How heavy is yours?

[porteous]

I wish I'd never started this now! Decided to check the weight of a cpl of similar bikes and ended up weighing them all! That got me wondering, since all my bikes are Raleigh products, from between 1949 and 1990, where they fit in as far as workable weight for a bicycle is concerned.

They worked out as follows:

1990 Raleigh Royal (531 tube)tourer 32 lb
1990 Raleigh Richmond (Mixte 531 tube) tourer 33 lb
1985 Raleigh Wisp (Mixte, 18-23 tube) tourer 34 lb
1980 (ish) Raleigh Esprit (18-23 tube) Road bike 29 lb
1949 Rudge Clubman 31 lb

They are all pleasant to ride (I have to rely on the women in the family for judgement in the Mixte frames) and do not seem particularly heavy, although the Clubman and the Esprit do seem particularly light (I prefer the clubman, which is a real delight to ride).

Opinions please. How important is weight (within reason). Does an extra 1 lb of bike matter as much as an extra 1lb of rider? How much of the experience is getting the bike geometry/settup right? How do these oldish bikes compare to modern offerings? Does it really matter as long as the enjoyment factor works??

 

[tyred]

1997 Townsend MTB - 35lb (with lights and rackand steel mudguards)
1977 Carlton SS - 23lb
197? Peugeot Carbolite - 33lb (with dynamo and lamps plus additional be seen at juntion lights, steel wheels, alloy mudguards)
1971 Raleigh Twenty - 35lb
198? Unbranded lady's roadster - I never weighed this one
1951 Rudge gents roadster - 42lb.

I find them all pleasant to ride in their different ways. I ride the Carlton and the Pug most and there is a noticeable weight difference but I don't notice it on the road too much and not enough to cause a problem. The single heaviest componet on all my bikes is the rider after all. I enjoy riding my old bikes in preference to more modern machines, partly because I prefer the look of a lugged frame, partly because I like to play around and build these things up to my spec without spending a fortune but mostly because on the poorly surfaced country roads where I live, old steel frames with raked forks mean I can ride without rattling my teeth out. Any time I have tried a modern bike, I could feel terrible vibrations through my hands and I don't like that so I will continue to enjoy my old steel.

 

[raindog]

Any chance of having the weights in kilos as well?

 

[just4fun]

team quest race bike with lights, race blades, water cage and speedo 9kg or 19.8lb

giant yukon disc with rear rack, twin bottle cages, stand, bar ends, bar bag, speedo, mud guards and lights 20kg 44lb (yes .....i need a tourer)

 

[porteous]

Response

Sorry Raindog, I'm over 55 and don't do kilos, metres, litres, ipods etc and still listen to a wireless. The conversion factor kg to lbs is 0.45359.

I absolutely agree with you Tyred, every time I try a modern bike I just don't feel quite right, and building up good 1950s bikes is still comparatively cheap!

From the replies so far it certainly doesn't seem that modern bikes are noticably lighter than older ones.

PS. I also think fire may just be a passing fad.

 

[MacB]

I did this and found some interesting results:-

35lbs or 16kg - Surly Crosscheck 60cm steel frame & forks, SRAM I-9 hub gear, sks guards, rack, brooks saddle, M+ 35mm tyres(almost 1kg/2.2lbs each)

33lbs or 15kgs - childs Saxon Boxter full suspension MTB with 24inch wheels

32lbs or 14.5kgs - 19 inch Raleigh Diamond back full sus MTB, belongs to eldest son, 26 inch wheels

29lbs or 13.2kgs - childs full sus MTB 20 inch wheels, unbelievably heavy for the size - will be grown out of and finished with by Spring

28lbs or 12.7kgs - 58cm Dawes steel frame, Surly Xcheck forks, Stumrey Archer 3 speed hub gear, M+ 35mm tyres, rack.

22lbs or 10kgs - Giant CRS Alliance fast hybrid, 9 speed triple, with 23mm tyres.

So the kids bikes are heavier than everything but my tanklike commuter. I could shave 7lbs off that very easily, thus making all the kids bikes heavier.

 

[accountantpete]

Mines a hefty 20lb - which is heavy in road bike terms. If I spent a grand or so I could get it down to around 18lbs I suppose with some carbon cranks,full carbon forks etc etc.

Riding wise a light framed bike coupled with light wheels is that bit more responsive when you pedal which I prefer - but it's just a matter of personal preference.

ps **** the metric system!

 

[hubgearfreak]

Opinions please. How important is weight (within reason). Does an extra 1 lb of bike matter as much as an extra 1lb of rider?

weight matters a great deal to the bicycle marketeers, and the gullible people that keep buying their new and improved products.

that all your bikes are 20+ years and 30+lbs, puts you firmly in the category of lost cause to the aforementioned marketeers. i'll bet every one has 36 spokes.

you and your type are good for the environment, but bad for the economy. you're either a deep green or an anarchist and should be taken outside and shot.

by the way, i also have an old raleigh (c.1953) and it's a delight to ride

 

[porteous]

36 spokes

Proper bikes have 40 at the back and 32 at the front. Aforesaid marketeers responsible for reducing strength at the back, where you need it, and increasing at the front, where you don't.

Bring back the Ordinary, beards and crinolines (although not for the same genders!).

 

[Sam Kennedy]

Apollo CX10 -> 15kg / 33lbs
Specialized Sirrus -> 11kg / 25lbs
Specialized Allez -> 9.something kg / 20lbs

 

[Speicher]

Porteous - I see you mentionned Mixte, I thought it was only me who called them that. We might be similar in age.

I have a Coventry Eagle Mixte, circa 1980. Perhaps the Worcestershire contingent should have a weigh-in, at a local Hostelry, it is thirsty work I believe.

 

[porteous]

Mixtes

I'll drink to that! I understand that the twin tube arrangement was designed by a lady called Mixte, which may or may not be true (See edit below). A nice design, the wife has had a 531 from new and I have rebuilt two, a Raleigh panache (10 speed) and a Misty (5 speed, and confusing name!) for the daughters since they work in London & Edinburgh and don't want their bikes nicked. (I work on the theory that older "odd" looking bikes with a few scruffy bits are not so attractive to the dirty little hooded monsters that thieve bikes, since their pin like brains only recognise modern bikes as worth stealing. (I hope!)

British Eagle, Peugeot and Falcon all did Mixte frames too. I do know that Raleigh was run by a woman when they brought them out. They last well and are nice to ride (I'm told!).

Ah. Wikipedea has:

"Mixte
One particular type of step-through frame is called a mixte. In a mixte frame, the top tube of the traditional diamond frame is replaced with a pair of smaller tubes running from the top of the head tube all the way back to the rear axle, connecting at the seat tube on the way. The normal seat stays and chain stays are retained. This provides the greater standover height of a step-through frame bicycle while avoiding some of the additional stresses the step-through frame bicycle places on the seat tube.
A direct appropriation of the French word meaning "mixed" or "unisex", "mixte" is pronounced "MEExt", although the usual North American bicycle industry pronunciation of this loan word is "MIX-ty". Both pronunciations are widely used."

So that nails that!

 

[Chrisc]

Batavus crescendo 21.8kg. Shed loads in lbs...

 

[porteous]

Is that a bike or a piano Chris??


ooh. Just had a squint, that looks seriously Dutch. I hope you live somewhere flat. Anyway, this correspondance has convinced me weight probably isn't important unless you are racing or live in the Celtic fringes. Once you get a bike like that moving in a flat place I bet it needs little input to keep going.

 

[hubgearfreak]

Proper bikes have 40 at the back and 32 at the front.

you're right, i knew after i'd typed it that i should have written 72