Figure that for mid-to-late 1930's state of the art for lightweight was in the 15 to 18 pound range. Few bikes made it that light, but some did.
I recently picked up a 1941 or so Narcisse - weighs a smidge over 18lbs - and we aren't talking fix gear here.
Note that it is the French who could get the weights down usually. By mid 30's everything was alloy including frames in some cases. Narrow tubular rims existed, and super light tubular tires were available. Most bikes until the present day were really rather heavy compared to what they could have been.
And of course, weight only matters for acceleration and climbing - it reality, weight really doesn't matter much at all - at least if you go fast its relatively unimportant. Now wind resistance...
Mike Kone in Boulder CO
> Having just passed some idle hours wondering about the weight of my bikes
\r?\n> and finally figuring out that I could weigh them by holding them whilst I
\r?\n> stood on the scales, I would be interested to know what really was
\r?\n> 'lightweight' for a racing bicycle in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> I was surprised - but probably shouldn't have been - that my most recent
\r?\n> bike, an OT Pinarello Vuelta from '98 wearing a mix of Campagnolo C-Record
\r?\n> and Chorus from the 80's and 90's was the heaviest at a little over 23
\r?\n> pounds - whereas a 1948 Holdsworth Cyclone Deluxe and a 1954 Bates,
\r?\n> admittedly both with fixed gear, came in at just under 20 pounds, even with
\r?\n> their full complement of period steel cranks, etc.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> So, what weights were racing cyclists trying, and managing, to get their
\r?\n> bikes down to - in the on-topic decades of the last century?
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Wyndham,
\r?\n> Girton, UK