The First PX-10, Thoughts
 

Finally got my first PX-10, from the 60s all original no less. 59cm CTT and took it out for a spin. How anyone can laughingly call this a racing bike and not a touring bike for the clunker that it is, even given the comparables out there (in its own time no less) is a mystery.

Nevertheless I am pleased. If only to put it up on a wall to commemorate history, it was worth it...







https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...bd8158583e.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...62f9028ac1.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...76bb361d99.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...5da6c2ff9a.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...20c0674f4f.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...1aa3c3ac64.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...179fca1773.jpg

Nice find, but "all original" is a stretch. Those are later derailleurs, Campagnolo shift levers, and an original PX-10 would be sporting sew-ups.
The wheels alone may explain part of the difference in "feel" from the racing bike you expected but, in general, I think it is safe to say that European racing bikes from from the sixties still had more supple geometry to accommodate the non-asphalt road construction still much in use at the time.

If you mean “touring” bike in reference to “Tour” de France winning bike as raced by Roger Pingeon in 1967 and Bernard Thevenet in 1975 and 1977, then maybe you are correct.

If you think PX-10s are not a racing bike, then how do you explain Tom Simpson’s or Eddy Merckx’s World Championships aboard PX-10s in 1965 and 1967 respectively. Heck, Eddy’s first major win, Milan-San Remo, in 1966 was on a PX-10. I could go on as could many others…basic answer is the PX-10 is undoubtedly a racing bike and has the palmarès to prove it.

Why don't you pass this bike on to someone who will appreciate it, since you think the bike is a clunker? By the way, post 3 (hat tip to Markeologist ) hits the nail on the head in terms of the racing pedigree of this bike which is, of course, all the more reason for you to consider passing this bike on to someone else.

It depends on your perspective . As was stated , the bikes were different , for a number of reasons , 40 or so years ago . To judge a bike without that perspective is a bit presumptuous. I am not a huge fan of the early French bikes , but they certainly earned their place in racing history.

As stated by daka There are several key components that are not original on this PX-10 and in particular the wheels will make a huge difference in the feel of the bike on the road. Not having tubular tires pumped up to 100 psi (or something of equivalent feel) will undoubtedly make this bike ride sluggishly compared to how it was intended to feel.

The Peugeot PX-10 is an awesome 1950s racing bike that lived on with relatively minor changes well into the 1970s. C. 1973 Peugeot began selling these with more upright, stiffer frame geometry before dialing that back a touch to maybe 73 degree parallel angles and clearances that reflected what was then fashionable. All the while they kept sponsoring racing teams including the '75 and '77 Tour de France winner Bernard Thevenet - who admittedly rode a PY-10, but that is simply a more refined PX-10.

A '60s example like the OP's is designed for long hard stages over roads that weren't buttery smooth asphalt, but could include dirt and cobblestones. Typically the tubulars would be fatter (28-32mm) because good fat tubular tires are fast and comfy at the same time. There are clearances for mudguards because these bikes were ridden year round, when racers would bundle up and head out for long training rides in bad weather. A stock PX-10 in 1965 would have weighed less than a comparable Campagnolo-equipped bike and would provided arguably smoother shifting. The metric gauge 531 tubing would have provided a springy ride over poor road surfaces.

Referring to a PX-10 as a clunker sounds like a comment from someone living under a bridge waiting for unwary billy goats, but it may simply reflect not thinking through the biggest single influence on bicycle design changes over the last 50 years - affluence. The whole idea of maintaining a fleet of dedicated bikes for specific cycling experiences is relatively recent. Lots of cyclists used to have a good bike and maybe a couple of wheelsets, riding clinchers for commuting, touring and club runs and switching to sprints (tubulars) for time trials and racing.

As noted earlier, this one is NOT all original - the derailleurs, wheelset and brake levers are all later products. It's a lovely bike, and in its time was a race-winning bike - lots of amateur racers were won on these machines as well! - and judging its raceworthiness by the standards of later hyper-specialized machines only capable of being ridden on glassy smooth asphalt without shaking fillings out is missing the point.

Welcome to the PX-10 club. They're great all-rounders in line with the road conditions of the day. Curious, what bikes of it's own time (1960's) are you comparing it to and the PX still feels clunky?

Agree.
Thats a very nice PX-10 and I like the upgrades.
As many stated, sewup tubs would really complete the nice ride for this era.
There are many very nice clinchers which can also help greatly.
I added Teravail Rampart 700cx32 tires on my early 70's Paramount P13 and it rides great.
Would be nice to see this bike loved by a owner and riding in the wild.

They're still great all-rounders, especially if you live somewhere where the road conditions have pretty much deteriorated/reverted back to conditions of the '60s!
PX-10s, IMO also make a nice platform for 'rest-modding'- ie, 650B conversion, or flat-bars for a 'city' bike, etc.

I've owned three or four PX-10s over the years and have outfitted them in various ways: with original kit, as 650B conversions, as 650A conversions, as single speeds. For whatever reason, none really spoke to me with any kind of magic carpet ride feel, and I moved them along to new owners. Maybe my expectations were too high.

I’m calling this one a racing bike (said laughingly). What can I say? I’m a bit mysterious.

Always fun to see someone throwing rocks this early in the morning:thumb:

Would be nice to know what other contemporaneous bikes you compared the PX-10 too … I’m not a Peugeot owner myself, I prefer the Gitanes of the era. Both, along with others, however, have that metric 531 feel which I find enjoyable.

The PX-10 was quite light for the time - which makes a huge difference on long climbs. While it might not be your first choice for a criterium, it was quite capable and weighed a couple kilos less than the Viking Severn Valley (which a couple UK based teams were riding as racing bikes into the early 70s). As others have mentioned, a different set of wheels/tires will make a big difference in how you perceive the ride. Tires with the volume those appear to be will likely not accelerate quickly, nor give the road feel that some associate with "fast". Also, road racing bikes tended to not be as stiff as today's bikes. In its era it was unquestionable amongst the "royalty" of racing bikes.

As posted above by numerous individuals, you (OP) need to list contemporaries that you have ridden at the same time (as in today, last week etc.) to compare to the PX10. You cannot make your original statement with this qualifier. I am not saying that you are wrong, you just need to follow up here.

My bike collection goes from 1970 to 2022, so comparisons have to be in perspective.

.
...someone went to a lot of trouble to rehabilitate and make some improvements to that one, but if you're gonna keep riding it with those pedals, at least add some clips and straps.

OP,
Maybe because because of this......The Belgian rider, Eddy Merckx began his professional career astride a PX-10 for the BP Peugeot team in the mid-1960s. Bernard Thevenet won the 1975 and 1977 Tours de France on PX-10s....and so on :D
Best, Ben

I will candidly acknowledge that I prefer Gitanes of that era to PX-10s, and perhaps the OP would be better served by a TdF or a Super Corsa - but still, the PX-10 was a successful and popular racing mount for many years and reflected road conditions and expectations of its time.

The OP is right, bikes are better today than 50 or 60 years ago.

The PX10 I bought in 1971 was only my second bicycle purchase, so I didn't have the experience to make proper comparisons (upgraded from a Hi-Ten frame). The LBS where I bought it recommended this as a good all-around bike for me. I even splurged on a set of clinchers to go with the sew-ups. It served me well as a commuter, touring and gravel bike for more than 40 years! There were arguably better racing bikes available, but not for $250.

Today my daily rider could be considered a race bike due to geometry (Soma Smoothie) with rack and fender mounts. Love the bike, even though there are many better racing bikes. Funny thing is that I no longer commute, tour or ride gravel, but still like riding fast at 70 years old.

Be happy to take that clunker off your hands. It would go nice with my moto le champion.

I have restored and ridden two vintage PX10s and found them both to be responsive, fast and a pleasure to ride. Never would I have put either one into the clunker class...
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9e46d2906e.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e5c0a75920.jpg

That said, my guess is that, were I to have fitted either of my bikes with heavy tires, similar to the OP's, my bikes would have felt slower and less responsive. Rim and tire weight do make a big difference in feel, in my opinion. I run tubulars on my X10s and that, alone, might have contributed to my opinion of the bike's ride quality...
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ec82ebfb70.jpg

I might add one piece of information that I learned on-line (meaning not my personal experience). The Peugeot PX10 was the most affordable road racing bike available in the late sixties and early seventies. Something to think about, don't you think?

Wow, I had no idea this crowd had such strong feelings about the racing pedigree of the PX10!
[MENTION=562214]PTL011[/MENTION] That's a beautiful bike, and while the components are not be all original, they are logical choices that fit the organic growth of the bike. I've got a PX-10 from that era, and while mine came to me as a bare frame, I chose very similar derailleurs and Mavic clincher rims. It's still mostly French (Brooks saddle, and I used a Velo Orange crank). I saw someone refer to this as a sympathetic build -- in keeping with the original character of the bike without going all the way to a full restoration. I put a 48-30 crankset on mine, so I guess it's a step closer to being a touring bike (:p), but with Vittoria Corsa Control tires I think the ride is fantastic.

I have a px10 frameset with a creak in the bottom bracket. A real shame because it feels fabulous but for that.

This is an important point for those who did not live though that era. Besides having racing bona fides the PX-10 was well distributed in the USA and cost a lot less than comparable machines. I first saw a PX-10 in 1972 and that very bike was passed to me a decade ago, short version of the story here. The original owner paid $185 USD + tax in the summer of 1971 for it. A Raleigh or Atala Pro would have been 300+ or more.

I now own a second one, a 1972 that actually fits me and is sympathetically upgraded as we did with bikes we owned for a long time. Different wheels, Simplex SLJ derailleurs, Retrofriction shifters, and a Red Clover triplizer. I find that the 2 PXs share a distinct ride quality and while it's not the bike I would keep if I could only have one, I appreciate and fully enjoy it for what it is. I'm always glad to take it out for a good ride. YMMV

These old PX10s are just what they are. Many might think the build quality looks poor, but I I think that wasn't so unusual back then, at least compared to newer bikes of the 80's. What counted most is the handling and ride of these bikes that is pretty much legendary for Peugeot.
These bikes were raced by some of the best riders of that time, successfully and were never short of the competition.