vintagerando

I have a few touring bikes, some vintage and one newer. I love them all for one reason or another. The problem is they are so darn heavy. I understand this could be a matter of the components on the bikes. What I want to do is seek out a vintage "racing" frame/fork, with high quality steel (ie lighter, Reynolds, Columbus, etc.) that will accommodate a fatter tire. Maybe up to 38mm. I watch CL and I run an ad in the local paper: "buying old bikes". What make/model should I be watching for that will allow me to run those fatter tires? Thanks.

mstateglfr 

Vintage frame with quality light tubing.
Race geometry.
38mm tire clearance.


I got nothin, but am definitely curious.


There are certainly new frames which are steel with some classic looks that could handle tires that wide, for what it's worth.

mountaindave 

Even European imports from the bike-boom era with wide clearances (compared to today's standards), it's hard to find frames that will fit more than 35mm tires. I have two early 70's Gitane TdFs and they are both topped out at 35mm. However, my wife found hers to be very cushy. (Both are Reynolds 531). Those bikes will likely be fitted with 120mm OLD and limited to 5s freewheels. Think Peogeots, Motobecanes, Gitanes. They won't be super light, however. How light are you thinking?

Another option would be to find a nice 80's or early 90's racing bike and do a 650b conversion (There's a thread around here somewhere). I got 38's on my '88 Specialied Sirrus and she rides like a dream now. You can fit a 130mm hub into their 126 OLD dropouts to get all the way up to modern 10s cassettes. But you have to want to do it. ~ $150-$200 for a very basic conversion depending on what you have laying around and the quality of components. 650b... just sayin...

CliffordK

I'd look for a mid to high end 27" bike, and try a 27" ==> 700c conversion.

I know my old Colnago had 700c, or just about all of the "racing" bikes that originally came with sewups.

But, at least Motobecane used 27" on most of their bikes. I'm not sure about other brands. Perhaps some of the older Treks???

Or, as mountaindave suggested, perhaps a 700c ==> 650b conversion. Many of the older frames had adequate width for larger tires, just not enough clearance.

verktyg 

How heavy is heavy? Also, what size frame are you looking for?

A classic lugged steel framed touring bike with a triple, large FW, leather saddle and clinchers will normally weigh between 24 and 26 Lbs.

Many frames designed for touring used heavier wall thickness tubing to carry the extra weight of racks and paniers.

I put this 1980 Motobecane Grand Jubile together as a touring bike. It weighs ~26 Lbs.

https://www.flickr.com/photos_user.g...age=&details=1

Earlier Moto Grand Jubile frames were designed as club riders with shorter wheelbases. This one has the dame dimensions as the Moto Grand Touring model.

It was built for 27" wheels. I have 700c wheels on it and it should be able handle at least 700x35c tires.

The frame is 58cm which is a little to big for me so I'm going to be getting rid of it.

In 1975 I started building a touring frame for myself. I didn't get around to finishing the frame until 1992. It weighs about 24.5 Lbs. with heavy 700x32c tires (I built it for sewups).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/282672...7625001925668/

verktyg

Chas.

nlerner

One route is to go 650B conversion. I did that with a Lemond Buenos Aires made from Reynolds 853 steel and am running 650B x 38mm tires.

bikemig 

A classic sports touring bike has a lot of what you want. My 1984 Trek 610 can take 700 x 32c tires easily and I could certainly run fatter tires.

bikemig 

That motobecane is one good looking bike.

icepick_trotsky 

A high end racing bike from the late '80s in SLX or Tange 1 will run about 22 to 23 lbs complete. If you update the components, you could get that down a couple pounds further. Did you have a weight goal in mind?

As others have said, your best bet for really large tire clearance is to do a conversion. If the bike originally came with 27" tires, 700c should give you lots of clearance. Sport touring models as opposed to racing ones will often give more clearance since a lot of them were designed to run fenders.

bwilli88 

I have a Gazelle built Raleigh Grand Prix from 74 that weighs 27 lbs and has a 27" to 700c conversion. I am running 37mm tires and could go to 42mm's if I needed.

lostarchitect 

Yes, I agree. My '83 Trek 600 (no, it's more of a "sport" bike than "racing", but whatever) originally came with 27" x 1'-1/4" tires, I was able to get 700c x 35mm on it.

John E

I was able to run 700Cx28mm (true size, not callout size, which could be as high as 700Cx32) on my 1980 PKN-10. My 1970 UO-8 has easily handled 27 x 1-3/8" knobbies, which also worked with my 1959 Capo.

Grand Bois

Those 35mm tires must be very close to the fork crowns. TdF's have such short forks that the MAFAC brake pads don't line up properly, even with the slotted Competition front brake pushed all the way up.

Grand Bois

I squeezed 700 X 38's on this Carlton. Probably not a good idea.

mountaindave 

Bingo -as mentioned above, it's typically about clearance at the top of the fork or brake bridge that limits tire size, not width. I like to think that my wife has a built in tire saver on the front fork.

Gorgeous Carlton BTW.

Lascauxcaveman 

My 1972 Super Course would fit 700c x 38. And the original Weinmann750/Vainquer999 brakes make the drop from 27" down to 700c easy-peasy (and are decent brakes to boot.) You could keep the bike all original except the wheel set. Expect to build it up at 24-26 lbs depending on wheels and components.

38 is way too much tire for me, though. Biggest I run on a road bike is 32mm Paselas, which get out in the gravel often enough for me to be comfortable with it.

fender1

1975 Raleigh Super Tourer. Fits 38mm Compass Balrlow Pass tires and SKS Longboard fenders. No issues.

[IMG][/IMG]

ThermionicScott 

700x38C tires could be a tall order, but isn't it really the 80s/90s road bikes that don't​ have much clearance for wider tires?

I feel like 32mm tires ought to be adequate for most paved roads, given quality tires at a reasonable pressure.

pcb 

Gotta unpack this a little, keeping in mind that nobody in the '60s-'80s was riding "race" frames with 38mm tires, and you're looking at the universe of vintage bikes that made it to your market and are still available today.

Heavy is as heavy does. The difference between a Reynolds std 531 set of tubes and 753 is essentially less than a pound. That's 15% heavier in tubing (1,800g 753R vs 2,050g 531C), maybe 5% heavier as a complete bike (with identical components), and less than 1% heavier with a 185lb rider. Since you need to push both the bike and rider (and any additional load: water, pump, patch kit, spare tube, tools, etc) over the hills, actual frame weight doesn't mean much when you look at total loaded weight. So your touring bikes stripped of touring stuff and built with lighter-weight road bike components won't be substantially heavier than a vintage lightweight race frame built with the same parts.

That said, vintage touring frames are generally built from thicker-wall tubing, to handle better with heavier touring loads. So even stripped down to "race" parts, they often don't ride as spritely/lively as a race frame. Not because of the frame/bike weight per se, because of the tubing selected and geometry. This is a little more complex than just thinking that touring bikes are "too heavy."

Vintage pre-'82 race frames, in general, won't have clearance for 38mm 700c tires. Figure 30-32mm max. If that works for you, you're looking primarily for Euro-built production frames or US custom. Not a lot of US production race frames from that era aside from Schwinn Paramounts. Frame weights might not be much different than your touring bikes, but the bikes will likely have a livelier ride.

Past '84, faced by shrinking road bike sales in the face of ATBs grabbing market share, most production racing bikes in the US market were oriented to US-style criterium racing, meaning even narrower tire clearances and a frame optimized for heavy sprinting and hard cornering. They're not going to take 32mm tires and may not give you the splendid lively/cushy ride you seek.

From '72-'82 there were some Japanese race bikes more along the lines of vintage Euro bikes, with longer wheelbases and wider tire clearance. A pre-'80 Fuji Newest has very decent tire clearance and a refined ride. But not a lot of these made it to the US market, and they're not particularly lightweight frames. There was some concern in Japan about bigger/taller western riders, so they didn't skimp on the steel.

More common, and maybe more suitable to what you're looking to do, would be the Japanese sport-tour models. But these were generally a full bike or three down in the product line, so usually built from heavier tubing, with cruder lugwork, than the higher-end race frames.

If you really want to go all the way up to 38mm tires, you'll have to look at converting a 27" frame to 700c, or 700c to 650b. Lots and lots of threads here along those lines. There's no question that these conversions can result in some wonderful riders, but you're also likely to have to try several frames, and you'll have to work through tire/brake/cornering clearance issues.

You've already gotten some solid leads about specific bikes. Realize that very few of them are true "race" frames, which is what you originally asked about. A Raleigh Super Tourist or Super Course aren't race bikes; even a Raleigh International wasn't designed as a race frame. Raleigh Professionals and Schwinn Paramounts had good tire clearance, but not for 38s. You'll find more possibilities if you're willing to look at non-race frames, but keep in mind you'll also then be looking at frames that might not be very different from the touring bikes you already have.

If you frequently check ebay, our bikeforum classifieds, Paceline classifieds, and similar places, you'll probably find more good candidates than on your local CL. The wider the net you throw, the more likely you'll get a good catch.

09box

Vintage touring bikes will fit wide tires. I had a Fuji Saratoga and it would fit 35's no problem.

mstateglfr 

The OP says they want a light frame which would be considered race vs touring.

rccardr 

If you're willing to consider aluminum instead of lugged steel, then any 80's Cannondale ST would do the trick. Light, but with a wonderful ride. Steel fork. Came with 27" wheels but easily converted to 700c size and will take up to a 32 in that size. All up weight around 21.5 pounds. Takes literally any component group made, from any manufacturer.

I've ridden my '88 over 1500 miles this year alone. It's fast, a great climber and descends with aplomb at high speeds.

mountaindave 

Did someone say "aluminum"?

nesteel 

The '64 Atala I rode for Cino this year easily took a 35, using Mafac centerpulls. Eyeballing it, a 40 wouldn't have been out of the question. No lightweight, but it's not Varsity territory either.

bikemig 

I'm bumping up this old thread rather than start a new one. Lots of good information here. From what I see, road bikes from the 60s and 70s that came stock with center pulls are more likely to take fat tires particularly if you are working on a 27 inch to a 700c conversion. I'm working on a '72 Fuji Finest and it clearly can handle a pretty fat tire; so can a mid 70s sekine SHS 272 that I'm rebuilding this year as well. My 1960 Olmo gran sport can also handle super fat tires.

As others have pointed out, 650b is the other (pricier) option.