show us your vintage road bikes

[Fab Foodie]

@Fab Foodie what have you done with the bars & levers ???

They're in my spares box. I might need them yet for another project (Bringing the 1950s Holdsworth fixed back from the dead).

 

[ChrisEyles]

I just looked up "Vintage" and got this "denoting something from the past of high quality, especially something representing the best of its kind."
So according to this definition could be milliseconds ago and still be vintage if of course it is high quality.
This is my latest vintage bike born last year.

Don't know if I'd call it "vintage" - but that is one beautiful bicycle!

 

[jongooligan]

My Bob Jackson built in 1985, which was his golden jubilee year as reflected in the bikes livery. Frame recently restored by Kevin Winter. He even tracked down the geezer who designed the original golden jubilee decals. Most of the parts are original Campagnolo but couldn't find my pedals or brake levers. Also, the original wheels are no more (Mavic GP4 on Campag Record) so they were replaced with some Nisi hoops on Shimano Exage (I know, but they will have to do for now). BTW those rims are off a bike I bought in France when I was on holiday. Cost me buttons so it's well worth having a look around the LBS if you're on holiday and looking for vintage parts. They don't rust as badly over there. Sorry for rubbish pic but I don't know how to do it any better.

 

[HovR]

Just realised I haven't put my Peugeot on here. It's a 1984 PGN-10, as best I know.

It's had quite a few upgrades, new Fulcrum wheels, Stronglight chainset, Charge Spoon saddle and seatpost, Shimano M530 clipless pedals.

Such a fun bike to ride, and descends like a dream!

 

[John the Canuck]

My Bob Jackson built in 1985,......................

very nice..!

I'm asking as i wish to learn more about frames

why is the distance from the BB to the rear axle quite short
[compared to the Peugeot pictured below it]
and thus making the rear triangle quite ''steep''

thanks

 

[raleighnut]

Posted elswhere but not in this thread, my Carlton Super Course from June 1980. Nice ride but the gearing can be restrictive in some of the hillier routes around here.

One of my Raleighs is an almost identical frame, same size and built in Worksop as well, just wish it had the Carlton head badge instead of the Raleigh one

 

[jongooligan]

very nice..!

I'm asking as i wish to learn more about frames

why is the distance from the BB to the rear axle quite short
[compared to the Peugeot pictured below it]
and thus making the rear triangle quite ''steep''

thanks

I'm no expert but the Bob Jackson was built as a racing bike. As such the chainstays were kept short so there would be less flex in the frame so more of the power output by the rider went into propelling the bike forward. If you look at the front of the bike you can see that the head tube angle is also quite steep. This also contributes to reducing the overall wheelbase and so reduces flex. There is a penalty to pay for this. Such a bike is likely to be quite 'lively' when compared to the Peugeot which has more relaxed frame angles. That's the theory but I'm sure someone will be along with a more definitive answer.

 

[stevevw]

Holy cow ... what's that?
Stunning, simply stunning.

It is a Paulus Quiros.
See here: http://www.paulusquiros.co.uk/#/super-randonneur/4575158489

 

[Fab Foodie]

It is a Paulus Quiros.
See here: http://www.paulusquiros.co.uk/#/super-randonneur/4575158489

Wow .... Glad I've just paid my deposit with Rourke!

 

[raleighnut]

My "mystery make" 653 frame is even shorter to the point where the rear wheel does not come out with the tyre inflated(23mm tyre) it may have been built to take "tubs". Conversely though whilst the handling is quite lively it isn't "twitchy". A 653 frame set appears to be a 753 main triangle with a 531 rear end and 531 forks for comfort, although I am welcome to be corrected. The point is frame geometry is definitely a black art and some get it right and some frames would "sooner spit you off than look at you" I seem to have a good un but wish I knew whom made it

 

[Fab Foodie]

My "mystery make" 653 frame is even shorter to the point where the rear wheel does not come out with the tyre inflated(23mm tyre) it may have been built to take "tubs". Conversely though whilst the handling is quite lively it isn't "twitchy". A 653 frame set appears to be a 753 main triangle with a 531 rear end and 531 forks for comfort, although I am welcome to be corrected. The point is frame geometry is definitely a black art and some get it right and some frames would "sooner spit you off than look at you" I seem to have a good un but wish I knew whom made it

According to Wikki ....

• 653 - Was a mixed tubeset which superseded 531 Professional and combined tubings of different steels; made up of 753 rear stays with 531 light weight main tubes and 531 forks

 

[David.T]

Woow !! what a feast of fab.bicycles I feel like a kid let loose in a chocolate factory , don't know where to look first !!!!
And as a newby i'm a little shy to add my Bicycle to your thread . Oh well hear goes. My 1953 Mercian ( frame number 10153) Mercian KoM was renavated by Mercian about 1987/ 88 and has given me really great service in the UK, for many years, and here in Spain for the last 10+ years. It's a really comfortable ride
The paint job is great and the white lining has stayed clean and bright all this time .
Lately iv'e found Carlton bikes really interesting and would like to get involved in renovating a couple of old wrecked frames that I purchased on ebay but I need to aquire a lot more knowledge about them before one might be a Strada corsa

one might be a strada corsa. the other is still a mistery SORRY to much woffle !!!!!

 

[David.T]

Hi Mike J. really impressed with your Carlton bicycles.

David

 

[David.T]

Do these count too?

 

[Spokesmann]

Out today on the Constellation...