Originally Posted by
PTL011
A <snip> But to your question; you don't have to take my opinion, just look at the geometry of the PX-10. How can anybody call that a 'racing' geometry? Look at the length of the wheelbase. Before I got my PX-10 I honestly thought this thing's gonna feel like my surly disc trucker. It was definitely 'sturdier' than any of my racing bikes...though not yet like driving a UPS delivery truck..like the Surly.
Time period reference: compare this with a 60s Cinelli B, umm...Acer vs. Apple? or maybe Cessna vs. F-16?
a 60s silver chrome Paramount. Not as crazy as the Cinelli, but still...Mustang vs. Lamborghini?
It honestly isn't even close. I got the bike for the history largely, and it's probably going to go up somewhere on the wall soon. <snip>.
A couple thoughts. First, as to comparing to a Cinelli, I have two mid-1960s Cinelli Speciale Corsas. (To be fully fair, they are, at 64cm, both significantly bigger than your PX-10). Cinelli was not known for building whippy frames and was very much a racing bike builder. Mine have very long wheelbases (~108cm) with correspondingly long chainstays (~44cm), and by the standards of ten years later, pretty slack angles (73* head, 72.5* seat). As others have said, this was standard for the time. These frames are good on rough roads, but they are plenty stiff. It is not the bike that holds the rider back, if you catch my drift. I have never thrown a leg over a PX-10 of any vintage, so I cannot compare its ride to that of a Cinelli. The point is, as others have said, the OP's PX-10 geometry is quite consistent with how "racing geometry was understood c.1969
Second, I have nothing against the PX-10 of that era because, as I said, I've never ridden one, but its pedigree is not quite as glorious as some here have suggested. Yes, Bernard Thevenet is reported to have won the 1975 TdF on a stock PX-10 and the 1977 TdF on a stock PY-10 (both no doubt shorter, stiffer and with steeper angles than on the OP's bike). Yes, Merckx and Tom Simpson both rode for the Peugeot team in the 1960s. But by the mid-1960s. and quite possibly the early 1960s, Simpson did not ride Peugeots - he rode frames built by one or more custom builders (I once read who, but don't remember) and his bikes were painted and decaled to match the Peugeot team bikes. This was a common practice among the top-end Euro-pros then and for many years thereafter. As for Merckx, in some race, possibly the Tour, he attacked Roger Pingeon (1967 TdF winner for and on Peugeot) on a descent. When asked why he attacked where he did, Merck said that he had raced on Peugeots and knew they were, by his lights, sub-par descenders. Merckx was, by this time, having his frames built by Kessels and/or Masi and/or Colnago and/or other top-drawer builders
So to may of thinking, the PX-10 is a product of its time and its dimensions reflect that. It was not a slug, but neither was the best of the best. It was a good bike that could and did hold its own in races and was one of the best bang-for-the-buck bikes then available. Ultimately, whether the OP likes the ride or not is a matter of his personal preference. I'm a great believer in riding what you like. If the PX-10 doesn't float his boat to ride, hey, it's his boat.