If you were to buy a Paramount, for ride quality only, would you get one from the early 70s or a Waterford built one?

Having owned both a '72 P15-9 and an '87 Waterford "Standard", I'd have to say "it depends"...

The seventies Paramounts had longer chainstays and wheelbase, while the Waterford bikes had shorter chainstays and steeper seat tube angles.

For comfort on long rides, I'd use the '72. For shorter rides where I want to ride fast with agile handling, I'd choose the '87.

In '89, the Waterford facility came out with Paramounts built with True Temper OS tubing (and in '93 switched to 753 OS). I built up a '94 Paramount 753 OS frameset with Chorus 11-s for a riding buddy, and he loves it on long rides (545 mile 7 day AIDS/LifeCycle S.F. to L.A. ride every year).

Here's the '70s geometry:


...and here's the '87 geometry:


Here are the two together.



When I had my custom 953 Waterford built in 2007, I specified geometry virtually identical to the '72 P15.

I'm guessing it's gonna be a fairly select group that's able to answer with I've ridden both and...

It appears that a 70's P13 would come closer to the Waterfords geometry than a P10 or P15.

I haven't ridden an older Paramount but I have a 56cm 1992 Paramount OS made with True Temper over sized tubing. This was one of the last Paramount frames built at Waterford before Schwinn went keel up.

It's a great handling bike and the rear end is extremely comfortable yet laterally stiff. I like the 75° seat tube with the 73° head tube. It fits me perfectly.

The 40mm fork rake makes it a little harsh on the hands. I suspect that the wall thickness of the fork blades along with the short rake is the cause.

I considered having Waterford make me a new fork with thinner fork blades if I were going to use it for all day rides but I have other bikes for those kinds of rides....



I bought the frame in 2008 from Dennis Stone RIP in Alameda, CA. He'd had in on display since 1992.

Stone's Cyclery is carrying on. They have a very nice 1984 Paramount with a Columbus SL frame on consignment. I'd grab it except it's a 58cm. I haven't measured the geometry but the head tube look to be about 73° and the seat tube 5° with short chain stays and a 40cm fork rake.

I imagine the ride is going to be somewhere between a 1970's P13 and a later Waterford built frame.




verktyg

Chas.

Just out of curiosity, where is Stone Cycle, and how much is the 58 cm Paramount?
(I don't need another bike -but it is my size, and I have wanted a Paramount since 1984.)

I had an '87 and liked the ride quality. If it had fit, a keeper for sure, Columbus SLX.

norskagent's '89 OS appeared to be just a great ride; he seemed to wear it, not ride it, so I'd say that's a good one.

I have had the PDG OS Series in 2, 3, and 7. Some won't like this, but the Series 7 rode as well as almost any bike I've had.

No experience whatsoever before '87.

I own a '71 P-13 and a '83 Waterford Standard. I'll echo what [MENTION=38510]Scooper[/MENTION] posted above, even though the geometry on my P13 is a bit more aggressive then the geometry of his P15.

This past late summer and late fall I changed both Paramounts' wheelsets from 27" and 700c clinchers to 700c tubulars. The '71 wears Schalbe One (28mm) and the '83 wears Continental Sprinter Gatorskins (25mm). I did notice a very nice difference in the ride of both.

If it were me, and I could only have one, and it is possible to snag the '84 [MENTION=61614]verktyg[/MENTION] pictures above, I'd go in that direction. The '83-84s with that decal set are on the rare side. That one looks to be in excellent condition.

For appearance alone, few bikes beat an early 1970s Paramount.

I agree, and I'm leaning in that direction, especially since I already have a 92 PDG 5, which is the best riding bike I've ever been on.
This one is just a shade too big, but quite beautiful. 1973 Schwinn Touring Paramount Opaque Blue 25" | eBay

My first Paramount was a '66 P13 and was a 25". It turned out it was too big and I ended up not riding it the way it should. I've been very happy selling it and buying a 24". It made a great difference. YMMV!

Stone's Cyclery is a venerable institution in Alameda, California in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Brent

All of my adult life, my size has been 23", or 58 cm. Lately I'm finding that a 57 fits me best, with 56 being decidedly too small.
Those are two beauties, btw.

If 23"/58cm is your size then you should seriously consider the '84 Chaz posted above. I promise you won't be disappointed!

Stone Cyclery is located in Alameda, CA across the bay from SF.

Stone's Cyclery | Since 1943

I have no involvement with this bike, just a public service anouncement... yada-yada-yada (if it were my size it would have been in my house long ago)

verktyg

Chas.

Richard Schwinn is going to be at Stones Cyclery, Thursday evening 2-18-16

verktyg

Chas.

I have plenty of 80s bikes. I'm stuck on chrome lugs for this next one.

Yes, I do understand the temptation of bling!

Just in case you missed this ...

1976 Schwinn Deluxe Touring Paramount P10 9 | eBay

Look at the geometry's in post #2 , the 70's bikes all have identical seat and head tube angles as well as BB drop and fork rake regardless of frame size.. 80's bikes have different geometries based on frame size. If you fall on either side of the bell curve, >58cm or <54cm, modern geometries may suit you better.

Details like front fork curve and others are discussed in this thread...


https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...fferences.html


I don't know how much the fork curve will determine ride quality but its something to consider. My 70 P13-9 has the more pronounced curve and no eyelets, it also came from Schwinn with sew-ups. To be honest, details I would have never noticed without guidance from these guys who love and know their Paramounts. Not exclusive to, or in any particular order...


cudak888-Kurt


Scooper-Stan


pastorbobnlnh-Bob


Thanks guys,
Ken

Get the 70's Paramount. You know you will miss those stainless lugs if you get a '80's Paramount. I almost bought my '73 back after I sold it just because those lugs are so pretty.

All of this is pretty subjective, which is really the point and the fun of these forums so much of the time. Here's my two pennies worth of speculation:

I have owned a '72 P-13, and I still have a 1989 Waterford built Paramount and a 1966 P-12. The '89 feels fast to me, yet is still comfortable to ride over distance. The '66 feels built for distance and long hours in the saddle for some reason. It fits me very well and I've used it and my Boulder as a baseline for size and geometry comparisons. The comment above that "it depends" is really true. I'd have a hard time deciding which of the two to pass along if it ever came to that. For what it's worth, here's a comparison I did of the two bikes (which are essentially the same size) by overlapping them in Photoshop:


The really noticeable differences are in fork rake, trail, and wheel base. If the stems were the same, the reach would be very similar.

Back then the lugs were stamped mild steel (Nervex Professional or Prugnat, depending on the year) that were chrome plated. Schwinn's chrome plating was excellent, but a lot of bikes that were neglected developed pitting in the chrome over time.

Today's shiny lugs and fork crowns are usually investment cast stainless steel that has been highly polished and they aren't subject to pitting and peeling like the old chrome plated ones.

Seems it might be best to just get one of each. Mrs. Seeds would LOVE that!