I also have extensive experience with a UO-8 as my first real bike and PX-10's of which I have 3 and have had others in the past too.
I have to dissagree with your overall assesment of the UO-8. I can't comment on Atala's in the same price range as they were not sold in my area. Certainly Schwinn's of the same price range were of no better value - still had steel rims, weighed even more and although their derailleurs were steel instead of delrin, they shifted no better (I think worse) than the tried and true Simplex units. I still have my UO-8 that I bought new in 1972. That bike has traveled many 10's of thousands of miles on it, the Simplex derailleurs are much derided but many people will agree that the rear prestige shifted very well compared to other mid-range 10 speeds units. They did not always last long - that can't be argued. Steel rims - all bikes in that range had them - I can't think of any mid level 10 speed that came with aluminium clincher rims back then. Mafac brakes - sure not like a Campagnolo NR, but for that pricepoint were very good and I can't think of another brand used on bikes in that range that were significantly better in any way. Paint was tuff and durable. Agda seat was horrible, but again, what bike in that price point came with better?
My point is that the value comparison to others in it's same range seems invalid - I believe most of the different brands at that pricepoint had very similar offerings and that the UO-8 was not arguably better or worse that it's peers.
The argument that it's value compared to a PX-10 was disporportinate is a good one. The PX10 was an exceptional value. There really were very few other brands that could compete on the package/price it was offered at. If my memory is not to out of whack, I also recall it was THE lightest bike in that range and lighter then most of the best and more expensive bikes available then. Weight was one of the key selling points back then (remember all the drilling) and that also contributed mightily to it's sales success. All good reasons for why they were real good value and sold so many.
Eric Elman
Please don't tell me it's true. In 1972, I paid $120.00 for a Peugeot and another on this list paid less than $200.00 for a PX-10 at the tail end of 1971! My $120.00 bought me a virtually unusable piece of crap. When the Central Park junky stoled it from me, two weeks after I bought it, part of me was glad. Mafac racer brakes: ok they stopped. Heavy steel unbutted frame: heavy and not much of an improvement over my early sixties Dunelt. (Rudge like). Seat: bad bad bad. Rims: heavy steel and not an improvement over anything. Derailleurs (front and back): the worst that could possibly be made.... More horrible shifting is not possible if they were designed by a cadre of retarded preteens. Somedays it was faster to just get off the bike and help the chain on to the next cog with a stick. The plastic metal shiffters: when you used them the metal part separated and sometimes pinched your thumb skin. Now let's discuss the PX-10 for less than double the price. A totally respectable piece of machinary that brought joy to many and fueled the dreams of all us less fortunate who were caught by the ten speed bug during the 70's bike boom. What bothers me most is that other companies like Atala and even Schwinn were putting out out decent bikes for the same that a U0-8 cost. I only bought the Peugeot because it was my first 10 speed and I didn't know better. Two years later, I saw Nishikis and Gitanes and Motebecanes and of course Atalas that let people travel all over the east coast metropolis for the same $120.00 I spent cursing plastic derailleurs. An early 70's UO-8 was more a mistake than the wiretapping of the Watergate. Was any other bike as badly made and designed, for the same money? Garth