Re: [CR] Pre War Peugeot Racing Bikes and "Italianate" Racers?

(Example: Framebuilders:Bernard Carré)

In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilbFsVd0Y2PwB2EMPNvRUNQ8IjISZKau9cT2GgU@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3FF9F74E63A7484EB3B88F04329CBEDC02AFEAA09B@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:11:24 -0400
From: "Ken Freeman" <kenfreeman096@gmail.com>
To: "Mann, Dave" <damann@mitre.org>
Cc: "classicrendezvous@bikelist.org" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR] Pre War Peugeot Racing Bikes and "Italianate" Racers?


Let my correct my UO-8 numbers: the fork offset is 70 mm, not 57.5 mm, and the trail is 30 mm, not 42 mm. I have two of those frames, and one has the blades bent back a little.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Ken Freeman <kenfreeman096@gmail.com>wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I recall from a similar discussion on another forum that the transition in
> the PX-10 design was in the 1976/1977 time frame. But I have a 1968 or 1969
> PX-10, and while it is laid back, it's not as laid back as the Gitane you
> mention or my early '70s UO-8 (cheaper Peugeot at the start of the Bike
> Boom).
>
> Model, seat tube c-c, top tube, chainstay, wheelbase, seat tube angle, head
> tube angle, offset, trail, BB drop
> 1968/9 PX-10: 52, 54.5, 42, 100, 73, 73, 50, 50, 7.2
> 1970/4 UO-8: 55, 57, 45, 106, 72, 73, 57.5, 42, 7.1
> 1973 Super Course: 52.5, 56.5, 44.3, 105, 73.3, 72, 50. 54.3, 7.3
>
> Eyeballing the UO-8 and the 1936 picture, I'd guess the geometries are very
> similar, except the 1936 bike seems to have the head tube slightly laid back
> compared to my UO-8. Clearly from my measurements the 1968 bike (well, 30
> years newer!!) is much closer to what we'd see as a racer, than is the
> 1936.
>
> Your reference to the International note is interesting. After I read that
> many moons ago, I started looking for geometry similar to a late '60s
> Internat, and found the 1973 and earlier Super Course (also a Carlton bike)
> to be very similar, in terms of rake, angles, and chainstay. However, this
> couldn't be a true apples to apples comparison, since I couldn't measure an
> International.
>
> At the Ann Arbor Vintage Bike Show and Swap a few weeks ago, I saw a 1955
> East German Diamant racing bike - very similar to the 1936 Peug! If it had
> been $200 ...
>
> I definitely concur the 1963 geometry is tighter, but I wouldn't make any
> numerical guesses. It does look like my 1968, proportions/wise.
> Clearly any bike that can host a frame pump behind the seat tube has a few
> cm more chainstay than one that cannot!
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Mann, Dave <damann@mitre.org> wrote:
>
>> Short version of the question is this:
>>
>> Does anybody have access to a pre-war Peugeot racing bike
>> and could they document the frame geometry of it?
>>
>> http://www.peugeotshow.com/images/1936_2.jpg
>>
>>
>> The longer version of the question is this:
>>
>> I'm interested in understanding more about when the classic
>> road racing geometry began to emerge and separate itself
>> away from the longer wheelbased designs. Many 50 vintage
>> British bikes (Mercian, Raleigh) used 73 or 72 parallel
>> angles, longer stays in the 6.0cm range and longer stays.
>>
>> This longer, more relaxed geometry appears to have persisted
>> into the 70s being sold as a light tourer, amateur racer,
>> semi-pro racer or it would seem among production Gitane
>> Tour de Frances.
>>
>> In the write up on the Raleigh International, the author
>> (Ray Chong or Sheldon Brown?) states:
>>
>> "While the Professional was patterned after the popular Italianate style
>> popular in the early '70s, the International harkend back to an earlier ear.
>> The International frame was built for comfort, lightness and verastility,
>> while the Professional was built for stiffness and maneuverability. The
>> Internationals had very generous tire clearanbce (hence the need for the
>> long-reach Weinmann calipers) and relaxed angles."
>> See: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/retroraleighs/international.html
>>
>> The 1936 Peugeot's I posted a link to are interesting to me
>> in that they *appear* to both have the longer, more relaxed
>> geometry.
>>
>> By 1951, it appears that Peugeot was discriminating between
>> "sport", "course" (racing) and "course professional" (pro racing).
>> http://www.peugeotshow.com/images/cat1951R.jpg
>> Unclear what the geometries are here too.
>>
>> Again, in 1963, Peugeot makes the distinction between the
>> amateur racer and the professional racer and again, it would
>> be interesting to know if the professional was starting to
>> tighten up and steepen. That rear triangle looks shorter to
>> my eyes.
>> See: http://www.peugeotshow.com/images/1963_3.jpg
>>
>> In like manner, the Raleigh Professional looks to be a steeper
>> shorter layout by 1969.
>> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/retroraleighs/professional.html
>>
>>
>> The real question here is where did the short wheelbase
>> racing geometry start and when did it find it's way into
>> the mainstream in both British and French production bikes?
>>
>> NOTE: A Gitane collector submitted specs for the 70s vintage
>> TdFs that are definitely pretty stretched out: 72.5 degree
>> parallel, 5.5cm of rake and 45cm stays.
>>
>>
>> -Dave Mann, Boston, MA
>> -------------------------
>> THE BIKE GEOMETRY PROJECT
>> A community effort to document and compare bike geometries
>> http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/dirtbag-bikes/geometry-project.html<http://home.comcast.net/%7Epinnah/dirtbag-bikes/geometry-project.html>
>> -------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ken Freeman
> Ann Arbor, MI USA
>

--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA