Pictures of 3 different paramounts, geonmetry differences clear
 

Just 3 quick pics of Schwinn Paramounts. a 1975, a 1993, a 1988. The similarities and differences in fork length and angles are nice to physically see. Nothing here to comment negative about please. Nothing to add nothing to contribute, no need to write anything. thanks

Each appears to be representative of its time. Nice bikes.

Fork's bent...

interesting. anyone have a design/spec list of the paramounts?

my understanding is that other than some slight change in rake, the (racing) paramount didnt really change in terms of angles and lengths. atleast until the 90s when they started messing with OS tubing and such. i honestly dont see much difference in above pictures.

One of the major changes in vintage paramount geometry took place in 1972. When you compare a 1971 p13 with a 1972 p13 v2 you can see significant change in the fork rake. Looking at the above pics it is clear that the trend to pull the fork in steeper and steeper continued throughout the history of the paramount. Thanks for posting the pics, if you know what your looking at the side by side comparisons are awesome!!!

nice views of the changes, would have been easier to see had you sat down on the floor to take the pics. Your views from higher don't show the rakes like they would have shown had you gotten lower and had more light behind you.

Just to add to the data points: Top to bottom- 1966 P13, 1971 P13, 1983 Waterford Standard
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...ps16756376.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...1FullFrame.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...ideA071012.jpg

The fork rake and frame geometry changed on the P13 sometime in 1971. [MENTION=40306]cudak888[/MENTION] did a comparison of his two 1970s chrome P13s back in October 2010.. Here is a closeup of the forks on these beauties, a '70 and a '72.

http://www.kurtkaminer.com/paramount_geometry_1.jpg

I've learned from looking at Craigslist photos never to make assumptions about frame geometry from photographs.

There is parallax and fisheye lens distortion going on to varying degree in almost all photos, which can hugely affect the appearance of frame angles.

Only the fork leg's curvature gives even a good clue imo.

Photos like these might be useful, showing a full 2-3 degree difference here:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7173/...b6a34cce_z.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7152/...00e54ded_z.jpg

Thank you, very constructive reply, tonight before work if the light is correct and my pre-work nap went ok, I will try very hard to do as you suggested. Thanks, Charlie, If I can will throw in A few Italian bikes frames just for comparison and discussion topic. Funny how the camera can make a fork look bent or frame hit forward on. Just optics or angle views. I swore one time a gentleman ( and I apologized to him 1000 times ) he was trying to sell a bent frame as it appeared in the picture. To my surprise and totally being wrong from his camera angle as I saw it, I bought the bike as agreed, due to my ignorantly trusting the camera lens and being wrong totally. The camera can definitely play tricks or deceits with a fork or frame angle, the bigger the fork or frame the more exaggerated. Thanks for all the responses, turning into a very fun or inciteful thread, I appreciate all those responses. TO ALL BE SAFE,

It is pretty easy to pick up aspect ratio distortion on your computer monitor, as well. No substitute for careful measurement of angles and dimensions.

Last thing, you know what is really nice. Each of the three, the first time I sat on them and rode them out of the garage, each made me smile and swear to myself this was the nicest most correct bike I ever rode. Thats a nice feeling, it may not last forever, but to those who have experienced it, you understand my silly grin.. Thats what these C&V bikes make you become addicted to. Simplicity, elegance, ease of repair, maintenance, and accomplishment of resurrecting the old, forgotten, steel of youth
How many times have each of us gotten on a refurbished bike, and swore, this is the one I will never sell??? Only to contribute to the thread, a few years later, I regret selling that one: Thats ok though, if it didn't go at that fork in your life, or the next, at some time, some move, some milestone, some divorce, some child needing college money, it would have gone. That is what is so nice with these old bikes, they come along, we acquire/fix/relish them and are able to move on with great memories.

[MENTION=388179]Katiesmalls[/MENTION] great observations. I know that smile you talk of! :D When the build comes together, the kinks are worked out, and the ride is pure pleasure--- what could be better? I suppose these are feelings or emotions which are unique to bicycle pursuits.

New ( to me ) SEATPOST
 

50th on the 50th. Odd the 1993 Paramount takes a 27.4 seat post. the 1988 takes a 27.2
This is a pic of the 27.2 seat post on the 50th anniversary with a 2009 Brooks limited edition 1 of 250

Just for fun:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g6...ps5a404dc0.jpg

1937 or 38.

I would say that the older Paramounts had longer wheelbases, almost look like touring frames.

Yes indeed. In fact the P10/P15 "touring" models had the same ('70 and earlier) or virtually the same ('71/'72 and later) geometry as the P13 "racing" model at the time. You can see more about that here: early '70's Schwinn Paramount geometry

Thanks for the link! Very interesting.

My early-70s Paramount has the more 'touring' style relaxed geometry- although less responsive than my 80s Guerciotti, I am far more likely to take the Paramount out for a spin- its very easy to enjoy. Its geometry figured heavily in the design of my Anderson stainless.

Hey everyone. Just asking for some personal opinions on color choice. Recently, I laced up a pair of Black Mavic MA40 rims, and put them on the 1993 Paramount. I think they kind of add a Stealth look to the bike, and was debating whether to continue, with black bar warp, a black seat, and black toe straps. Kinda like the evil HULK HOGAN transformation. Going to be listing it here in the marketplace first, as soon as I figure out what I have into the bike, but just asking which way would be more likely to attract a potential buyer. thanks

I'd like to put an angle-finder to your bike's headtube, since by looking at the photo it looks about like a track bike, and I don't much trust ordinary photos to determine angles.

Very aggressive-looking setup btw, pure race-bike, for the delight of attacking hills on.

The chain on the big ring and largest cog triggers me

I'm assuming that you are referring to the '66 P13 in Radiant Coppertone. Unfortunately, I found the 25" frame a bit too large, so I replaced it with the '71 P13.

If the large-large combo on the '66 was a bother, I'm certain you will enjoy (sic) this picture of the '71, when I had it set up for NH mountain climbing. If you don't want to count, that's a 50T chainring paired with a 38T sprocket.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/7949...720&fit=bounds

And, yes, it could handle the small-small as well, a 31T - 17T combo.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/7949...720&fit=bounds

Currently it is in the dry-dock to be regeared for flat coastal island riding with non-Campagnolo. I know--- the sacrilege!

P.S. Thank you for resurrecting this old thread. Brings back nice memories. :thumb:

Assume you moved the 66 along, along the way?

For me, the sweet spot in frame geometry is "sport touring," a bit more relaxed than racing, but still tight. Very versatile, with good tire clearance. A lot of 1950s-1960s racing frames, such as my Capos fill the bill nicely.

Yes. I swapped the components to the '71 and an acquaintance of cudak888 continues to be the owner in the Miami area.

It was my first Paramount and I was such a novice at the time that I based the frame size that I needed off of the 25" Traveler that a Schwinn dealer sold me in 1980. Both were a bad fit.