In the bike boom and before, the PX 10 did quite a lot to advance the sport. As mentioned by others, there was nothing else close to the PX 10 ( except its competitors/copies such as the Gitane Tour de France, etc) with as great a performance to price ratio. For around 200 USD give or take depending on the point of time relative to the start of the bike boom, you got a fully butted frame, the bikes were always straight, decent geometry, nicely functioning components, and very nice tubular wheels. In short they rode very nicely and punched way above their fighting weight. The performance of these bargain priced bikes got so many people hooked on the sport and contributed greatly to its popularity. You might say that the PX 10 did as much to advance the popularity of our sport as the Schwinn Varsity did to discourage people from riding at all.

I guess the OP left us one of those "drop a bomb and leave" type posts.

:roflmao2:

I can't imagine why he wouldn't want to stick around and get kicked some more.

Troll post.

I don't think OP is intentionally trolling, I think they're genuinely confused. They started a similar thread about a Colnago Super (I'm not going to link it, my summary is "I just bought this Colnago and I don't see what the big deal is"). I'd be surprised if they bought a PX-10 and a Colnago just to troll a bike forum*. I think they keep trying to find the "best" older bike, and when they buy it they are frustrated that it's not how they imagined. Maybe they are trying to save everyone from making the same "mistake". Unfortunately, they aren't tactful about it.

*But if they did, I'm kind of impressed.

Interesting take on this bike. The PX-10 as with most bikes of this generation was an all-rounder. And the racers of that era raced the same bike in multiple disaplines. Road, TT, criterium, cyclo-cross. Buddy of mine was second in the cyclo-cross junior nationals....he rode his PX-10.

The Belgian Junior National champion came to the states in the mid seventies. He rode a Plum Sport. It had a big curved fork on it. He explained you need a fork that will absorb riad shock for the races on cobbles and generally poor roads in Belgium.

PTL001-

Not a clunker but a multi purpose all rounder. Bikes of that period were used on poorly surface roads and for all aspects of cycling as so ably pointed out by other commenters. My restored PX 10 is of the same period as yours but is equipped with correct period equipment. It rides well but does not have the razor edge agility of an 80s PX. My framebuilder measured the angles during the restoration and the headtube is 72 degrees and the seattube is a laid back 70 so no surprise that it rides differently from more focused modern designs. Get some tubular wheels, crank them up to 110 psi and see what the bike is really like.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...7101217276.jpg

Honestly, I don't want to pile on the guy or even criticize his opinion. I understand his perspective, if not his choice of words. If you've been riding bikes with 80's crit geo, or later, the PX-10 can feel pretty sedate and similar to a touring bike. It can definitely get up and go though, obviously. I'm genuinely curious what 60's/boom-era bikes he's comparing his PX to that it's coming up clunky. Hopefully, he'll come back and talk about them.

Umm....because they didn't have anything like a Centurion Ironman?? LOL.:roflmao2:

Thank you, would you mind telling me what would be the correct components that were on yours? Please be as detailed as possible. Much appreciated.

Nope. Disrespectful comments get ignored. Lol.

Some extremely knowledgeable Peugeot people will probably be along soon to reply (and may be able to point you to an online source for a PDF copy of the original catalog for your bike).

That said, your bike differs from the stock version in what look like mostly well-chosen component upgrades---especially the somewhat rare aluminum Simplex derailleurs (as opposed to the stock ones, built out of "miracle Delrin"; i.e., plastic). The front Delrin derailleur in particular is notorious for its bound-to-fail mounting band.

I worked in a Peugeot bike dealership in the mid-'70's, and I remember how surprised and delighted we were when Peugeot gave up on the Delrin versions and the bikes started showing up with the aluminum Simplex derailleurs.

That was right around the time when they stopped shipping the bikes with rough-textured paper wrapped around the frame tubes for protection and started shrink-wrapping the whole bike.

The Campagnolo down tube shifters work pretty well, but whether they represent a functional upgrade is debatable, since the Simplex ones usually shifted just as well. Although, again, the stock plastic Simplex shift levers sometimes cracked, depending on whether they were the early, all-plastic levers or the later, metal-reinforced ones.

In any event, if your intention in asking about the original components is to restore the bike to its showroom state, you might want to consider buying those components but setting them aside to pass on to the next owner, if you ever decide to sell it.

Disrespect is in the eye of the beholder but I will say for my purposes px10s are lovely framesets. I do front loaded touring and any frame with clearance for 35s and fenders plus full 531 is going to get my attention.

At this point, I have too many bikes...and I just started in on this about 6 months ago. Being a history fan, the history and the different riding characteristics inherent in the different bikes got me hooked. Soon I would probably be selling.

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.

Of the French bikes here's my (subjective) ranking from greater to lesser:

Gitane (especially early 70s TDF) > Motobecane (comparable time period grand record/le champion) > Peugeot

To me the Peugeot will always be either a sturdy touring/racing cross or a commuter. The key word here is 'sturdy'.

For the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, Raleigh contracted with Cino Cinelli to design the bikes for the road race. When the Raleigh Professional model was introduced later in the decade, it retained several Cinelli hallmarks, the most obvious of which was the fully sloping fork crown.

Raleigh tapped Cinelli because he was doing shorter-wheelbase designs at that time in comparison to the French manufacturers, undoubtedly because he had realized that most Italian racing was concentrated in areas with well-paved roads near population centers, whereas the French races still covered lots of territory on cobbled and gravel roads.

Also, and this is just speculation, it's possible that Raleigh's race team management already knew that the road race in Japan was going to be run on smooth roads that would favor Italian-style bikes that handled well at speed.

And, of course, an Italian racer won. (I can't post the video because the host blocks it, but search for "Mario Zanin Wins Road Cycling Gold In A Mass Finish - Tokyo 1964.")

Hence also, by the way, the "competition fit" and "French fit" categories for bike fitting, depending on the rider's intentions: competition (or Italian) fit for high-speed training and racing and French fit for steady-state riding covering lots of miles.

Note that, interestingly, the geometry of your Peugeot has a lot in common with the geometries of the gravel bikes that have become wildly popular in recent years. So between that bike and your Cinelli, your Peugeot is arguably the more currently fashionable. Enjoy it for what it is.

PTL011-

Mine showed up as a modified frameset as below:


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...84c211317a.jpg

Typically, OEM kit would have been:
Stronglight 93 52/45 crankset
Stronglight P3 or V4 headset
Simplex 2 bolt microadjusting steel seatpost
Brooks Pro or Ideale 90 saddle
Mafac Racer brakeset with white or black rubber half hoods
Sedis chain
High Flange gold label Normandy Luxe hubs with black rubber cover Simplex quick releases
Simplex Criterium rear derailleur
Simplex Criterium front derailleur
Simplex Criterium rubber covered friction shift levers
Mavic rims with tubular tires
AD Hoc or Zefal Competition frame pump
Atax/Philippe stem and bar or AVA bar and stem
Lyotard pedals with Christophe clips and straps

Thought this was a perfect response. Quoting it here in case anyone missed it.

If I may summarize: Yes, it's a racing bike; from a time when the sport was very different.

OP opinions are certainly valid but also left the door open for other. The PX10 model was dominant for years in the pro level to amateurs getting a packaged machine for a relatively decent price. The records stand.

There were changes in geometry, add through the years in tubing, lugs, construction, components etc..
The pros dope to transfusions changed too.

Anyways. OP example is really nice with proper and nicely done upgrades which keeps in the spirit of a classic vintage, rideable for daily use. And the upgrades would be fairly appropriate a decade after its first sale and delivery.

I like the build and would ride as its. That said, no mention of the year but if one is a stickler for original as equipped, it wouldn't take much.

No need to go extreme searching for component date codes. Budget disposable like BiC lighters; Simplex Prestige with Delrin shift group would get it close to original. The fronts snap while on display. Include the matched Simplex (w/ Delrin) lower cable guide. Sedis chain. 5 speed Cyclo tall geared freewheel.
MAFAC brake hoods, cloth bar wrap. Rid of the modern brake pads. Lapize toe clips and straps.
Normandy hubs, Simplex skewers, Mavic tubular rims 36 spoke.

Look at your clunker tires. At least put decent road tires on it.

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.

I bought my PX-10 in 1970, because at $180 it was the least expensive sew-up tire bike. The owners of Sugden and Lynch Bicycles in Palo Alto probably high fived each other when I took that turkey off their hands.

It wasn't a very good bike, at least for that level of machine, although it was nicer than the Peugeot UO-8 that it replaced. I rode it for about six months, then I found out about Colnagos, and I got one. I don't even remember whom I sold the PX-10 to.

As a note in reference to a couple of earlier posts, Thevenet’s bikes used in his 75 and 77 TDF wins were anything but dead stock off the factory assembly line. In 1974 Peugeot set up their Prestige shop which functioned as a small, custom operation completely separate from the normal factory. Its function was to build high quality and custom bikes for the sponsored team and also on a limited basis to customers at large. From a distance they *looked* like the factory product, but that was where the similarities ended. All of this was in response to what became rather common knowledge that Merckx and some others were using other frames disguised as sponsor provided Peugeots…..but that is another story as well…

I am glad you mentioned Peugeot build quality, because my 1981 Bianchi put my 1980 Peugeot PKN-10 to shame in that department. However, the PKN-10 has much more generous tire clearance, which is a strong point in favor of its versatility. The only reason I gave it to my elder son is that it is one size too long in the top tube and too too tall in the seat tube for me (my size is 55cm C-T).

John I see you have the Bianchi Campione D'Italia as well, not sure if yours was like mine with the Formula 2 tubing (Bianchi kinda went insane in the 80s with the naming convention) but of the many that I own now - Japanese, French, American, English, Italian, the only three that were spectacular to me...and objectively a result of the tubing/geometry, were the Centurion Ironman Master, Gitane TDF, and the Bianchi Formula 2 Campione.

If my Campione was 2 cm taller, there would be no way I would ever part with it.