A classic bike that rides beautifully. All original components other than wheels and derailleur. Purchased in France, this was the state of the art at the time. Asking $325.
Classic Peugeot PX-10 23" Reynolds 531Nervex, Stronglight, Mafac
Mon, 10/20/2003 - 11:05am
Mon, 10/20/2003 - 1:00pm
#1
I can't believe you're still trying to flog that dead horse
I can't belive you're still trying to flog that dead horse. Puegot was never renowned for making great bikes and I can't really believe it was state of the art at the time.
Mon, 10/20/2003 - 2:33pm
#2
Peugeot PX-10
"""Puegot (sic) was never renowned for making great bikes...""
You're wrong. Peugeot was a sponsor of professional racing teams from the early twentieth century until a short time ago. Many major races were won on Peugeots. Bernard Thevenet won two Tours de France on a Peugeot in '75 and '77. In fact, more Tours have been won on a Peugeot than any other bicycle. More recently, in the 1980's, Robert Millar, Pascal Simon, Sean Yates, and Gilbert Duclos-Lassalle rode for the Peugeot team.
""...I can't really believe it was state of the art at the time."" Why not, do you have any evidence to the contrary? The PX-10, although it didn't have the cachet or high price of certain Italian marques, was one of the best production bicycles of its time. See the Peugeot PX-10 webpage.
Anthony, before you disparage bicycles that other people are trying to sell, try to inform yourself on the subject."
Tue, 10/21/2003 - 7:00am
#3
Right or wrong
Don't care for the merits of disparaging other sellers etc. BUT if you read last months Cycle Sport Magazine (or might have been Pro Cycling) they did a 4 page articvle on how Merckx / Thevenet etc. all used to complain about Peugeot bikes saying they were rubbish and they hated riding them. Just because a team rides a certain make of bike doesn't neccessarily mean they are any good
Tue, 10/21/2003 - 10:20am
#4
Peugeots were rubbish?
I didn't see the article so I can't comment on it. But it's amazing to think that Tom Simpson, Thevenet, Phil Anderson, etc. should have won so many races on bikes that were rubbish!
Tue, 10/21/2003 - 10:37am
#5
Simpson?
"""I didn't see the article so I can't comment on it. But it's amazing to think that Tom Simpson, Thevenet, Phil Anderson, etc. should have won so many races on bikes that were rubbish!""
Hell, Tommy Simpson died trying to ride that beast!
""Chainwheel""
"
Thu, 10/23/2003 - 12:30pm
#6
Thanks, Mr Silver
Thank you to Mr. Silver for stepping in here and 1) defending the Peugeot PX-10 and 2) more importantly, asking why the hell Poole needs to disparage an item up for sale when he's got no economic interest one way or another. If a store sold items that I thought were overpriced or overhyped, I wouldn't buy the items but I certainly wouldn't make an effort to influence others.
Again thank you Mr. Silver for your unbiased and well reasoned comments that also were free of spelling errors.
Wed, 10/22/2003 - 9:58pm
#7
It was ProCycling
And I agree with the criticisms quoted in ProCycling.
I stand by every word of my original post, except my typographical error. Yes, I do know how to spell Peugeot. I have known a few former Peugeot owners, of various models, and they did nothing other than complain about them.
Incidentally, I think I am right in saying that the original poster to this thread has been trying to flog this dead horse for several months, which somewhat proves one of my points.
Thu, 10/23/2003 - 12:57pm
#8
You agree with those criticisms?
"""And I agree with the criticisms quoted in ProCycling.""
Again, I haven't read the article, so I don't know what those criticisms are. But you say that you agree with them? If your opinion isn't based on experience, on actually riding this bike, what is it based on? Perhaps prejudice against the French?
There is a fellow from Massachusetts who knows a few things about bicycles, even has his own website dedicated to them. He writes: ""In the early 1970's, one of the lightest, fastest, most exotic stock bicycles available was the Peugeot PX-10. The frame was made of state-of-the-art Reynolds 531 tubing, with Nervex lugs, and the bike came ready to race, with tubular tires and cotterless cranks."" But what is his opinion against yours?
In this thread the PX10 was absurdly compared to a DeRosa. In the early '70's, the DeRosa probably cost 5 to 8 times what the PX10 cost. The Peugeot often didn't have great paint or chrome, sometimes it had other cosmetic flaws. But the PX10 was good enough that if you were racing against someone on a DeRosa, the bike wouldn't be a factor in winning or losing. In fact, the PX10 was lighter then most of the best and more expensive bikes available then (if you don't believe me, just look at Sloane's book, 1970 edition). It was an exceptional value, and there were few if any brands that could compete against the package at the price that it was offered at.
""I have known a few former Peugeot owners, of various models, and they did nothing other than complain about them.""
We're not talking about various models, we are talking about the PX10. Peugeot was the Schwinn of France, and like Schwinn, offered many models at different levels of quality. And I know people who ride PX10s and love the ride; very smooth and comfortable. On the other hand, I know people who complain about the harsh ride of a Cannondale. But I wouldn't go around saying that Cannondales are bad bikes till I try one out. Even then, I couldn't speak about all models, just the one I had ridden. And after all, it would just be my opinion. (By the way, I think that Cannondale makes some very good bikes, not that it matters.)
""Incidentally, I think I am right in saying that the original poster to this thread has been trying to flog this dead horse for several months, which somewhat proves one of my points.""
I don't know what it proves, except perhaps that this message board is not the best place to advertise vintage bikes. Some time ago a fairly new Bianchi was offered for sale again and again (not that there's anything wrong with that). Does that say anything about the quality of Bianchis?
Open your mind a little. Don't be so dogmatic.
"
Thu, 10/23/2003 - 8:25pm
#9
WRONGO PARROT BREATH
For your information, the bike sold today to a well informed buyer (he replaced one PX-10 with another). The price was one that you would consider to be above market. Fortunately for me, he wasn't swayed by the comments of an abecedarian.
Mon, 10/20/2003 - 2:04pm
#10
For AnthonyFoole
Thank you for your uninformed and insipid commentary. This model Peugeot (NOT spelled Puegot), PX-10 won the Tour de France. It seems that your knowledge of bikes is on par with your spelling...
Tue, 10/21/2003 - 7:03am
#11
State of the ark
"The PX-10 was OK in its day. But with a 5 (6?) speed FREEWHEEL, center-pull brakes, friction down tube shifters, chainrings without those ramps and pins, pedals with toe clips, sew-up wheels and tires, and FRENCH THREAD, it's more like state-of-the-ark today.
""Chainwheel"""
Tue, 10/21/2003 - 10:41am
#12
So a PX-10 at $325 is overpriced?
For $800, you can buy a Taiwanese TIG-welded aluminum whatever, equipped with Shimano Sora 9-speed index shifting. So why would anyone want a Mercier or Lejeune or Peugeot with 5 speed FREEWHEEL, friction shifters, FRENCH THREAD, etc.? Maybe because they are interesting and aesthetically pleasing, while the modern robot-made bike has no character or looks? Maybe because these old steel bikes actually do ride well, sometimes better than a lot of modern bikes? Maybe because the PX-10 will be ridden 20 years from now when the 2003 aluminum bike is landfill?
The majority of my bikes are friction-shifting. I have some that index, but I like the feel of friction-shifting more. I ride sometimes with clipless shoes, sometimes with clips & straps. I don't feel that clips & straps slow me down at all, and they certainly allow more versatility in my choice of footwear. I even have a bike with sew-ups, and for ride quality I definitely prefer them to clinchers. One of my favorite bikes has a 5-speed freewheel, and I often ride it on centuries.
There happen to be people out there (ark-dwellers, I suppose) who cherish and restore, and even ride, old bikes, just as there are those who appreciate old cars. Why would someone bother restoring a 1960 Ferrari? Can't you just buy a 2003 Toyota, with more horsepower and better brakes and suspension?
And remember, bicycle technology is not rocket science. The basic bicycle frame has changed very little over the last 100 years. The differences in performance between a 1963 bike and a 2003 bike are not as great as some would have us believe.
Tue, 10/21/2003 - 11:13am
#13
"""And remember, bicycle technology is not rocket science. The basic bicycle frame has changed very little over the last 100 years. The differences in performance between a 1963 bike and a 2003 bike are not as great as some would have us believe.""
Personally, I happen to like good quality, older, lugged-steel frames because of their aesthetics, longer wheelbase, and better tire clearance. But the best of both worlds is to equip such a frame with a modern drivetrain. French thread and French tubing sizes can make upgrades difficult.
As for the quality of the PX-10, I wouldn't put it in the same league as a DeRosa or some of the other bikes of that era. Several PX-10s sold on eBay recently, and they all went for less than $375. One absolutely mint PX-10 (all original) identical to the one Thevenet rode in the Tour went for $305.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3631525175&category=7298
After using clipless pedals and STI, I find it very unpleasant to go back to toe clips and friction shifting. Hey, whatever floats your boat.
""Chainwheel""
"
Tue, 10/21/2003 - 11:38am
#14
PX-10s on eBay
"For that matter, a PX-10 went for over $7000 on eBay two years ago. It was an early model, and a Japanese collector with deep pockets bought it. http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Market_highs/Highmarks_01.htm
Why are you comparing Peugeots to DeRosas? Peugeot was one of the largest bike factories in Europe, and PX-10s were stock bikes. Quality often varied from frame to frame. De Rosa built his frames by hand, a few hundred a year.
For those who need them, French-threaded parts can be found without great difficulty. T.A. and Phil Wood still make French-threaded parts."
Sun, 10/26/2003 - 2:19pm
#15
not rocket science? how's this for an example?
"oh, i don't know about that...this genuine, imitation racing bike was given to me by a geniune italian and even though it's been through hell, you can still see the incredible level of hand crafted skill that went into building this beauty...and the builder didn't even use lugs!!! :
http://donmontalvo.com/AntiqueTourBike/
sure, the chain and brake arms are missing but you can always coast downhill using your feet to control speed.
;)
don
Mordecai wrote:
And remember, bicycle technology is not rocket science. The basic bicycle frame has changed very little over the last 100 years. The differences in performance between a 1963 bike and a 2003 bike are not as great as some would have us believe.
"
Wed, 10/22/2003 - 10:10pm
#18
I'm no cycling historian...
...but back in the day, didn't the pros all ride custom made to measure bikes that they would paint and decal to look like the sponsors factory made bikes?
Thu, 10/23/2003 - 5:20am
#19
Pros, even before Merckx, were known to have their bikes built by other builders and painted to look like sponsored bikes. Even Coppi, whose name is so linked with Bianchi, had most of his bikes built by another builder, whose name at the moment I cannot remember.
Mon, 10/27/2003 - 5:53am
#20
Sell it on eBay
As someone that sells bike parts on eBay quite often I suggest that you sell it via eBay. Some person is bound to pay you twice what you are asking since it will mean more to them.
