I have a 56 cm Vitus full Mavic that has de Gribaldy stickers on seat tube and down tube and the head tube. It is a early Sean Kelly team bike. A old friend passed away and left it to me. It is setting in my garage taking up space and I ride 61 cm bikes. What is it worth?
Thank You

Charles, Do you have any idea of how old the bicycle is? I'm not familiar with Monsieur Kelly.

He was one of the greats. 80's racer. In case you're interested:

http://www.seankelly.com/

De Gribaldy decals would indicate the frame as 1984 or 1985. Value will depend on whether it is a team replica, an actual team bicycle or a genuine bicycle ridden by Sean Kelly. If it's one of the latter two, you'll need some documentation to prove it and realize it's true value. If it's a bicycle ridden by Sean in one of his numerous Classics wins, if it hasn't been restored, and if you have the documentation to support ithe history, then it will attract a lot of buyers. However, I would not want to guess how high this could go for at auction!

Most "old" bikes have two values: "riding around" value, and "obsessive collector value". If the bike is "like new", and has 100% of the original components, placing it on E-Bay might turn up a collector who has been hunting for this precise bike. And, if it is identical in every respect to the actual bike Kelly used himself, it is likely a high quality bike that in "mint" condition could sell for $500 to $800 or so with a first rate E-Bay ad..

But, if not "original" and in "mint' condition, it becomes less interesting to collectors. And, its "riding around value" is likely to be only $150 to $250.

Have you considered putting on an extra-tall Nitto stem and riding it yourself? Although I prefer a size 60 bike, a size 56 fits reasonably well with the stem up a couple of inches. Twenty years from now, YOU may better appreciate the virtues of owning this unique bike.

It is from 84 and the bike is a team replica Sean never has ridden it.The bike is in excellent condition.

i would be very interested in it :)specially if it is a team replica:)still havent gotten a vitus yet , but ive been looking

The latest Nashbar catalog I got in the mail states they have Vitus framesets in various sizes/color from the 80's. $499.95. If you're interested check nashbar.com & do a search for vitus.

I wonder were they got them.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with what Alan writes. Do not even think about putting an extra-tall Nitto stem on such a bike. This bike was designed to distribute the riders' weight on the frame in a particular way. To use Alan's suggestion would completely throw off the complete design of the bike. It would be akin to take a formula one car and move the rear wing to the front of the car. It would totally destroy the handling.

As far as value, the De Gribaldy labels will give it added 'mojo', but the Vitus frames are not terribly well-loved in the larger frame sizes. The Mavic groupe on the bike is worth more than $150-250 estimate given. The derailleurs alone will sell for about $100, the retrofriction gear levers another $40, the pedals if the quill model another $80, the wheels another $100... I would expect it to sell quite well on ebay, especially if sold by a reputable seller with a good description.

Why is the "handling" of THIS particular frame so vastly different than on a Trek road bike or Centurion road bike from the same era? Please tell us how the geometry of this frame differs from the frames used by Pros in the Tour de France during the 1955 to 1985 era? What makes this one frame handle so vastly differently than all of the other road bikes used by the Pro peloton?

Alan, you obviously have neither raced, nor ridden any bike at the limit. I doubt that you have even toured long distance either. If you had done any of these, you would realise the misguidedness of what you write above. The slow speed handling that you seem to appreciate are precisely what you want to avoid at the limit. The Vitus is not your "average" bike, nor was it designed to be ridden by your "average" rider. As you correctly state, to ride a bike designed for racing in a non-racing posture is just as goofy as using a formula one car to commute. So why, pray tell, understanding this, would you therefore attempt to corrupt the racing bike for something that it is obviously not suited for?

As for your statement of racers riding with their hands above their saddle, please show me the pictures. Whether you take Garin's bike from the first Tour de France, that of Bottecchia's bikes from the 20's those of Bartali in the 30's or 40's, those of Coppi in the 50's, those of Anquetil in the 60's all the way up to today, you will see that the bars are always below the saddle. The big difference between the bikes of the last 30 years and those of the further back past is that now, the huge majority of the time racing is spent on the brake hoods instead of the drops. This means that whereas the cyclists in the 20's 30's, 40's and 50's spent virtually all their time on the drops (about 5" below the saddle height), the riders of the 80's to today spend more time on the lever hoods (surprise, surprise with the now greater difference in drop this still remains about 5" below saddle height!) Another big difference is the quality of the road surfaces. Try to ride any modern bike on a washboard dirt road and you will understand why riders of the past rode in a different position. The difference is not only the handlebar height but also the relative saddle height. On rough roads, like the Paris-Roubaix, most pros lower their saddles likely to allow them to better absorb the bumps with their legs. If you also oblige a pro to trade his super-stiff soled shoes for the more flexible leather soled shoes of the past, you will also see that they lower the saddle. This is because they can no longer use their leg muscles in the same way. Positions therefore have changed to accomodate changes in conditions, but never have these changes encouraged any racer to place the bars of their racing bike above their saddle: It is simply WRONG! If you insist on doing so, my suggestion is to select a bike that was designed for such a position. There are plenty of them out there, just not the Vitus mentioned by the original poster.

Fifty years of riding just about every kind of style of bike does not give me the slightest notion of what setup feels "right" to me??? Actually, five decades of "trial and error" gives me a pretty good idea of what setup works best for ME - putting the bars as high as the saddle. And, this position provides superb handling on all of my road bikes, whether they were built in 1984, or in 2004.

You imply that because a couple of hundred Pro riders currently are riding with their bars too low, that an "ultra-low" position is the only "correct" position....that what Pro riders do is automatically "best" for the millions of people around the world who ride road bikes for recreation and relaxation. Nonsense.

Nor was the "ultra-low" bar position the preferred position for pro riders during most of the past century. I am looking at pg. 43 of Lazell's "The Illustrated History of the Tour de France". Coppi riding with the back of his hands about as high as the nose of his saddle. And, Bartali on page 44. And, Bobet and Gaul on pg. 52

Merckx makes the same "mistake" in the 1975 tour, as shown on pg. 94. His hands are high, positioned on each side of the stem. The backs of his hands are almost level with the nose of his saddle. How did this dummy ever win a race?

The photos in Lazell's book show that from 1947 to 1985, riders in the Tour de France who rode with their hands "high" on the bars outnumbered the riders with their hands on the drops by at least six to one. And, about half of the few riders shown using the "low" position were in the midst of a time trial, or in a finish line sprint...the low "drops" position was not the "norm" for the duration of a day-long road stage.

Bar height took a "dive" after 1989. LeMond's aero position in the final time trial of 1989 convinced much of the peloton that a lower, more aero position was the wave of the future. And bars have been going downhill ever since 1989. Better for Pros? Maybe. Better for my aging neck and back? No way.

Dnalsaam, please tell us about the "unique" geometry of the 1984 De Gribaldy bike. Show us those design features that make the De Gribaldy so different than the road bikes ridden by Coppi, Bartali, Bobet, Gaul and Merckx. The De Gribaldy design must have unusual geometry, if raising the stem up as high as the saddle "destroys" its handling characteristics.

All the racing bike frame builders that I know, will categorically tell you that it is not possible to maintain the handling characteristics that their racing frames were designed for by placing the hands above the saddle. This is due to the fact that by placing the hands this high, you cannot have the weight distribution intended by the frame designer. As you claim that you feel that all of your bikes nonetheless handle superbly, this can only be accounted for by three things: 1) Every racing bike frame builder in the world is wrong and you are right :rolleyes: 2) You have never experienced a properly set up bike to recognize superb handling 3) you have never ridden a bike in such a way to approach the inherent limits of the bike's handling where inefficiencies become readily noticeable. Point 1) is obviously not the case as you seem to be genuine. Point 2) does not seem to be likely as your posts lead one to believe that you have indeed ridden a sufficient number of bikes to have had the chance to witness superb handling. This leaves us with point 3) the one that I believe to be the most likely to explain your beliefs. I too have ridden bikes that I felt were superb handlers until I took them to the limits of their handling. It was only at this point that the actual characteristics became evident. Looking at an automobile analogy, I own a rather rare early 70's European sports car (only 2 of these cars exist in the US: one in the Larz Anderson automobile museum and mine). In the year that my car was built, the manufacturer won the world rally championship with a very similar car. Needless to say, on the most challenging road conditions that one can find, at high speeds, the car can outhandle almost any other car of the period. When I drive the same car in the city however it would not be considered a paragon of handling. Far from it! I would actually rank it below most econoboxes or minivans. This does not however matter, as the better handling of these other vehicles in these less than challenging conditions would never allow them to 'beat' my sports car under rally-like conditions. Of course, I could add power steering and change the camber of the wheels and improve the city handling, but not without worsening the handling at the limits. Much like what occurs to a bike when you use the 'sit up and beg' stem solution.

When other styles of bikes are ideally suited for such a position and were actually designed to be ridden like this, why would anybody therefore knowingly set up a racing bike in contradiction to what the designer intended? This is why bikes like the Rivendell are so successful: they address the needs of everyday riders like Alan who are enthusiasts but not necessarily racers.

Wher do I say this?

I do not have the book that you mention so I cannot comment on photos that I have not seen. I can however state that most photos that you will find are taken on climbs as this is where the most dramatic photos are available and where the speeds are lower, hence permitting better resolution. This is also when more riders will use the tops or upper positions (hence the photos of Coppi, Bartali, Gaul, Bobet, Merckx's position that you mention). I base my observations on what I have personally seen. I have been to almost all the more important bicycle museums in Italy as well as ridden along in team cars in both Tour de France and Giro d'Italia stages. My observations are based upon what I saw in reality, not books which do not necessarily show the context of what you see.

I can state the following: Alfredo Binda's Legnano, as displayed in the Binda museum and used to win the 1927 world championship has the saddle about 1 1/2" above the bars. Learco Guerra's Maino, as displayed in the Learco Guerra museum and used in winning the 1931 world championships has the saddle about 2 1/2" above the bars. The 1932 Binda world championship Legnano bike, also shown at the Binda Museum is also at about 1 1/2" above the bars. Gino Bartali's Legnano, used in his 1938 Tour de France win and now owned by Filippo Gnech has the saddle about 2" above the bars. Fausto Coppi's Legnano track bike, used in his 1942 hour record, also in the hands of Filippo Gnech, have the saddle about 4" above the bars. It should also be noted that Coppi's bars have a very big drop. Moving to the Madonna del Ghisallo chapel, you can see the 1949 Coppi Tour winning Bianchi and the saddle is about 2 1/2" above the bars; you can also see Fiorenzo Magni's 1949 Wilier Triestina and see that it too has about 2 1/2" in drop from the saddle to the bars (Magni is the one who looks after the Madonna del Ghisallo bicycle collection and is overseeing the construction of the bike museum being built there today!). In the Imola "museo degli Aregai" you can see the Umberto Dei track bike used by Antonio Maspes in 1958 with its saddle at least 4" above the bars. In the Tino Sana museum in Almenno you can see the Magni bike used by Gimondi to win the 1965 Tour de France, as well as his Bianchi used in his 1976 Giro win, both with their 4" drop from saddle to bars. Merckx's Mexico record bike has been seen throughout the world with its 4" drop... I could go on but if these bikes are not enough to prove my point, nothing will convince you.

Again, how did Coppi, Bartali, Bobet, Gaul, and Merckx win so many races from 1947 to 1985 when photos show that the back of their hands were often positioned on the bars nearly as high as the nose on their saddles? You claim that it is "impossible" to ride a road bike with the bars as high as the saddle, yet these guys dominated the Tour de France while doing exactly that.

I am not interested in bikes in a museum. Nor am I interested in track bikes, world record attempts, time trials, or crits. This discussion began with YOUR allegation that the handling of ONE particular road bike, designed to be used for long distance road riding, would be "destroyed" by putting the bars as high as the saddle. So, let us talk about what the best riders in history actually DID when riding 150 miles on the road.

Lazell's book shows these riders in the heat of battle, with their hands positioned exactly where they wished them to be. The photo of Coppi on pg. 42 shows him on a level area, but about to head up a mountain. The back of his hands are almost level with the nose of his saddle. Are you suggesting that at the bottom of the hill, Coppi stopped and raised his bars two inches? And, at the top of the hill, he stopped, and lowered his stem two inches.? Absurd.

Further, the photos show the "best" riders MORE often than not, were riding with their backs at close to a 45 degree angle relative to the top bar of their bikes. That angle is very difficult to maintain for long periods of time if the bars are set two or three inches below the level of the saddle. When the riders had their backs were much lower than 45 degrees, they are usually shown as being in a finishing sprint, a contested attack, or in a time trial. Riding an entire stage with the back significantly lower than 45 degrees did not become "popular" until after Greg LeMond used a lower position in the 1989 Tour.

Reginald Shaw was one of the foremost voices for road cyclists in the UK in the 20th century. His book "Cycling" was a basic "primer" for British riders from the '50's to the 70's. Then, as now, there were folks who confused the setup that Pros use for sprints, track racing, time trials, and crits, with the MUCH different setup that is superior for long distance riding on a road bike.

About those people, Mr. Shaw wrote: "it is regrettable that many young riders adopt an absurdly exaggerated racing position for normal riding. They do harm to themselves and harm to the good name of cycling".

You are suggesting that this particular Vitus frame can ONLY be set up as a track bike, or as a time trials bike. However, if the Vitus is a road bike, designed for riding long road stages, a "track" set up would be silly. Road bikes of that era were generally ridden with the bars two or three inches higher than the position being used by Pros today. And, if I had that Vitus, I would happily ride it with the bars up as high as the saddle.

[QUOTE=alanbikehouston]Bar height took a "dive" after 1989. LeMond's aero position in the final time trial of 1989 convinced much of the peloton that a lower, more aero position was the wave of the future. And bars have been going downhill ever since 1989. Better for Pros? Maybe. Better for my aging neck and back? No way.[QUOTE]

I have owned 5 former pro-owned bikes: 2 from the 50's, one from the 60's, one from the 70's and the last one from 2000. From these 5 bikes, I cannot note any such dive in bar height. Most long-limbed riders have greater drops than short-limbed riders. So with the ever increasing height of the riders, you are bound to see more bikes with greater drops, but this is not comparing likes with likes. The only place where the dive can be readily seen is in time trial bikes. It should however be noted that before the 80's, virtually none of the riders had dedicated bikes for time trials. Nowadays even many third rate pros have dedicated time trial bikes. Beyond that, it should be noted that when looking at modern bikes, you should also observe that modern stems invariably point upwards whereas old traditional quill stems generally pointed down meaning that there is about 1" difference in bar height between old style and new style stems set at the same height. This can therefore readily lead to the optical illusion that modern bikes have much greater drop. As far as the comment that something that is better for a pro is not necessarily better for dilettante riders, I could not agree more. This is precisely why I said that one should not go for a racing frame if this is not how you plan to ride the bike. The Vitus mentioned by the original poster is an all out racing frame and therefore not terribly well-intended for leisurely riding.

[QUOTE=alanbikehouston]Again, how did Coppi, Bartali, Bobet, Gaul, and Merckx win so many races from 1947 to 1985 when photos show that the back of their hands were often positioned on the bars nearly as high as the nose on their saddles? You claim that it is "impossible" to ride a road bike with the bars as high as the saddle, yet these guys dominated the Tour de France while doing exactly that.

I am not interested in bikes in a museum. Nor am I interested in track bikes, world record attempts, time trials, or crits. This discussion began with YOUR allegation that the handling of ONE particular road bike, designed to be used for long distance road riding, would be "destroyed" by putting the bars as high as the saddle. So, let us talk about what the best riders in history actually DID when riding 150 miles on the road. [QUOTE]

Let me understand what you are saying. You state that Coppi, Bartali, Bobet, Gaul and Merckx all rode bikes with bars at the same height as their saddles. You base this claim on photos where you cannot see the saddle height (the cyclist was sitting on them at the time and you cannot tell the angle at which they were taken from). You then totally disavow photographic and visual evidence that shows that this is not true. Quite imaginative don't you think?

So here you are quoting somebody who wrote a book in 1953 to describe something that you claim happened in 1989? Am I the only one who is missing the link? Besides, is what you write above not exactly what I have said since the beginning, a bike designed for racing is not appropriate for all riding. This even if the bikes used by pros in the 40's and 50's closely resemble what would now be defined road bikes, as opposed to 'racing' bikes like the Vitus.

As I stated at the start of this inane exchange, bike designs have changed to follow variations in road conditions and equipment. I mentioned the differences brought about by the better road conditions, and the 'improvement' in cycling shoe soles. You can also look at the improved brakes and derailleurs, as well as tires, rims, protection against saddle sores... All impact the design of bikes.

That is it for me on this topic. It is quite obvious that you will not settle for anything less than the last word, so write away, you won't get a response from me.

dnalsaam,


Just a quick question about racing bikes. You really think this Vitus-- steel frame and friction downtude shifters-- is really still a *racing* bike? It's a cool bike, a nice riding bike, a classy bike that I would be proud to ride, but race it against a newer, lighter, STI indexed shifting bikes? If you really into racing, get a new Fuji-- you can get sub 20 pound bike with STI shifters for $1000. That's a real racing bike.

I'd put a Nitto stem on the Vitus and try riding it as well.

It's actually aluminum.

There's nothing wrong with racing on this bike (aside from the fact that it's probably too small for him). People sometimes get too caught up in trying to have the latest & greatest. Remember, the most important part of the racing bike is the engine.

Nick,

Yeah, I know you could race it..... but why? Road bikes are so completely cheap nowdays.... 500 bucks gets you a bike that would have been the lightest and smoothest shifting bike in the world in 1970.

For just riding or wanting to own a little bit of history..... classic bikes are really nice. But anybody thinking that putting on a highrise stem is going to *mess up* the handling of a 15 yr old bike? That's nutty

Maybe it's just me but free seems a lot less than $500 (again, aside from the fact that it's too small).

Also, the frame dates from the mid 80's, not 1970. Those Mavic components shift quite well and the overall weight of that bike is not off par from today's.

I was just interested it the worth of the bike. I don't want to ride it. I have a custom Seven all Campy.
The funny thing about the Vitus when my friend got it in the mid 80's it was the lightest bike around for its size but my Seven is a couple of pounds lighter and it is a 61cm bike.Also the Vitus is aluminum not steel .Back then most people were riding steel Columbus SL or SP.I was riding a old Eddy Merckx that I got in the eary 80's old Campy Super Record until last summer then got a modern bike. I find the main difference is the newer bikes are lighter much easier to shift "takes no skill anymore" and ride a tad smoother. And me personally I would never want a bike with the bars higher than my seat, it would screw up the wieght distribution not to mention the aerodynamics and make the front end push if you were really flying downhill.

I've seen them go on ebay anywhere from $200 to over $800 depending on condition. I think there are collectors of the old Mavic componentry, so you might do pretty well if you're planning on selling it.