Tell me about lightweight steel road/tour bike performance models
09-20-18, 03:19 PM
#77
Veteran, Pacifist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 13,333
Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?
Mentioned: 284 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3900 Post(s)
Liked 4,843 Times
in
2,232 Posts
09-20-18, 04:10 PM
#78
vintage motor
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tepic, Nayarit, Mexico
Posts: 1,597
Bikes: 48 Automoto, 49 Stallard, 50 Rotrax, 62 Jack Taylor, 67 Atala, 68 Lejeune, 72-74-75 Motobecanes, 73 RIH, 71 Zieleman, 74 Raleigh, 78 Windsor, 83 Messina (Villata), 84 Brazzo (Losa), 85 Davidson, 90 Diamondback, 92 Kestrel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 102 Times
in
79 Posts
Racing bikes are the best for speed and overall efficiency on long rides, but they sacrifice some practicality to achieve that. As many have noted, a lot of racers can't take even medium-sized tires. Also, many do not have eyelets on the dropouts to mount a rack-- which gives you a great deal of flexibility for carrying a lunch, camera, etc. Although you can get around that with saddlebags and handlebar bags. The tire clearance is a bigger limitation IMO. For that reason I would recommend a high-end 80's vintage sport tourer such as Trek, Miyata, etc. Most of them are actually pretty quick and sporty as their name suggests-- not quite as much as a dedicated racer but close enough. At the same time they'll offer better wheel clearance, a smoother ride, and the ability to mount a rack if you want. There are lots of these around and you don't need to spend much to get a really nice one. Also, don't obsess on a particular frame and particular components, that can come later (if at all). Just find the right style and something that pleases you visually. And get a complete bike, it's much cheaper that way.
09-20-18, 05:20 PM
#79
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Racing bikes are the best for speed and overall efficiency on long rides, but they sacrifice some practicality to achieve that. As many have noted, a lot of racers can't take even medium-sized tires. Also, many do not have eyelets on the dropouts to mount a rack-- which gives you a great deal of flexibility for carrying a lunch, camera, etc. Although you can get around that with saddlebags and handlebar bags. The tire clearance is a bigger limitation IMO. For that reason I would recommend a high-end 80's vintage sport tourer such as Trek, Miyata, etc. Most of them are actually pretty quick and sporty as their name suggests-- not quite as much as a dedicated racer but close enough. At the same time they'll offer better wheel clearance, a smoother ride, and the ability to mount a rack if you want. There are lots of these around and you don't need to spend much to get a really nice one. Also, don't obsess on a particular frame and particular components, that can come later (if at all). Just find the right style and something that pleases you visually. And get a complete bike, it's much cheaper that way.
09-20-18, 05:36 PM
#80
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,985
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26425 Post(s)
Liked 10,381 Times
in
7,209 Posts
Found these posted in another forum, supposedly from 1987 Benotto catalog - looks like that model
Seems like it could check a number of boxes for me as an entree into vintage road bikes - achieving high quality steel frame, respectable components and a little Italian romance for a price that won't cripple me if it's not a long-term keeper. Trying to find some info on the geometry but I imagine it is fairly aggressive since its a racing model. Not sure how I feel about that. I think a more "sport" oriented model would probably be more my speed but perhaps I can make some adjustments in that direction.
Seems like it could check a number of boxes for me as an entree into vintage road bikes - achieving high quality steel frame, respectable components and a little Italian romance for a price that won't cripple me if it's not a long-term keeper. Trying to find some info on the geometry but I imagine it is fairly aggressive since its a racing model. Not sure how I feel about that. I think a more "sport" oriented model would probably be more my speed but perhaps I can make some adjustments in that direction.
09-20-18, 08:25 PM
#81
Senior Member
Thread Starter
...the 2500 was the top of their line for some years until they started making and selling the 3000. As already stated, the mid to late 80's was the eral of tight bikes and skinny tyres, so a lot of these bikes will only take a 25 or a 28 maximum width tyre. I can't see that this would be much of an issue for a delicate wisp of a girl, such as yourself, but I am not you. I am huge, and I ride 25's here all the time with good results. they make me go fast, like a racehorse.
...Yes, if you want more cogs in the back you have to replace the shifters, and the freewheel at least. 7 Speed Shimano indexing shifters are hard to find now, but the 8 speed ones are common and still cheap on the internet. To go to 8, you'd need to respace the back and get a different rear hub/wheel with a freehub. Not worth the hassles, because while it gives you more cogs, it does not increase or decrease you overall high to low gearing range. I personally don't see it as an upgrade, and I've done it a couple of times.
...the purple haze gets in your brain. It's better that bike go to some ex-stoner who can better appreciate its magnificence.
09-20-18, 08:50 PM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,909
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,557 Posts
Do you have a bike coop or shop that specializes in used bikes? That would give you a chance to actually ride the bikes, A sharp employee could be a big help here as he/she would know what modifications can be easily made to improve fit. (Fit is far more important that tubing used or weight. It affects both your comfort and power.)
There is a woman in Portland who aids women searching for bikes. (She knows her stuff and has the respect of the shop employees that she interacts with. She used to be a mechanic at one of Portland's big shops.) She might know of similar resources in your city. (Google Gracie's Wrench)
Ben
There is a woman in Portland who aids women searching for bikes. (She knows her stuff and has the respect of the shop employees that she interacts with. She used to be a mechanic at one of Portland's big shops.) She might know of similar resources in your city. (Google Gracie's Wrench)
Ben
09-20-18, 08:53 PM
#83
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,506
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7351 Post(s)
Liked 2,479 Times
in
1,439 Posts
That Benotto is worth checking out. If you buy it and don't like it, you could break even or even make a profit on it. And you may like it. The handlebars are deep (drop), because that's how they were back then.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
09-20-18, 09:25 PM
#84
Senior Member
I don't know my vintage Motobecanes, just that that is a stunning bike.
Or maybe those hubs are the Normandy Luxe.
Do you know the year?
Last edited by desconhecido; 09-20-18 at 09:28 PM.
09-20-18, 09:44 PM
#85
Senior Member
@3alarmer treat to see all your bikes! Thanks for posting and I get it now.
@Salamandrine do you have any trusted bike shops you recommend in LA for fit issues? I'm in Pasadena and was going to check out Around the Cycle since they sell a number of used bikes and used components and they have a used wheelset and cassette I was going to buy to put on my old Jamis Ventura so I can sell it as a complete bike (I put the original wheels on my commuter and I figure no one that might possibly buy that bike would want it as anything but complete) so at least I will be buying something if they help me out with some basic fit stuff on their bikes and I can ask about a more formal fitting. They do have a vintage Trek Elance in right now that I'm pretty sure is too small at 48cm but at least I can kick the tires and see in person.
Last time I wanted to try some vintage frames out for the first time I went to the Bicycle Stand in Long Beach, which was awesome, but I would feel so bad going back and test-riding if I don't buy something!
There's a women's specific 87 Ironman in my fave paint job: coral and white with turquoise accents, on ebay for local pickup in Oxnard starting at $120 but it's a 48 cm which i fear is just a bit small. Now if it were the 46 cm Terry version below that might be worth trying just for the hell of it!
@Salamandrine do you have any trusted bike shops you recommend in LA for fit issues? I'm in Pasadena and was going to check out Around the Cycle since they sell a number of used bikes and used components and they have a used wheelset and cassette I was going to buy to put on my old Jamis Ventura so I can sell it as a complete bike (I put the original wheels on my commuter and I figure no one that might possibly buy that bike would want it as anything but complete) so at least I will be buying something if they help me out with some basic fit stuff on their bikes and I can ask about a more formal fitting. They do have a vintage Trek Elance in right now that I'm pretty sure is too small at 48cm but at least I can kick the tires and see in person.
Last time I wanted to try some vintage frames out for the first time I went to the Bicycle Stand in Long Beach, which was awesome, but I would feel so bad going back and test-riding if I don't buy something!
There's a women's specific 87 Ironman in my fave paint job: coral and white with turquoise accents, on ebay for local pickup in Oxnard starting at $120 but it's a 48 cm which i fear is just a bit small. Now if it were the 46 cm Terry version below that might be worth trying just for the hell of it!
09-20-18, 10:09 PM
#86
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,985
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26425 Post(s)
Liked 10,381 Times
in
7,209 Posts
It is a Grand Record from whenever they made them with Nervex styled lugs. I'm kind of a lug junkie.
From what I recall, I kept that one pretty stock, but I think the hubs might be Normandy. Otherwise, they're Campy.
For a while, the local CL was filled up here with Moto GR's in my size in good shape. lasted for about three years, then they dried up.
09-20-18, 10:22 PM
#87
Senior Member
....I'm sorry, I'm not good on French years. I gave up when I got my second Peugeot.
It is a Grand Record from whenever they made them with Nervex styled lugs. I'm kind of a lug junkie.
From what I recall, I kept that one pretty stock, but I think the hubs might be Normandy. Otherwise, they're Campy.
For a while, the local CL was filled up here with Moto GR's in my size in good shape. lasted for about three years, then they dried up.
It is a Grand Record from whenever they made them with Nervex styled lugs. I'm kind of a lug junkie.
From what I recall, I kept that one pretty stock, but I think the hubs might be Normandy. Otherwise, they're Campy.
For a while, the local CL was filled up here with Moto GR's in my size in good shape. lasted for about three years, then they dried up.
The crank on yours is, I think, the Professional that Sheldon, god rest his soul, described on his. I've seen some with a TA crank with the 50.4 BCD center -- Touriste, or something, and a couple different style of that.
There is one on the Lnasing, MI Craigslist now for $200 with the same crank (except for the outer guard feature) as yours and looks approximately proper, but it's silver instead of black and red, and as it's in Lansing, it may as well be on the celestial object formerly known as the planet Pluto.
Last edited by desconhecido; 09-20-18 at 10:26 PM.
09-22-18, 06:29 AM
#88
Extraordinary Magnitude
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,649
Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2608 Post(s)
Liked 1,703 Times
in
937 Posts
Racing bikes are the best for speed and overall efficiency on long rides, but they sacrifice some practicality to achieve that. As many have noted, a lot of racers can't take even medium-sized tires. Also, many do not have eyelets on the dropouts to mount a rack-- which gives you a great deal of flexibility for carrying a lunch, camera, etc. Although you can get around that with saddlebags and handlebar bags. The tire clearance is a bigger limitation IMO. For that reason I would recommend a high-end 80's vintage sport tourer such as Trek, Miyata, etc. Most of them are actually pretty quick and sporty as their name suggests-- not quite as much as a dedicated racer but close enough. At the same time they'll offer better wheel clearance, a smoother ride, and the ability to mount a rack if you want. There are lots of these around and you don't need to spend much to get a really nice one. Also, don't obsess on a particular frame and particular components, that can come later (if at all). Just find the right style and something that pleases you visually. And get a complete bike, it's much cheaper that way.
Sport Tourers were built as all-rounder bikes. Many were made to mid-line to upper mid-line quality- but a lot of that has to do with what components came installed on them- they were built and specced to suit the price point. Since dedicated "racers" would be dedicated to getting the best bike they could and dedicated "touring" people would get the best bike they could- they'd get bikes that were designed and suited to their intended purpose. Sport Tourers split that- the proverbial "jack of all trades/master of none" sort of thing. But that's not bad. A lot of sport tourers were built to have aggressive "racey" angles (a steeper head tube) but yet had 43-ish cm long chainstays- and clearance for 32s- along with pump, bottle, fender and rack mounts. Couple that with slightly heavier mid-line components- and instead of a 20 pound bike you're looking at a 23 pound bike.
To contradict some advice given- a tube set is a general indicator of quality- manufacturers aren't going to use a premium tube set on a "cheap" bike. A lot of great sports tourers were built with upper level tube sets- some were made with premium quality tubes.
Check out Miguel's "Classic Sports Touring" bike thread:
Show your classic sports touring bicycle
You've stated you have a $1000+ budget- that gives a WHOLE lot of room to find a bike you like the ride of, and outfit it with parts that will suit what you want to do with it- even if you overpay for stuff.
My 1986 Trek 400 Elance has a 531 main frame, with CrMo fork and stays- I've redone a lot of the components to high-end-y stuff and it's a nice bike that rides pretty quick, but has a lot of utility to do stuff.
1986 Trek 400 Elance by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
09-22-18, 07:35 AM
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Saratoga calif.
Posts: 1,049
Bikes: Miyata 610(66cm), GT Vantara Hybrid (64cm), Nishiki International (64cm), Peugeot rat rod (62 cm), Trek 800 Burning Man helicopter bike, Bob Jackson frame (to be restored?) plus a never ending stream of neglected waifs from the Bike exchange.
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 339 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 632 Times
in
229 Posts
I have been rehabbing bikes for the Bike Exchange here in Mt. View Ca and really enjoy digging in the pile of old bikes waiting to be overhauled for donation and finding a forgotten gem. One thing I have realized is that most 70's and 80's steel high end bikes weigh in at about 24 lbs while more general purpose bikes weigh between 28 and 32 lbs. If you like vintage bikes here are a few high performance bikes from the 70's and 80's I have recently rehabbed.
Raleigh Professional Race
Raleigh International Touring
Raleigh Super course touring
Gitane Professional Tour de France race
SR semi pro race / touring
Peugeot PX10 race/ touring
Flandria race
It sounds like you would enjoy working on any of these bikes. One thing about vintage is that the parts are cheaper and more universal. Pretty much any derailleur will work on any non indexed bike. No reason you can't have a vintage bike AND a more modern plastic bike to ride when you just HAVE to wear that new spandex billboard and look like you just finished the Tour de France.
Raleigh Professional Race
Raleigh International Touring
Raleigh Super course touring
Gitane Professional Tour de France race
SR semi pro race / touring
Peugeot PX10 race/ touring
Flandria race
It sounds like you would enjoy working on any of these bikes. One thing about vintage is that the parts are cheaper and more universal. Pretty much any derailleur will work on any non indexed bike. No reason you can't have a vintage bike AND a more modern plastic bike to ride when you just HAVE to wear that new spandex billboard and look like you just finished the Tour de France.
09-22-18, 08:06 AM
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hotel CA / DFW
Posts: 1,734
Bikes: 83 Colnago Super, 87 50th Daccordi, 79 & 87 Guerciotti's, 90s DB/GT Mtn Bikes, 90s Colnago Master and Titanio, 96 Serotta Colorado TG, 95/05 Colnago C40/C50, 06 DbyLS TI, 08 Lemond Filmore FG SS, 12 Cervelo R3, 20/15 Surly Stragler & Steamroller
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 601 Post(s)
Liked 781 Times
in
498 Posts
Great memorial to Hendrix and Merckx. That would be a super choice and I love the setup and color. I like my Guerciotti Neuron steel ride even better than the SLX setup.
09-22-18, 03:11 PM
#91
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I think that's a really SOLID recommendation based on the title of the thread and from what you describe in the initial post. A lot of people are pointing you at race specific bikes.
Sport Tourers were built as all-rounder bikes. Many were made to mid-line to upper mid-line quality- but a lot of that has to do with what components came installed on them- they were built and specced to suit the price point. Since dedicated "racers" would be dedicated to getting the best bike they could and dedicated "touring" people would get the best bike they could- they'd get bikes that were designed and suited to their intended purpose. Sport Tourers split that- the proverbial "jack of all trades/master of none" sort of thing. But that's not bad. A lot of sport tourers were built to have aggressive "racey" angles (a steeper head tube) but yet had 43-ish cm long chainstays- and clearance for 32s- along with pump, bottle, fender and rack mounts. Couple that with slightly heavier mid-line components- and instead of a 20 pound bike you're looking at a 23 pound bike.
To contradict some advice given- a tube set is a general indicator of quality- manufacturers aren't going to use a premium tube set on a "cheap" bike. A lot of great sports tourers were built with upper level tube sets- some were made with premium quality tubes.
Check out Miguel's "Classic Sports Touring" bike thread:
Show your classic sports touring bicycle
You've stated you have a $1000+ budget- that gives a WHOLE lot of room to find a bike you like the ride of, and outfit it with parts that will suit what you want to do with it- even if you overpay for stuff.
My 1986 Trek 400 Elance has a 531 main frame, with CrMo fork and stays- I've redone a lot of the components to high-end-y stuff and it's a nice bike that rides pretty quick, but has a lot of utility to do stuff.
1986 Trek 400 Elance by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
Sport Tourers were built as all-rounder bikes. Many were made to mid-line to upper mid-line quality- but a lot of that has to do with what components came installed on them- they were built and specced to suit the price point. Since dedicated "racers" would be dedicated to getting the best bike they could and dedicated "touring" people would get the best bike they could- they'd get bikes that were designed and suited to their intended purpose. Sport Tourers split that- the proverbial "jack of all trades/master of none" sort of thing. But that's not bad. A lot of sport tourers were built to have aggressive "racey" angles (a steeper head tube) but yet had 43-ish cm long chainstays- and clearance for 32s- along with pump, bottle, fender and rack mounts. Couple that with slightly heavier mid-line components- and instead of a 20 pound bike you're looking at a 23 pound bike.
To contradict some advice given- a tube set is a general indicator of quality- manufacturers aren't going to use a premium tube set on a "cheap" bike. A lot of great sports tourers were built with upper level tube sets- some were made with premium quality tubes.
Check out Miguel's "Classic Sports Touring" bike thread:
Show your classic sports touring bicycle
You've stated you have a $1000+ budget- that gives a WHOLE lot of room to find a bike you like the ride of, and outfit it with parts that will suit what you want to do with it- even if you overpay for stuff.
My 1986 Trek 400 Elance has a 531 main frame, with CrMo fork and stays- I've redone a lot of the components to high-end-y stuff and it's a nice bike that rides pretty quick, but has a lot of utility to do stuff.
1986 Trek 400 Elance by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
09-22-18, 03:25 PM
#92
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I have been rehabbing bikes for the Bike Exchange here in Mt. View Ca and really enjoy digging in the pile of old bikes waiting to be overhauled for donation and finding a forgotten gem. One thing I have realized is that most 70's and 80's steel high end bikes weigh in at about 24 lbs while more general purpose bikes weigh between 28 and 32 lbs. If you like vintage bikes here are a few high performance bikes from the 70's and 80's I have recently rehabbed.
Raleigh Professional Race
Raleigh International Touring
Raleigh Super course touring
Gitane Professional Tour de France race
SR semi pro race / touring
Peugeot PX10 race/ touring
Flandria race
It sounds like you would enjoy working on any of these bikes. One thing about vintage is that the parts are cheaper and more universal. Pretty much any derailleur will work on any non indexed bike. No reason you can't have a vintage bike AND a more modern plastic bike to ride when you just HAVE to wear that new spandex billboard and look like you just finished the Tour de France.
Raleigh Professional Race
Raleigh International Touring
Raleigh Super course touring
Gitane Professional Tour de France race
SR semi pro race / touring
Peugeot PX10 race/ touring
Flandria race
It sounds like you would enjoy working on any of these bikes. One thing about vintage is that the parts are cheaper and more universal. Pretty much any derailleur will work on any non indexed bike. No reason you can't have a vintage bike AND a more modern plastic bike to ride when you just HAVE to wear that new spandex billboard and look like you just finished the Tour de France.
09-22-18, 04:32 PM
#93
Senior Member
I get what a lot of you are trying to say by recommending a "sport tourer" over a "racing bike". I also agree that you don't want some 74º+ angled bike with the chainstays crammed up into the seat tube.
However, you have to be careful. It depends heavily on the era. My PX10 has exactly the same geometry as my loaded touring optimized Mercian: 72º parallel, 45cm chainstays, ~ 60mm trail. The PX-10 is ostensibly a full racing bike, ridden by Eddy Merckx and countless other superstars in the Tour de France. Similarly, my Masi is ~73 parallel, with 43cm chainstays. This might be considered audax or endurance geometry today, but it was normal at the time for racing bikes. It wasn't really up until the mid 80s that you started to see supersteep angles and chainstays too short for even a 25c tire to fit. It must be said there were some early examples of 'criterium' geometry, but it wasn't dominant. So look at the bike geometry and specs, not the marketing blabber. Racing bike or sport touring - it means very little.
IMO 'sports tourer" is a bogus term anyway. I worked in bike shops pretty much through the whole of the 80s and into the 90s. People didn't as for a racing bike, or a sport tourer, they asked for a ten speed. The most expensive and lightest ten speeds were called racing bikes. Later on, when MTBs started to dominate, the term morphed into 'road bike'. Sport tourer was just a nice way of saying cheaper and heavier racing bike. There really wasn't a distinction between between the two during in the vintage era. Sport touring only existed in some marketing hyperbole (and the internet of the present day). That term or similar wording was occasionally present in the sales literature of midrange bikes, but it wasn't used by the public.
However, you have to be careful. It depends heavily on the era. My PX10 has exactly the same geometry as my loaded touring optimized Mercian: 72º parallel, 45cm chainstays, ~ 60mm trail. The PX-10 is ostensibly a full racing bike, ridden by Eddy Merckx and countless other superstars in the Tour de France. Similarly, my Masi is ~73 parallel, with 43cm chainstays. This might be considered audax or endurance geometry today, but it was normal at the time for racing bikes. It wasn't really up until the mid 80s that you started to see supersteep angles and chainstays too short for even a 25c tire to fit. It must be said there were some early examples of 'criterium' geometry, but it wasn't dominant. So look at the bike geometry and specs, not the marketing blabber. Racing bike or sport touring - it means very little.
IMO 'sports tourer" is a bogus term anyway. I worked in bike shops pretty much through the whole of the 80s and into the 90s. People didn't as for a racing bike, or a sport tourer, they asked for a ten speed. The most expensive and lightest ten speeds were called racing bikes. Later on, when MTBs started to dominate, the term morphed into 'road bike'. Sport tourer was just a nice way of saying cheaper and heavier racing bike. There really wasn't a distinction between between the two during in the vintage era. Sport touring only existed in some marketing hyperbole (and the internet of the present day). That term or similar wording was occasionally present in the sales literature of midrange bikes, but it wasn't used by the public.
09-22-18, 09:34 PM
#94
Extraordinary Magnitude
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,649
Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2608 Post(s)
Liked 1,703 Times
in
937 Posts
I get what a lot of you are trying to say by recommending a "sport tourer" over a "racing bike". I also agree that you don't want some 74º+ angled bike with the chainstays crammed up into the seat tube.
However, you have to be careful. It depends heavily on the era. My PX10 has exactly the same geometry as my loaded touring optimized Mercian: 72º parallel, 45cm chainstays, ~ 60mm trail. The PX-10 is ostensibly a full racing bike, ridden by Eddy Merckx and countless other superstars in the Tour de France. Similarly, my Masi is ~73 parallel, with 43cm chainstays. This might be considered audax or endurance geometry today, but it was normal at the time for racing bikes. It wasn't really up until the mid 80s that you started to see supersteep angles and chainstays too short for even a 25c tire to fit. It must be said there were some early examples of 'criterium' geometry, but it wasn't dominant. So look at the bike geometry and specs, not the marketing blabber. Racing bike or sport touring - it means very little.
IMO 'sports tourer" is a bogus term anyway. I worked in bike shops pretty much through the whole of the 80s and into the 90s. People didn't as for a racing bike, or a sport tourer, they asked for a ten speed. The most expensive and lightest ten speeds were called racing bikes. Later on, when MTBs started to dominate, the term morphed into 'road bike'. Sport tourer was just a nice way of saying cheaper and heavier racing bike. There really wasn't a distinction between between the two during in the vintage era. Sport touring only existed in some marketing hyperbole (and the internet of the present day). That term or similar wording was occasionally present in the sales literature of midrange bikes, but it wasn't used by the public.
However, you have to be careful. It depends heavily on the era. My PX10 has exactly the same geometry as my loaded touring optimized Mercian: 72º parallel, 45cm chainstays, ~ 60mm trail. The PX-10 is ostensibly a full racing bike, ridden by Eddy Merckx and countless other superstars in the Tour de France. Similarly, my Masi is ~73 parallel, with 43cm chainstays. This might be considered audax or endurance geometry today, but it was normal at the time for racing bikes. It wasn't really up until the mid 80s that you started to see supersteep angles and chainstays too short for even a 25c tire to fit. It must be said there were some early examples of 'criterium' geometry, but it wasn't dominant. So look at the bike geometry and specs, not the marketing blabber. Racing bike or sport touring - it means very little.
IMO 'sports tourer" is a bogus term anyway. I worked in bike shops pretty much through the whole of the 80s and into the 90s. People didn't as for a racing bike, or a sport tourer, they asked for a ten speed. The most expensive and lightest ten speeds were called racing bikes. Later on, when MTBs started to dominate, the term morphed into 'road bike'. Sport tourer was just a nice way of saying cheaper and heavier racing bike. There really wasn't a distinction between between the two during in the vintage era. Sport touring only existed in some marketing hyperbole (and the internet of the present day). That term or similar wording was occasionally present in the sales literature of midrange bikes, but it wasn't used by the public.
My 78 Trek 730 fits a 28, but will not fit a 32. It also doesn't have rack mounts. Two of the early 80s high end "sport" bikes- the Specialized Sequoia and Trek 700 both could fit 28s and had rack mounts- By the time you get to the early 80s, big kids' "racing" bikes don't have eyelets on the fork ends and dropouts and won't fit 28s.
Regardless of the marketing categories, there's specific delineations that evolved from perceived needs/desires. By the time a "racing" bike was a racing bike- (reflected in the 1981 catalog- which is plenty "vintage") it was no longer a practical bike beyond racing.
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
09-23-18, 07:34 AM
#95
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,506
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7351 Post(s)
Liked 2,479 Times
in
1,439 Posts
But in a sense, one year's sport touring design was the previous year's racing design. Isn't that true? OK it didn't change year by year, but that was the progression.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
09-24-18, 11:25 AM
#96
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Alameda, California
Posts: 30
Bikes: 52 x 54 cm Eisentraut steel road bike, 51 x 55 cm Windsor Pro (Eroica bike) , 1972 53 x 57 cm Peugeot UO-18 mixte town bike/"truck." UNBUILT FRAMES: 1974 52.5 x 57 cm Jack Taylor Tour of Britain, 1964 52 x 54 Super Mondia, 1979/80 Raleigh Record Ace
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ride it, like it, buy it
Welcome to the world of road riding!
First, get your Centurion mixte checked out: is the frame properlly aligned and are the wheels true? If they are, your bike should not shake at 20 MPH...
You have to ride a lot of different bikes to learn what you like: How many guys did you date before you found your "keeper"?
The frame is the heart of the bike and determines a lot of the ride characteristics. The wheels are second in importance.
Try Trek steel (730, 760, etc.) as well as Peugeot (PX-10), Motobecane (Le Champion), and Gitane: French bikes have an amazing feel. Also Allegro,
Merckx, Bridgestone, and lots of Italian bikes (Cinelli, Colnago, etc.). Borrow or try out bikes in your size until you find "the one."
If your other half **really** loves you ;-) he will buy you an all-new gruppo of your choice or help you find a classic/vintage drivetrain you like. Again, that is your choice and trying them out takes time. Just like finding a spouse...
First, get your Centurion mixte checked out: is the frame properlly aligned and are the wheels true? If they are, your bike should not shake at 20 MPH...
You have to ride a lot of different bikes to learn what you like: How many guys did you date before you found your "keeper"?
The frame is the heart of the bike and determines a lot of the ride characteristics. The wheels are second in importance.
Try Trek steel (730, 760, etc.) as well as Peugeot (PX-10), Motobecane (Le Champion), and Gitane: French bikes have an amazing feel. Also Allegro,
Merckx, Bridgestone, and lots of Italian bikes (Cinelli, Colnago, etc.). Borrow or try out bikes in your size until you find "the one."
If your other half **really** loves you ;-) he will buy you an all-new gruppo of your choice or help you find a classic/vintage drivetrain you like. Again, that is your choice and trying them out takes time. Just like finding a spouse...
09-24-18, 11:31 AM
#97
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,985
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26425 Post(s)
Liked 10,381 Times
in
7,209 Posts
09-24-18, 11:46 AM
#98
Senior Member
You managed to say what I was what I was trying to convey in one short sentence.
GB - yeah for sure Trek organized their bikes into sport touring, touring, and racing. Starting in 1983 I think. Other companies did similar things in the sales literature, but Trek was an exception in that they made lower priced mid range 'racing' bikes, and higher end sport touring bikes. For everyone else, it was more or less a euphemism for mid-range bike. I suppose it could be regional too. I only know how it was in northern California. It's possible in the midwest closer to the Trek factory, their way of thinking might have been dominant.
At any rate, I do agree that some crazy steep racing bike with no room for tires bigger than 23c is not the best choice for the OP. I disagree that a racing bike is a bad choice period. I haven't raced since I was a teenager, but I've ridden racing bikes my whole life, and never felt that I was suffering any great discomfort because of it. That said, I ride a touring bike for my everyday ride now, which makes me a hypocrite.
09-24-18, 11:50 AM
#99
Senior Member
OP - Another one to consider. Take a look at Medici. They were basically (California) Masi copies, but they were made just as well - most of the time, and tended to have the same moderate all purpose road geometry. They often sell for cheap these days.
09-24-18, 12:53 PM
#100
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 144
Bikes: 2008 Specialized Roubaix Elite, 2002 Specialized Sirius Pro, 1985 Vitus 979 (DuraAce 7400), 1985 Bianchi Trofeo
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 25 Times
in
15 Posts
Extremely open-ended and subjective inquiry:
Recently finished a commuter bike build of a Univega mixte, which was my first foray into C&V and bike-building in general. Starting from zero knowledge I eventually learned brands and models to search for, steel frame types, shifter types etc for the world of 70s/80s Japanese and French mid-end road bikes and was eventually able to find a good deal on a well-spec'd bike to suit my transportation purposes.
In the spirit of N+1 I am gearing up for my next C&V aspiration and would like some suggestions for brands/models to start learning about for a lightweight steel road bike that I could build with more of a performance orientation.
Since I have taken up bike commuting (and obsessing) my husband has renewed his bike obsession and we've been enjoying riding together for fitness and recreation. He has a c. 2008 carbon Lemond Buenos Aires, so when I say fitness - I am getting quite a workout on my commuter mixte and he is not breaking a sweat
I am also finding that though I built my commuter with a slight aptitude for speed (not super sweeping handlebars, minimal accessories) it is not the most comfortable on longer rides and higher speeds. I find myself shifting around and curling my tailbone in all kinds of weird ways to get a comfortable but powerful position and the bike being older than me, it starts to rattle like crazy at speeds above about 20 mph.
So I am thinking at some point I would probably like to have a bike that can better keep up with my husband on these faster and longer rides. Not *totally* keep up, but *better* keep up - I'm not going carbon. Aside from the cost issue, a lot of the fun of bikes for me right now is the romance and aesthetics of vintage, the acquiring of obscure knowledge, the hunt and the satisfaction of building and customizing myself.
But at this point, I really don't know much about what I would even want to start looking into. I am by now fairly familiar with mid-level offerings of Centurion, Univega, Nishiki, Motobecane and the difference between Cromoly and Hi-ten or stem shifters vs downtube shifters.
I would like suggestions for brands/models/families of bikes that I might start learning about to achieve a lightweight, high-quality steel frame that I could build/customize for the purpose of fitness and longer day-rides on urban bike path pavement, potentially with light touring (as in bringing a camera and lunch on a day trip).
From my extremely limited knowledge I'm thinking perhaps something like a vintage Trek or an Italian steel?
No firm budget currently as I just want to learn about the options out there and maybe I will aspire to a reach level, maybe be happy with something more humble. But I'd say nothing above around 1500/1700 (including upgrades) moving on down to well, well below that. I have really no idea what can be achieved with a low budget and what's realistic for my needs.
Thanks for the help!
Recently finished a commuter bike build of a Univega mixte, which was my first foray into C&V and bike-building in general. Starting from zero knowledge I eventually learned brands and models to search for, steel frame types, shifter types etc for the world of 70s/80s Japanese and French mid-end road bikes and was eventually able to find a good deal on a well-spec'd bike to suit my transportation purposes.
In the spirit of N+1 I am gearing up for my next C&V aspiration and would like some suggestions for brands/models to start learning about for a lightweight steel road bike that I could build with more of a performance orientation.
Since I have taken up bike commuting (and obsessing) my husband has renewed his bike obsession and we've been enjoying riding together for fitness and recreation. He has a c. 2008 carbon Lemond Buenos Aires, so when I say fitness - I am getting quite a workout on my commuter mixte and he is not breaking a sweat
I am also finding that though I built my commuter with a slight aptitude for speed (not super sweeping handlebars, minimal accessories) it is not the most comfortable on longer rides and higher speeds. I find myself shifting around and curling my tailbone in all kinds of weird ways to get a comfortable but powerful position and the bike being older than me, it starts to rattle like crazy at speeds above about 20 mph.
So I am thinking at some point I would probably like to have a bike that can better keep up with my husband on these faster and longer rides. Not *totally* keep up, but *better* keep up - I'm not going carbon. Aside from the cost issue, a lot of the fun of bikes for me right now is the romance and aesthetics of vintage, the acquiring of obscure knowledge, the hunt and the satisfaction of building and customizing myself.
But at this point, I really don't know much about what I would even want to start looking into. I am by now fairly familiar with mid-level offerings of Centurion, Univega, Nishiki, Motobecane and the difference between Cromoly and Hi-ten or stem shifters vs downtube shifters.
I would like suggestions for brands/models/families of bikes that I might start learning about to achieve a lightweight, high-quality steel frame that I could build/customize for the purpose of fitness and longer day-rides on urban bike path pavement, potentially with light touring (as in bringing a camera and lunch on a day trip).
From my extremely limited knowledge I'm thinking perhaps something like a vintage Trek or an Italian steel?
No firm budget currently as I just want to learn about the options out there and maybe I will aspire to a reach level, maybe be happy with something more humble. But I'd say nothing above around 1500/1700 (including upgrades) moving on down to well, well below that. I have really no idea what can be achieved with a low budget and what's realistic for my needs.
Thanks for the help!
I think if you eliminate the steel requirement, you can really get a nice C&V lightweight frame. Assuming you are under 5'10" and 175lbs, look at an old lugged, bonded aluminum frame bike. They are nice and light, made of aluminum tubes that were the same size (diameter) as steel tubes, so they will be noticeably lighter than steel frames from the period. The knock on them was that they were "whippy" or "flexy", but that is a really an issue for bigger frames (> 56cm) or heavy riders. Otherwise, it is a nice, comfy ride.
I'm actually both over 5'10" and 180lbs and did Erocia California, which is a long (85 miles) gravel ride with a couple of hard climbs on my Vitus. It's a really great ride.
The downside is that you'll have a problem getting more than a 7speed rear freewheel, as I don't think you will find one wide rear spacing > 126mm, and I don't know if you can get them widened to 130mm. Some people will just put the wider rear hub on the bike since the tubes will flex. I'm not sure I would, though.
You can look for frames Vitus (Vitus 979) and Alan, which includes Guerciotti. Attached are two pictures of my Vitus 979 with 7speed Dura Ace, the first is how I got the bike and the second is configured for Eroica California.