable compared to the tubis.

To offset the extra weight on my ride to the summit of Pikes Peak in a couple of weeks I've lost 22-lbs off me

Stopped by Pecco's last night. My new Ti framed bike with carbon forks = 18.3lbs. on a digital fish scale. I'll see if they can weigh my Bianchi tonight if I leave work later and wait for the traffic to die down.

I believe the rider's weight is more important that the bikes. I enjoy having a fairly light bike, and I can tell the difference riding it versus a heavier bike. But by the rider loosing weight, the same effect is gained, and it's cheaper to drop some pounds from you than your bike...

merganser, Just for the fun of it I just measured the weight of the two road bikes I usually ride. The two are a CAAD3 and a 2.8 so I think it's a fair comparison... I did screw up and measure the 2.8 with the mini pump still attached.

There is a 3.15 lb. difference between the two using a precision machinist's scale... no real world difference that I can discern in riding.

Brad

PS I was distracted before I could get to your actual question. Most of my bikes have weighed in the 22-24 lb. range, the CAAD3 at 19.1 lbs. is an exception. I think that range, give or take a lb. is about average for any build using at least a mid level group and wheelset.

SJX426, How about without the pump?

I don't know why we can feel a 5% difference in weight on the bike, but we can. So I think investing in lightening it can be worth it, even if your body isn't at its ideal weight. Of course, I don't invest much in it, because I'm a cheapskate. 23 pounds? I'm pretty sure I have nothing near that weight except for maybe my fixie. My two lightest road bikes, McLean and Surly Cross Check, are probably well over 23 pounds. 23 pounds sounds super light compared with what I'm used to. And it's not that I ride large bikes, either. My bikes range from 54 to 58 cm seat tubes.

Can't weight it right now without the pump as I broke a spoke and in need of a rear tire. The pump is a Silca and weight 6 oz or about 170 grams. The heaviest part is the Campy head. My other Silca with the Silca oval head is 5 oz but is too long for this frame. It was on my Motobecane with a 24" frame The Nago is a 58.

What's your theory, exactly? Heavier riders should have heavier bikes? Heavier riders should have lighter bikes? Heavier riders are "OK" (??) with heavier bikes because it's somehow proportional? or what?

In climbing hills, body weight and bike weight have the same effect on go-power. In accelerating and braking, lighter wheels have more effect than body weight or bike weight. This much is not theory or blue-sky, it's physics. The effect of weight on speed is more debatable: flat road versus mixed terrain, acceleration versus steady/level, et cetera. Not gonna tackle that one this time.

There's a lot on these topics in the BF Archives.