big chainring 

Yesterday I went out for a ride on this bike. I did 30 miles at a modest pace.

I have been riding this bike for the last month-6weeks.

The Reynolds is about a 25 pound bike. 531 tubing, Campy, TA, nice Campy wheels with Pasela tires. Rides nice.
The Peugeot is 30 pounds, steel crank, Simplex Prestige derailleurs, big Continental tires with lots of tread.

I was amazed at how nice the Peugeot rides. It is so comfortable and predictable. It just feels right and handles so well. If I was forced to make a choice, I would keep the Peugeot over the Reynolds. It sounds goofy but there it is. Maybe I got a good one. Somehow the builder of this bike hit it right. This is my second UO-8 and I think they really are a special bike. Simple, sound and amazing ride.

Mos6502

It's actually not at all surprising. Mild steel, long chainstays, of course it's going to be a comfortable ride. It might not be the stiffest frame but if you're not racing that doesn't mean anything.

ozneddy

Bike Boom dont necessarily mean bad !

Drillium Dude 

I'm not surprised, either - after all, it's orange.

DD

SteveSGP

I love UO8s, one day I'll run across one tall enough for me and I'll keep it.

Probably the prettiest low end bike ever.


.

auchencrow

There's a lot of love here for U08's, BC., and for good reason.
The orange ones are especially good.

Velognome 

I feel the same about my UO-9, I just haven't come out of the closet yet. Opps!

redneckwes

It's just the beauty of an inexpensive Peugeot.

John E

Your UO-8 is geared like a P*-10: 52-45/14-21. It also has P*-10-style brake cable clips, instead of the brazed-on guides and open cable run. European spec, perhaps? I do like the location off your water bottle.

My transportation beater is a 1970 UO-8 w/ aluminum rims and cranks and Japanese derailleurs.

CardiacKid

In the flatlands weight is almost irrelevant. When I lived in Northern Il. And Dallas I didn't realize my Varsity was a boat anchor. I got a rude awakening when I moved to South Austin.

oldbobcat

I usually turn up my nose at UO-8s--especially the later ones with vinyl saddles, "safety" levers, cheap pedals, and usually painfully ill-fitting to the rider. But yours is a really sweet build. I understand.

I'd volunteer to take the Reynolds off your hands but it's too small. You'll enjoy it on go-fast days.

RoadTire 

I'm really curious about this. Is there a difference in the geometry between the Peugeot UO-8 and Reynolds, like wheelbase, chainstay length, fork rake and trail? The look very similar in the pictures. Eventually I'll be getting a new bike, one of the main criteria is going to be "comfortable and predictable."

Sixty Fiver

The geometry of the UO8 hearkens back to the 50's when many road bicycles had longer chain stays, slacker angles, and ran wider, higher volume tyres which made riding rougher roads a far more enjoyable experience and this translates into a bicycle that rides wonderfully on our much improved roads.

The frame on the UO8 is not quite as stiff as a Reynold's framed bicycle and the fork also absorbs a great deal of vibration and when you compare it to the Reynolds which has steeper angles, a shorter wheelbase (sport class), with less trail it should be easy to understand why the Peugeot feels as plush as it does.

I have an AO8 from this era and although it shares the same geometry as the UO8, this bike feels far stiffer under power but offers the same predictable and sure footed ride quality and soaks up bumps like a sponge soaks up water.

big chainring 

I bought this bike from a fixie guy. He had removed all the braze-ons. Sort of ticked me off at first but the bike looks classy with the brake cable clamps and derailleur guides. Gearing is 40/52 and 13-21 ultra6. I have no complaint about the Simplex derailleurs. In fact the rear shifts quick and smooth. The front does its job satisfactorily.

Reynolds is a 59cm frame. 40 1/2" wheelbase, 17 1/2" chainstays.
Peugeot is a 60cm frame. 41 1/2" wheelbase, 18" chainstays.
I really don't know how rake and trail are measured. But whatever the geometry differences the Peugeot feels better. I noticed the same thing with a Gitane Grand Sport Deluxe that I had. There is something about the long relaxed geometry that appeals to me. On longer rides I just feel like I am more part of the bike and can ride farther with greater comfort.

jimmuller 

Sort of like a UX-10 or maybe a PO-8?
Count me in the column of those who like the UO-8.

Grand Bois

At first glance I thought it was a PA10 with those top tube cable clips.



Mine originally had this cottered crank.

bikemig 

Full disclosure, I used to work in a Peugeot shop so I'm partial to their bikes. That said, I've owned at different times a UO-8 and a UO-10. They were two of the best riding bikes I've owned. They had reasonably slack angles and a longish wheelbase (72 parallel I believe on a 23 inch frame with a 42 inch wheelbase). I loved the monster tires I was able to mount up on the UO-8 since I used it as a commuter. So yeah, I keep my eye out on CLs and hope one of those show up in my size one of these days cuz I really need another bike, . OK I really want another bike as long as it is the right Peugeot.

repechage

The Peugeot definitely has more fork rake, beyond that the angle of the shot does not really allow comparison, but I will hazard a guess. The Peugeot will have basically 72° parallel angles, the Reynolds will probably have 73 and as mentioned a shorter rear triangle.
The shop I worked for sold Peugeots, basically they rode better than other bikes in their price range but had lesser equipment. If the customer could tell the difference, they bought the Peugeot, often with an upgrade to the derailleurs, we often sold those customers toe clips and straps too. A larger percentage noticed the shifting more, for them it was the Nishiki or Centurion.

Gitane and Bertin also had nice riding entry level road bikes.

And I forgot to mention the Peugeots came with Michelin tires, a nicer tire compared to the competing bikes.

bikemig 

The wheels on the Peugeots were pretty good compared to what could be found on other bikes; the Normandy high flange laced to Rigida 1622 alloy rims which could be found on the UO-10 and the 9 too I believe where better than most any other bike found at a similar price point (and stronger than a lot of wheels sold today).

dddd

UO8 geometry flip-flopped in 1979, with the previously slack (~72-degree) seat tube steepening to ~75 degrees, and the previously pretty-quick head-tube angle slackening from ~73+ degrees back to 72 degrees. These numbers are for mid-sized bikes I should mention, since the smallest sizes typically get steeper seat tubes and more a layed-back head tube angle.
The chainstays also were shortened by almost 2cm, but were then still very long for a road bike.

So in effect, the '79 models became much like early triathlon frames, geometry-wise, except for the still-long chainstays.

It's been said that nobody did cheap bikes better than Peugeot. I actually like BOTH versions, but have a much-easier time "making time" in the hills with the later ones. The earlier bikes were more comfortable imo in cruise mode, while still retaining crisp steering that could put a comparable Raleigh to shame, at least within the confines of urban riding.

As for the tubing, heavier, milder tubing is always stiffer than the good stuff, due to thicker walls, since the MATERIAL STIFFNESS of mild steel is practically identical to the more alloyed, cold-worked and heat-treated stuff. The better steels will bend much further (more like spring steel) without taking a set, allowing a more comfortable ride without sacrificing any breaking strength or tendency to lose it's alignment (that would otherwise result from simply making a cheap tubeset's wall's thinner).

There are so many factors that determine which bikes feel comfortable under a given rider. I don't think I am exaggerating to say that any of more than a dozen not-so-obvious variables can make one bike have a better ride than another.
Frame size will affect what length of stem that the rider selects, and longer stems induce a countering effect to steering response that can alter a particular frame's reflexes for better or for worse.
Something as simple as chioce of tires or saddle can give the rider a completely different "read" on how the bike performs over bad pavement.
A smooth-turning headset is always crucial to realizing proper steering response.
Rider position fore and aft of the bottom bracket hugely affects the amount of effort one needs to exert to hoist themself up into a climbing/sprinting (standing) position, and also affects how sharply bent at the waist that a rider's body is in order to reach down to the bars.

The first evaluation I make when testing out a new bike (after verifying straight-ahead rnning with hands off of the bars) is to see how the handlebar position feels when riding uphill out of the saddle. This must firstly be close to optimal.
The next determination is setting the seat height, angle and fore-aft position to comfortably fit with where the handlebar is. It's that simple!!!
If I find myself pushing off of the rear edge of the saddle when using proper leg extension during hard, seated climbing, then I know that the saddle is probably too low, since the final "adjustment" to saddle height is actually done by the rider while riding, as they move horizontally (fore and aft) in response to the necessary amount of leg extension under forceful pedaling.

The bike's size and steering geometry really have the last word though, as frames with shallower (layed back) head tube angles may not achieve a proper (linear) steering response with a longer stem, and bikes with steeper head tube angles may need a longer stem to counter an over-responsive steering feel.
And lastly, a higher handlebar position almost always makes a bike have lighter, more-responsive steering at the expense of high-speed stability.

I think we're all thinking the same thing, i.e. we really want that Reynolds to be the better bike!
But out on the harder, hillyer training rides, my later-model 1979 UO9 Super Sport sings a pretty good tune.

Grand Bois

The Simplex Prestige derailers were cheap and looked it, but I always thought that they shifted well when new. The shop I worked for sold Raleigh and Peugeot, so you got Simplex in that price range. When they stopped working well, we replaced them with another Prestige.

The Michelin Elan was a decent tire for its time. I used the narrower Elites on my PX10.

repechage

The Michelins that the UO8 sported were before the Elan, I do not remember the model name but they had a fine chevron tread, not a great rain tire, but they rode well.
I bought a bike with Elans on it, time to retire on of them, the thread cap has been cracking and now is chunking, They are pretty narrow, one is Really narrow, not a tire I would buy alone but they did corner pretty well.
Way back Michelin had an advertising campaign where they showed a test rider leaning into a turn very aggressively and the tarmac was wet.

Changing the derailleurs out was part of the sales theme, "like the Peugeot's ride better and the shifting on the Nishiki?, no problem we can upgrade the Peugeot for you, for just the price of the parts, free labor"... (and we threw in the needed longer cable and housing)

Binxsy

I love mine to! It has tubular wheels tied to record hub (old campy cerca late 70's) and a single in the back. I have it geared at 40ish/18 so its a nice in between gear that not to easy but gets up hills with ease. I upgraded the brakes some short reach NOS higher end suntours, and tektro levers. It rides like butter...

big chainring 

You guys may be referring to the Michelin fifty tires. Pretty common on French bikes in the early 70's.

As for Simplex derailleurs, I think they get a bad rap. The rear derailleurs work fine if you use free wheels that are I'm the 14-24 range. The basic 14-28 standard issue free wheels back in the day were a little too wide range. And the Simplex shifters were the real culprit.

John E

I remember the Michelin Fifty tires. Some UO-8s came through w/ Hutchinsons, instead. (I worked at a Peugeot/Nishiki dealership 1972-74).

The Simplex pushrod front derailleur OK for half-step gearing or perhaps 52-45, but no match for a SunTour, Huret, or Campagnolo Record on 52-42, 52-40, or 50-36.

The Simplex rear was adequate a 14-26 freewheel, but no match for a SunTour of the same vintage.

The delrin shifters were miserable.