Shhhhhhh! You'll drive up the prices!
I've nothing to complain about in terms of the paint, decals, chrome and brazing on my '67 PX10. If anything, the added detail of two-tone paint, ornate lugs and the chroming makes the PX10 a special bike. Finding it in The Off Ramp's dumpster only adds to it's charm. It's not always a good thing when a bike's handling calls attention to itself, but my mid-'70's GC's cornering is so effortless and intuitive compared to anything else I've ever ridden that I have to give it extra points for amusement's sake. I believe it's head angle is in the neighborhood of 73.5 degrees, about a half-degree steeper than the PX10. I'm currently "restoring" a 1970 PX10 and can only hope that the paint and decals hold up to the rubbing compound half as well as my '67 did. That paint is as hard as metal, and the decals tough as nails. Years of heavy scuffing cleaned right off and left almost no trace. I can easily see the price of PX10's going up. Even with their French bb and dropouts, this has to be my favorite bike of all time. I would buy another.
David Snyder
Auburn, CA USA
>
\r?\n> This is an interesting conversation. Please allow me to put in a few words
\r?\n> regarding Masis and Peugeots and how they may differ and how they may be
\r?\n> the same. First I must say that I "grew up" with a PX-10 as my first
\r?\n> "good" bike back in 1971. As many know, I also gre up with Masis.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> As far as the ride goes, in my size the Masi and the Peugeot have equally
\r?\n> as awkward steering, the type I don't like at all. Too much rake and head
\r?\n> angle not correct for proper steering. I allow the Peugeot to ride that
\r?\n> way but I think Masi should have know better than to make small frames
\r?\n> that way.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> To be perfectly honest, from the frames I've seen in my life, a Masi with
\r?\n> nervex lugs is only SLIGHTLY more refined in workmanship than a Peugeot of
\r?\n> the early 70's; and if you see a 1967 PX-10 I'll bet many of you could not
\r?\n> tell the difference in the frames without paint on them, in terms of
\r?\n> workmanship. At most Masi may have cleaned up the lug edge, taking an
\r?\n> extra 15 minutes, that the people at Peugeot passed on; but they are not
\r?\n> poorly aligned nor are they overcooked. The PX-10 is a fine production
\r?\n> bike and I'd take one in a heartbeat over any Raleigh of the period and a
\r?\n> Schwinn Paramount. Sure, a few components get changed eventually, but the
\r?\n> frames are very good quality overall. Classic Masis are routinely poorely
\r?\n> mitered in critical areas (like the ST and DT junction inside the BB
\r?\n> shell) and still hold together fine, just like the thousands and thousands
\r?\n> of Puegeots out there (of which I have a 1971 and a '69 or so).
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Personally, I like the paint and graphics on the 70's PX-10 way more than
\r?\n> I like Masi of the period, although the early GC set is cool in some ways
\r?\n> there are elements of it's design that irk me, like the little rectangle
\r?\n> box on the DT decal with the small "Masi" in it. What's up with that
\r?\n> hanging out there?
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Furthermore, I fitted 650B wheels to my first (current) PX-10 about 12
\r?\n> years ago (Grant, a little late but not a bad idea for some things) which
\r?\n> makes the bike ride and handle MUCH better than with the original 700c
\r?\n> tubulars; and to an amazing degree! The BB dropped down a bit so use
\r?\n> shorter cranks if you can. I don't think the 650B wheel is going to save
\r?\n> us from the invading space aliens like Grant seems to think, but they will
\r?\n> make some bikes into very comfortable machines with good handeling that
\r?\n> are a blast to ride. Rode the bike up and then DOWN Palomar Mountain about
\r?\n> 10 years ago and it was really fun on the way down.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> My question is this. Why is the 650 "B" wheel the big busty tire and the
\r?\n> 650 "C" the smaller one? If these were bras this is all backwards, right?
\r?\n> How did this happen??
\r?\n>
\r?\n> My opinion from all of the bikes I see on a daily basis is that very few
\r?\n> of the highly sought after "classics" are much better built than the
\r?\n> better representatives of the production bikes of the period. Investment
\r?\n> lugs brought that even closer because it takes less time and less skill
\r?\n> and experience to make a sound frame with IC lugs. Therefore the 1 to 2
\r?\n> man hours needed to build a lugged steel frame of the period in a factory
\r?\n> is almost exactly the same thing as a custom builder could produce taking
\r?\n> the typical amount of time to build a "custom", as long as the lugs are
\r?\n> not "worked". No one will doubt that the Merckx or DeRosa, or Colnago
\r?\n> bikes built in an hour are not good bikes. They are much better than most
\r?\n> earlier versions of the same brands and are great bikes that ride great.
\r?\n> The differences in handmade bikes is something to be discussed at a later
\r?\n> time.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> In conclusion, there isn't anywhere near as much gap between the bikes in
\r?\n> question as many mught assume. Even the "finishing" on many early Italian
\r?\n> Masis isn't "that" good; although some are quite nice but nothing like the
\r?\n> standards that current "craftsman" frames exhibit. I have 3 Masis and 2
\r?\n> PX-10's and I like owning all of them. They are like childern, they are
\r?\n> all from the family of bikes but each one has it's own character and
\r?\n> personality. I guess you would have to say that bikes make great PETS!
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Brian Baylis
\r?\n> La Mesa, CA
\r?\n> Nevermind offering to trade your PX10's for my Masis. I would be
\r?\n> embassased to take advantage of you like that! ;-)