Classic & Vintage - Motobecane Grand Jubilee

Motobecane Grand Jubilee on ebay - only $79.99!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7221614742&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

perfect for you Motobecane lovers in the range of 6'3. ....if I wasn't 5'11 I'd be on that like a bum on a raw steak

Prague, that bike's listed as a 59cm, but from the pictures it looks more like a 57 or 58: the seller probably measured center to top. I'm 6' exactly and I've been comfortably riding a 60 cm PX-10 for many years. I'll bet that bike would fit you.

But is it really a Grand Jubile? The head badge is WAY different than the one on my early-70's GJ, and you can't see the other decals in the photos. As all the components you can see in the pictures look rusty, you'll want to be sure of the frame.

I got other photos from him at request and it did in deed say "Grand Jubilee". Apparently, I read in another thread here, that the square badge meant that it was early 70's.

Hmm...

Btw
Prague, that bike's listed as a 59cm, but from the pictures it looks more like a 57 or 58: the seller probably measured center to top. I'm 6' exactly and I've been comfortably riding a 60 cm PX-10 for many years. I'll bet that bike would fit you.

But is it really a Grand Jubile? The head badge is WAY different than the one on my early-70's GJ, and you can't see the other decals in the photos. As all the components you can see in the pictures look rusty, you'll want to be sure of the frame.It does look like a 58 cm, but the proper measurement for a moto is c-t, so that wouldn't account for the 59 cm measurement. More likely a measuring error.

The head badge will be different from your early 70s GJ, because this bike was built sometime after 1977. If you can't be sure from the photos, I'd ask for some photgraphic evidence that t's a GJ.

BTW, you're wrong about the size. A 58 cm Moto is WAY too small a frame for a 6'3" rider. I'm 5'8" and ride a 58 cm Moto, and it IS a perfect fit, because I was fitted to it when I bought it new. I've got a 32.5 inch cycling inseam; someone with a siginficantly longer inseam won't fit on this bike. Go by your cycling inseam, and subtract 9 inches; that will tell you if the bike fits or not.

I got other photos from him at request and it did in deed say "Grand Jubilee". Apparently, I read in another thread here, that the square badge meant that it was early 70's.

Hmm...That square badge is late 70s early 80s as far as I know.

Looks like a beach bike to me. Rusty.

Blue Order, the original poster (pragueinspring) says he's 5' 11'', not 6' 3". I know several guys about my size who ride frames a little smaller than mine: they just use more seat post and longer stems. The stem on my Peugeot is longer than stock, and I feel like it helps with stability in the rough stuff: more mechanical advantage to offset the rake (or trail, as builders insist on calling it) in those old French forks.

Blue Order, the original poster (pragueinspring) says he's 5' 11'', not 6' 3". I know several guys about my size who ride frames a little smaller than mine: they just use more seat post and longer stems. The stem on my Peugeot is longer than stock, and I feel like it helps with stability in the rough stuff: more mechanical advantage to offset the rake (or trail, as builders insist on calling it) in those old French forks.I know. He's saying the bike is too big for him, and will fit someone up to 6'3", and that is wrong. It will fit someone who has a 32" inseam. I know, because I ride that size, and I was fit to that size when my vintage bike was shiny and new on the showroom floor. Read the Breaking Away (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=174653) thread for a good discussion of proper fit of vintage bikes. The basic idea is that people are riding frames that are way too small these days. If the guys you know need a lot of seatpost, it's because their frames are too small for them.

I don't know what inseam the OP has got, but if he subtracts 9" from his cycling inseam (stand against a wall in your bare or stockinged feet, place a square or other object snug against your crotch where the saddle would go, and measure from the top of the object to the floor-- that's your cycling inseam), that will give him the correct size vintage frame.

I know. He's saying the bike is too big for him, and will fit someone up to 6'3", and that is wrong. It will fit someone who has a 32" inseam. I know, because I ride that size, and I was fit to that size when my vintage bike was shiny and new on the showroom floor. Read the Breaking Away (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=174653) thread for a good discussion of proper fit of vintage bikes. The basic idea is that people are riding frames that are way too small these days. If the guys you know need a lot of seatpost, it's because their frames are too small for them.

I don't know what inseam the OP has got, but if he subtracts 9" from his cycling inseam (stand against a wall in your bare or stockinged feet, place a square or other object snug against your crotch where the saddle would go, and measure from the top of the object to the floor-- that's your cycling inseam), that will give him the correct size vintage frame.

Ah, sorry. Thought the "you're wrong" was meant for me. And I agree about proper fit (with the caveat that top tube length is at least as important as standover height, and not all builders used proportional sizing for all models), but not everyone lucks into their dream vintage frame in exactly the right size. My 60cm PX-10 is a perfect fit, but I ended up buying a 59cm Moto Team Champion to replace it. I know it's a little small (what's a centimeter, between friends?) but it was such a good deal I couldn't resist. I'll compensate with components and if I grow a hunchback, so be it: at least I've got a pimpin' ride.

Don't know about the sizing issues, but, based on the graphics and the headbadge, I'd bet this bike is a 1982 model. The badge couldn't have been around earlier than 1978, and I'm not convinced it was even used that early. But the badge, the lettering on the model name, and the lugs around the head tube all match the 1982 bikes I've seen.

As to whether it's a Grand Jubilee, my vote is yes. The model name lettering looks right. The Campy geartrain is correct, as far as I can see, and the Weinmann brakes are, too. Moto mixed French components with Campy on several of their mid-range offerings. A lower end bike of this model year would almost certainly have had suicide brake levers.