cranky old dude

I am guessing from the serial# stamped on the underside if the BB (and very difficult to read), and from what I suspect is a date stamp on the front hub that this is approximately a 1984 Peugeot. The decal scheme also appears ro be 1984 -1987ish. I have been unable to determine what model it is though I expect it's low end entry level stuff.

Any clues as to what I have here?

Below is the information I was able to find stamped on the bike and components along with some pictures, without doing any dis-assembly.

Peugeot

Serial #………. Underside of BB……………………………B412 17675

Frame # (?)….. Paper under tape, left chainstay…………4001765 PHLE1054

Stem…………. ……………………………………………..CTA

Bar…………… (embossed) La Bonneville ITON-27190.....CTA

Brakes……….. Side pull……………………………………. Weinmann Type 500

Brake levers ….. ………………………………………………. Shimano 105

Cranks………. ………………………………………………. Nervar

Hubs………… Found possible date on hub (84)………. Maillard
Rear labeled "Helico Matic"

Fork & Frame....Approx 53 cm. BB center to top of seat tube....Carbolite 103

Front DR ……………………………………….……….Sachs Huret

Rear DR ……………………………………………….Shimano

Friction shifters ……………………………………..……….Sachs Huret

Dropouts…… with screw adjusters………………………. Simplex

Tires………….. ……………………………………………….Michelin 28 x 650

Skewers……. ……………………………………………….Spidel



















Thanks in advance for your input. I'm trying to decide whether or not to bring this little balck bike back to life.

that_guy_zach

Its a decent bike. Not the best but it would make a nice bike for someone. Looks like a simple and inexpensive, but labor heavy project to get back on the road.

20grit

HLE was a lower range tubeset.

You do have a Shimano Golden Arrow derailleur on there (probably a late addition). Those fetch a decent penny on ebay.

At best it's a lower mid level machine. I'd guess more higher entry level. Don't have catalogs to locate models, but that's my take on it.

lostarchitect 

It was free? Nothing special, but heck yes, bring it back to life! It doesn't look all that bad.

Oldpeddaller

Are the forks bent - or is it just my eyesight?

Nice lower level 1984 Peugeot. I like those Carbolite 103 frames - not fantastically light but not "boat anchors" either, they give a very smooth ride. It's arguably in better condition than the very similar "Peugeot Esprit" I'm restoring at present - the frame's the same, even the colour scheme but mine's got Rigida steel rims, the same front changer, brakes & shifters and Sachs alloy cranks with steel chain rings. In the UK Peugeots were sold with model names, not numbers. Yours looks to be a better model in the range than mine. Sorry no photos yet, it's in pieces in my garage (buried behind a ton of displaced household items displaced to make more space indoors at Christmas, courtesy of my good lady wife). I've got some new alloy rims and stainless spokes to rebuild my wheels, yours look as though they will polish up well instead. My Esprit has a Shimano rear mech as well, but only a Tourney - and I'd guess that both rear mechs are replacements. I'd definitely put the effort in to restore your bike, it really only needs stripping down, cleaning, adjusting and lubing (assuming I'm wrong about the fork) and it'll make a fun ride for someone.

auchencrow

I think it is an 86/7 PHLE10 like the label says!
(Usually these paper labels are missing)

It is a worthy project because those internally brazed pug's were very good rides, despite being lower-mid level.

In my experience, these bikes are reasonably light and the HLE tubing is pretty decent tubing. Here is what the 87 Peugeot catalog says about HLE steel:


“HLE is Peugeot’s exclusive alloy tubing. It is a “micro alloyed steel” which is composed of Manganese, Nobelium, Aluminum, Carbon and Titanium, which offers a lighter, yet stronger frame. These4 elements are commonly used in the manufacture of aeronautical steel. The introduction of these elements results in a steel with dramatically improved mechanical properties when compared to conventional steel.

The strength to weight ratio of HLE steel is superior to that of conventional tubing. Using this tubing enables Peugeot to save more than 7 ounces in the weight of the frame. The HLE tubing, when used with our patented internal brazing system, gives Peugeot a frame which is at the top of its class in performance and reliability.”


PS the fork is likely a older replacement.

Oldpeddaller

Auchen, is this the same tubing as the Peugeot "Carbolite 103"? This frame is identical to my "103's" (I've got two of them but both in huge sizes), even down to the internally brazed joints.

Stealthammer

My guess is it is a 1984 PH10LE that retailed for $280-320 when new. A good (but not great) find, but if you part it out and clean all of the parts up really well, I'll bet you could make nearly that much back out of it. Congratulations!



https://www.flickr.com/photos/cobrabyte/2921479195/

https://cyclespeugeot.com/images/1985...ications_1.jpg

auchencrow

The 7 oz weight savings cited in the Peugeot catalog is probably as-compared-to what came before (which in this case was typically Carbolite 103).

I'll put a caveat on that by saying I don't think anyone knows exactly what went into Carbolite 103 - so I can't say it is categorically any different, but I can tell you that my HLE Corbier (a rung or two below the OP's bike) feels a lot lighter than a U08!

wrk101

+1 Bent fork. Very fixable. Bike will take a lot of work, so depending on your interest, you could probably sell as is in the $25 to $50 to someone else that will do the work, or do the work yourself.

cranky old dude

So the label contains the model name?

I measured roughly 21+" from the BB center to the top of the seat tube...or 54cm.

Does that mean this label indicates a PHLE 10 (or PH10 LE) size 54cm.?



I'm wondering what the realtionship is between the embossed serial number on the BB bottom and the very similar number on the paper label. (B412 17675 vs. 4001765)

The Fork...yeah, I noticed that too. I think I'll try bringing the bike back to life. If I'm successful, then I'll look for someone to bend it back (or not).

auchencrow

+1

wrk101

1986 PH10LE: Came with Carbolite 103 fork and Huret derailleurs and shift levers. So I think that is what you have. I've got a twin to that bike (black 1986PH10LE, 54cm), it also came with a bent fork...

Correction, black is a 1985 color, so I guess both of ours are black (although the catalogs show the 1985 to have an HLE fork, while the 1986 has a Carbolite 103 fork)).

Chombi

Aside from the bent fork, if the frame is not bent or buckled in any way from the incident, all I see that needs to be fixed/done might really be not too much. Frankly, if I'm reading the pics right, the bike looks to have done very little miles when it might have had the bent fork related mishap and maybe put away in a garage for 20+ years where it accumulated all that dust, and very superficial looking rust
Have a good bike shop look at that fork to see if they can fix it by cold setting. The rest would be rotine tune up, lubrication, replacement of perishables (tires, tubes, and maybe cables and brake pads plus a good cleaning.

Chombi

Grand Bois

It's a great bike for the price you paid.

c3hamby

That leaf in the wheel is hard to find on any bike, entry to high end. When they get brown like that they get real crunchy but that's how you can tell it's been there awhile.

Most likely if you take it off it will crumble.

Stealthammer

From what I understand, B412 17675 is the serial number that was stamped into the frame when it was built, and it identifies when the frame was built (XYMM) as well as the specific frame serial number within that production run. The X412 on your frame indicates that the frame was built in December of 1984. The 17675 indicates the specific frame serial number for that production run. The paper label was placed on the chainstay or bottom bracket when the bike was actually assembled and it is "associated" with the frame's serial number but was actually used for inventory tracking.

Since each of these frames could end up as any one of several models the "B" probably indicates the specific size or frame configuration, but no one seems to know for sure.

cranky old dude

December 1984. That combined with the '85 Spec Sheet that you posted the link to is the kind of enlightenment I was searching for.

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and insights.

The bike is a tad bit small for me but I'm going to get it back to 'Road worthy' status and then offer it up to my daughters. I think I already know which one will want it. When she leaves with it she'll have a fact sheet including the info learned from this thread.

I'll try to remember to post the results here.

Poguemahone

It is a darn nice trash find. I'd pull it apart, it's likely worth more as parts. The frame isn't worth much, aside from the fork damage it looks like there is a nice kickstand crimp on the rear stay.

bigbossman 

I doubt it is bent - it is impossible to tell from that photo, but small cameras with wide focal lenses usually induce error into the photo that makes it look like the fork is bent. It's a pretty commonly occurring optical error, but that doesn't seem to stifle the "fork is bent" chorus almost every time a bike picture is introduced here.

The only way to tell is by in-person inspection, unless the fork is VERY obviously wrecked. This one is not obvious, so my money would be on "not bent".

Low end though it may be, because it is a small frame it would have value (around here, anyway) after a complete overhaul. At the very least, strip it down to bare frame/fork/headset, buff out the paint with Scratch-X or something similar, and pop it up on eBay. My guess is that you might get $150 just for the frame-set, if it shines up nicely and presents well in photographs.

Stealthammer

I have to agree. I bought several hands full of PX10s from the same era back in the late 80s and most of them needed a slight bit of "tweaking" to get them truely straight, but the forks were seldom the problem. From the photos I would guess that if the fork is bent, that it can't be out by more than 0.5-1.0mm at most, and even then it would have to be laterally. No paint cracking, no tubing wrinkling, spacing between the front tire and the downtube looks ok.... but the front wheel is offset slightly in the fork. My guess is that the alignment issue might be as simple as front wheel fit or dish.

Road Fan

So for zero money you got a frame with thinner-wall steel tubing, all-aluminum components, and only one item of crash damage (the fork, but please check the frame for any signs of collapse at or near the TT/HT and DT/HT junctions!). Needs a lot of time - have to rebuild all the bearings, and whatever else is supposed to move and might not do it so good. But with that frame it should become a good bike, and some of the parts might be worth something (rear mech, maybe the brakes, Maillard hubs and matching freewheel. Spidel skewer sets are not easy to find any more, with all the little plastic bits still intact.

What's to complain about? If you don't like this one, walk the other way when you see a dumpster. It could have been a Vista or a Columbia.

Road Fan

BTW, this HLE tubing is unique to Peugeot, and they were uniquely capable among bike companies. They were vertically integrated, in that they made the steel, rolled the tubes, made the lugs, built the frames, and assembled the bikes. Kind of like a car company, which they were, as well. Back before the UO-8 they were experimenting with tubing refinements, and I believe the usually surprising ride of a UO-8 is the result, and the light weight that results if you weenie the bike. Unlike a Vista or Columbia.

A true cheapskate could have a lot of fun with this bike.

Road Fan

I'd go for a rider rather than a flipper, but ...

I agree, it's really hard to tell what's going on with that fork. The photo is not directly side on from the fork, and the lighting is rather low - it's hard to see if it's the shape of one fork blade or two. Aside from potential lens distortions.

Miyata110

PM me if you decide not to rehab it as I'd be happy to take it off your hands.