One thing that was different about the French bikes was that they used metric-gauge 531, with a smaller seattube OD (but a larger toptube OD) than the 531 used in British bikes or Paramounts. Not sure about relative wall thickness, but the French 531 bikes were quite light. Also contributing to light weight were components like Simplex plastic derailleurs and Lyotard 45D pedals. Superchampion rims were light also, with even the relatively heavy-duty Arc-en-Ciel at 330 gms not all that heavy.
I suspect it is the metric 531, the geometry, and the French stay and fork cross-sections that combined to account for most of he PX-10's feel. Can't explain it precisely, it just feels right.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX
Steve Leitgen <sleitgen@charter.net> wrote:
OK francophiles give!
I read again and again that the mighty PX-10 is such a great ride. So why? 531 was pretty much DB 531 throughout the market. (Unless Peugeot had it's own specially drawn tubing) That would mean that the magic comes from the frame geometry. So how about some info. You know, seat and heat angles, fork rake, chainstay length and BB drop.
I've got a Behringer custom Columbus criterium frame that will run circles around a Peugeot in a corner. Of course, after a century you spend the next three days at the dentist getting your fillings replaced.
Steve Leitgen La Crosse, WI
On Apr 25, 2006, at 10:26 AM, joebz@optonline.net wrote:
> Jerry said: "Something almost supernatural about the feel of a
> PX-10. "
>
> I wouldn't go that far but I think that Peugeot did a lot of things
> right. They were committed to a very light weight, reasonable
> geometry and good value. I have a 1951 PH-10, the forerunner of a
> PX-10 and it is a delight to ride. From at least this point on,
> Peugeots were lively and comfortable, certainly a great bike for
> long road races and centuries. Peugeots got it right early and
> didn't change much until pretty late in the game. As to the
> complaints of whippy, too much fork rake etc. I think these were
> just design choices within their philosophy and if you didn't like
> those things versus the other merits, then you didn't buy one.
>
> Most riders who emphatically like PX-10s tend to be lighter weight
> (or were!), so the Peugeot light weight philosophy is a better
> fit. I think they also appreciate a bike that feels as good at 100
> miles as at 10 in terms of comfort. French parts generally require
> tolerance as to durability so it helps if you don't mind keeping
> after the bike. I think that Peugeot had pretty good standards of
> quality control. Not that the standards were very high, just high
> enough and very consistent.
>
> I have said before that Peugeots were very easy to assemble and
> they were one bike where the dealers were sure to make money on the
> sale.
>
> My overall point is that following WWII and for about thirty years,
> Peugeot establish a benchmark for value and reasonable performance
> for a lightweight racing bike. It wasn't that hard to build a
> better bike for more money, but it sure was hard to build one for
> less. As to the overall ride, one false move and you had nothing
> on the Peugeot and many bikes came up short in one way or another.
>
> Joe Bender-Zanoni
> Great Notch, NJ