OldRoads.com

This is an archive of Vintage Bicycle Information.
For current Discussions, go to our main site: OldRoads.com

If you are trying to determine the genealogy of your bicycle by it's features, go to our Vintage Bicycle Price Guide
which details bicycle features, wheel sizes, brake types, etc., as well as showing a price estimate for your old bicycle.

If you are trying to determine the make and model of your bicycle, go to our Vintage Bicycle Picture Database
which details bicycle features, wheel sizes, etc., as well as showing a price estimate for your vintage bicycle.

Archived: Vintage Lightweights







AGE / VALUE:   Gitane Tour de France posted by: Debbie on 3/31/2003 at 1:08:10 AM
I have a womens 10 speed Gitane Tour de France bike in mint condition (It has always been kept indoor)
purchased in 1971...what is it worth? Thanks


   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Gitane Tour de France posted by Eric Amlie on 3/31/2003 at 9:25:08 PM
Here is one you can watch to get an idea.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3601720902&category=7298

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Gitane Tour de France posted by Debbie on 3/31/2003 at 9:59:52 PM
THANKS for for the information... I am shocked at the price. I will be selling the bike if anyone is interested please contact me. I am located in CT

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Gitane Tour de France posted by P Lavery on 4/1/2003 at 1:55:57 AM
I think the owner of the Ebay item is either over optimistic or deluded by coming up with that starting bid
and the "buy it now" price.
I paid $40 for a Gitane Gypsy tourer on Ebay complete with
generator and lights. A TDF model should bring a higher price but I wouldn't think anyone would go over $200 if even that high.

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   Gitane Tour de France posted by P Lavery on 4/13/2003 at 10:13:08 PM
The Ebay bike just got relisted with a lower starting bid
of $100. When you factor in shipping , you 'd be looking
at $150 which still seems kind of pricey. The owner would
better starting with a low reserve and let the typical
Ebay bidding frenzy take over.






AGE / VALUE:   Gitane Tour de France posted by: Debbie on 3/31/2003 at 1:08:10 AM
I have a womens 10 speed Gitane Tour de France bike in mint condition (It has always been kept indoor)
purchased in 1971...what is it worth? Thanks







VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Ishiwata 024 posted by: Oscar on 3/30/2003 at 8:10:41 PM
Trash day tomorrow,and I found the neighbor's bike he no longer wanted. It has Ishiwata 024 tubing. It feels relatively light. What is the background on this kind of tubing?


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Ishiwata 024 posted by JONathan on 3/30/2003 at 11:26:43 PM
See Sheldon Brown article on Japanese bicycles. I think the 124 refers to the mass of a frame set of tubing...since 022 is 2.4 KG, I'd speculate that 024 is 2.4 Kg.
It was a very popular tubing for road bikes, from what I've heard and read. It might be collectable, too. Ever heard of Columbus tubing?

   typo posted by JONathan on 3/30/2003 at 11:29:51 PM
I meant; "I think 024 refers to the mass"...not "124". 124 would be 12.4 Kg!

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Ishiwata 024 posted by Warren on 3/30/2003 at 11:52:42 PM
Go here and scroll most of the way down the page to Japanese components...

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/japan.html#gloryyears

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Ishiwata 024 posted by JONathan on 3/31/2003 at 5:08:15 PM
Here is a good site on tubings: http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:oBFJmkaSyesC:www.desperadocycles.com/The_Lowdown_On_Tubing/Tubing_Properties_For_Non_True_Temper_Tubing.htm+ishiwata+tubing&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
The Ishiwata "022" is 02.4 kg. (not 2.4Kg). The "Maximum Rider weights" column data give me pause for concern about my mass (100Kg) being transported on one of my 10kg road bikes! Dale Brown has a great article, if you are interested in the analytical end of tubing. Just type; "Ishiwata tubing" in the search block.

   RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Ishiwata 024 posted by JONathan on 3/31/2003 at 5:12:03 PM
I need more sleep! Ishiwata 022 is 2.2Kg. There, Sorry. JONathan






VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   How old is Vintage? posted by: cindy dmn on 3/30/2003 at 2:15:45 PM
Along with a 66 Sting-Ray I purchased a ladies with Miller headlight gumwall tires it is a 1966. I swear that there is more miles on the wax job than on the tires. I have a big Gazelle that is just pure art. It is too big for me to ride comfortably, if I sit on the seat, my legs do not touch the pedals. Which is the vintage?







VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   How old is Vintage? posted by: cindy dmn on 3/30/2003 at 2:15:45 PM
Along with a 66 Sting-Ray I purchased a ladies with Miller headlight gumwall tires it is a 1966. I swear that there is more miles on the wax job than on the tires. I have a big Gazelle that is just pure art. It is too big for me to ride comfortably, if I sit on the seat, my legs do not touch the pedals. Which is the vintage?


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   How old is Vintage? posted by David on 3/30/2003 at 7:03:43 PM
A lot of very different bikes are marked "Gazelle." If this is a 10-speed it's probably 70s. My 6' 8" brother has one; they do come in large frames.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   How old is Vintage? posted by JONathan on 3/30/2003 at 11:41:43 PM
Correct me, someone, if I'm wrong, but I think the Gazelle was a Dutch Raleigh. I know someone with a lady's frame Gazelle that is a three speed, if I remember correctly. As for "vintage". Think; "before 1969", or before the bike boom of the '70's.
To me, "vintage' has broader, more flexible meaning. Bikes that are built with steel frames, friction shifters (10/12 speeds) and especially important is the quality and workmanship. Basically, they are bikes that were built to last.

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   How old is Vintage? posted by David on 3/31/2003 at 3:54:10 AM
That's right. Gazelles are Dutch Raleighs. I think they're mostly bike-boom imports and, like Raleighs, they cover a wide range, from 3-speeds to pretty nice 10-speed lightweights.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   How old is Vintage? posted by Dave on 3/31/2003 at 2:51:31 PM
I just got one of these to restore.It is a bit big but I think I can handle riding it. Does anyone know where to find touchup paint,(it's Dark Green),for it?






AGE / VALUE:   Raleigh Carlton Super Course posted by: Elvis on 3/30/2003 at 5:06:19 AM
Hi all. I'm fixing up an old Raleigh I got. Reynolds 531 tubing, fancy lugs, sorta pointy and club shaped. brownish paint. Simplex shift levers, stronglight steel cottered cranks. Marked "Super course" and "Carlton". Any idea how old it is? I'm thinking 60's but not sure... Also, any clue what size seatpost it takes; none of mine fit!


      Raleigh Carlton Super Course posted by John E on 3/31/2003 at 1:04:36 AM
The Super Course was popular in the very early 1970s. (I almost bought one in March 1971, but opted for an American Eagle Semi-Pro / Nishiki Competition instead, because of the SunTour derailleurs and Sugino aluminum crankset.)

   RE:   Raleigh Carlton Super Course posted by freespirit on 3/31/2003 at 3:26:24 AM
Accorrding to the retro-raleighs web site, Super Courses were usually made from reynolds 531 straight guage tubing for the three main tubes, but supposively some of the ones made with the fancy nervex pro lugs came in full 531 double butted tubing. I've just seen the ones with the plain 531 reynolds sticker. There is a really nice red super course mk II on e-bay, that has a nervar crank and huret derailers.





   RE:RE:   Raleigh Carlton Super Course posted by Ken on 3/31/2003 at 7:50:35 PM
Can you post the url for retro-raleighs? mine doesn't work any more... thanks.

   RE:RE:RE:   Raleigh Carlton Super Course posted by freespirit on 3/31/2003 at 9:00:01 PM
On the Classic Rendezvous discusion web site at Cycles de Oro, someone just mentioned the retroraleigh.com site was back up again. It hasnt been on line for months.


   RE:RE:RE:   Raleigh Carlton Super Coursee posted by freespirit on 3/31/2003 at 9:17:47 PM
The RetroRaleighs.com site is at the Harris cyclery site that has the Sheldon Brown articles.

   RE: Retro Raliegh site posted by Eric Amlie on 3/31/2003 at 9:28:25 PM
Sheldon just got it put up.

http://retroraleighs.com/






VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Rare Ebay French Bike posted by: Tom on 3/30/2003 at 2:19:53 AM
I saw this nice old French bike on ebay and thought you guys may want to see it. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=7298&item=3601452146&rd=1







VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   armstrong bicycle posted by: t.s on 3/29/2003 at 9:37:48 PM
i have this vintage armstrong bicycle in my garage and i'm trying to figure out if i should keep it or not. it says genuine english light weight on it and its a bit rusty and in disrepair, but it seems really old. i dont know how much its worth or if its worth anything so maybe i'll take it down to the bike shop and see if they know. if anyone knows anything about it e-mail me. thanks.







VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   armstrong bicycle posted by: t.s on 3/29/2003 at 9:37:48 PM
i have this vintage armstrong bicycle in my garage and i'm trying to figure out if i should keep it or not. it says genuine english light weight on it and its a bit rusty and in disrepair, but it seems really old. i dont know how much its worth or if its worth anything so maybe i'll take it down to the bike shop and see if they know. if anyone knows anything about it e-mail me. thanks.


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   armstrong bicycle posted by David on 3/30/2003 at 7:01:05 PM
Most likely a lower-end 3-speed bike. Not worth much if it's rusty, but find the date on the rear hub and ask on the "English Roadsters" group on this site.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   armstrong bicycle posted by Ken on 3/31/2003 at 8:00:41 PM
Also see Sheldon Brown on English 3-speeds... Armstrong was a Raleigh badge, probably for the American import market. I bought one new from my local Coast to Coast hardware in about 1962 for about 39.95. Sturmey-Archer three-speeds don't have a lot of cash value but, while lower-end is an accurate description, the quality was not low. Shine it up and ride with pride.






AGE / VALUE:   niac bicycles posted by: thomas jones on 3/29/2003 at 4:50:50 PM
i have a niac bicycle that ive yet to find anyone that has ever heard of it.i am wanting to find out a bit of info about it.it has shamano eagle derailer and sake crank set.if any one can help i would appreciate it.







VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Carlton Bike NOS posted by: Tom on 3/29/2003 at 3:01:18 AM
I was at a local bike shop today and they had a Carlton Criterium on display, maybe 22" frame. The bike looked new so I asked about it. They said it was put together many years ago and was riden just a mile or so. It was never sold. The bike looks like brand new. It is mint green with Carlton Criterium transfers. It has a transfer as a headbadge. All the components are alloy marked Raleigh. It is a 12 speed. It is quite light. Has clincher tires. Has a pump with a cardboard sleeve on it. It was hard to see all the details as it is in a dark area. Still a nice bike. Does anyone know when Raleigh quit making Carlton bikes. The bike shop also had 2 other 1970's bikes NOS. I could not see them as they were behind other stuff. One of them was a very tall frame maybe 25" or so. I am going back in a week to see them. Any help with the Carlton and what would it be worth.







VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   OK I have one now how do I pronounce it? posted by: Schwinnderella on 3/29/2003 at 1:43:49 AM
Today at an estate sale I bought what I believe is a earlly 70's Mercier. Checking the archives here it appears to be a model 300.It looks like the green frame(including color) shown in the Mercier section at Classic Rendezvous.So what is the proper pronunciation of Mercier? Also this has tubular tires and rims ,if I decide to ride this on a regular basis what kind of clincher rims and tires can I use? Will 27"wheels and tires work or I think I recall 700's are a closer match? Happy Collecting!


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   OK I have one now how do I pronounce it? posted by David on 3/29/2003 at 3:41:54 AM
Roughly "mare-syay" Two syllables, equal stress. Would almost rhyme with bear-sway (a new dance?)

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   OK I have one now how do I pronounce it? posted by JONathan on 3/29/2003 at 4:21:20 AM
Nice find. "Mercy Hey"! Check for any frame weakness. Check that the frame size is suitable for you. You might find that 27 inch tire selection is limited, whereas the 700C (622 ISO) size offers many types for all kinds of requirements (touring, racing, commute, etc.). If you're like me, you'll buy a thrift store/garage sale bike that has good 700C wheels. Way cheaper than ordering a new set. But if money isn't a problem, get new Mavics. Take the wheels to the LBS of your choice to get the right tires for the type of riding you plan on doing. Have the shop adjust the derailers, too. (unless you are comfortable with basic bike mechanics). This adjustment is critical to safe operation! Replace the chain and brake pads. Chains are cheap and so are pads, compared to the expenses that can be incurred as a result of an accident. Cables, too! This is all assuming that the headset is OK. Check that, or have it checked. You may need a new seat. It all adds up, but with a fine bicycle like that one is, it's worth it.

Happy rides, JONathan

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   OK I have one now how do I pronounce it? posted by Don on 3/30/2003 at 3:22:59 AM
I have a friend named Mercier and it's pronounced Mur-cee-a.

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   OK I have one now how do I pronounce it? posted by David on 3/30/2003 at 6:59:15 PM
But was your friend made in France?

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   OK I have one now how do I pronounce it? posted by Dave on 3/31/2003 at 3:11:32 PM
I have a late 70's one w/Huret Svelto rear derailler,Huret front and shift levers. I replaced the cottered cranks with cotterless and added fenders & white housepaint,(you have to look close to see it), and it is probably the nicest riding bike I have.The lugs have black paint,and the original decals are in bad shape but still there.






AGE / VALUE:   Miche Compettition hub posted by: humberchristopher28@hotmail.com on 3/28/2003 at 9:56:10 PM
Anybody have any information on this brand of hub?
It's a Miche Competition alloy front 36 hole with a hole drilled for adding oil but this one has no clip.
I thought it was Campy but it is not.
Who made these, what's the story. Thanks.
It was in a Mavic Sport tubular rim which is marked 04/72


   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Miche Compettition hub posted by Steven on 3/29/2003 at 5:55:31 AM
Miche is based in Santa Lucia di Piave in the province of Treviso in Italy. They have been in business for a very long time. The company is owned by the Michelin family. They make quite a bit of generic products for other people who do not have their own production. They are mid-range in both quality and price.

   RE:RE:AGE / VALUE:   Miche Compettition hub posted by Chris on 3/29/2003 at 5:46:40 PM
Thank You very much, Steven!
Interesting.

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Miche Compettition hub posted by Keith on 3/31/2003 at 2:14:23 PM
I've had and ridden a set of wheels built on Miche Competition hubs for about 20 years. They look exactly like Campy Record hubs with oil holes and covers. Someone once told me that Miche actually made some Campy components, but I have no verification from more knowledgeable sources -- Steven, Chuck? I agree that the quality of these Miche hubs is mid-range, not Campy-level. After about 5000 miles the cones became pitted. I've had Campy hubs go that long and the cones still look new.






AGE / VALUE:   Beautiful! posted by: humberchristopher28@hotmail.com on 3/28/2003 at 9:28:10 PM
E- bay item # 2167523000 Bluemels Handlebar grips green
Not my auction, no relation to seller.
Beautiful, luscious,
On a green painted bike with some matching mudguards. OOOHH!
And here I never knew the Bluemel Brothers of Wolston, Coventry made handlebar grips.







VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by: Gralyn on 3/28/2003 at 12:53:20 PM
I have a question about crank length: I'm in the process of building-up a Bianchi - I have a component group ready to install - but I looked at the cranks - and they are 165's. Most others I have are 170's. Maybe some 175's? I can't remember for sure. If I use the 165mm set - will I be able to tell the difference? I guess that would be .....a 1.0 cm smaller circle I would be making as I pedal. Does anyone have experience to pass on - as to what kind of difference this would make?
Thanks


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by Warren on 3/28/2003 at 1:31:44 PM
This is a question often debated. Here's my precis.

General wisdom suggest's that longer legs should push longer cranks. A 5" 4' person should ride 165 mm and 6" 6' person should push 175's or even 180's. Others should fall in between. The assumption here is that the mechanical advantage of these cranks should be compatible with the rider...makes sense? Maybe not...

I remember Bicycling mag did a comprehensive review of a series of tests performed by one of the leading bicycle training centres in the US...can't remember who it was. Anyway...they did a series of measured performance tests of riders of different statures with short, medium and long cranksets. The riders were hooked up to machines to test for maximum power (watts), distance/endurance testing, cardio etc.

Guess what... the short rider performed better on the 180mm cranks...the tall rider was better on a medium length and the others were mostly inconclusive. Rider style and position were seen to be more influential on crank choice than simple measurements. Of course these test were relatively short term...maybe the short riders knees would have self-destructed after a year of riding.

Many riders claim they can feel small differences in crank lengths...other's scoff at that. You have to be your own judge. I'm (was?) a sprinter...huge quads with 18 inch calves and I'm very inflexible. I love to ride 165's. I think I can tell the difference. A more slender distance rider with good flexibility may prefer longer cranks for leverage.

Last note...track bikes rarely take a crank over 165 because of clearance issues...regardless of rider size.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by Dave on 3/28/2003 at 2:21:53 PM
I'm 6'0" and 220lbs I like 175's best but for spinning and hilly terrain 170's seem to be slightly better. I use 175's on my timetrial and mountain bike and most of my other bikes have 170's.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by Gralyn on 3/28/2003 at 3:41:10 PM
OK, so I think what I will do - is install the 165's - try it out and see. Hey, if I can feel a difference...rather, if I don't like how it feels - I can always switch it back out for some longer cranks. I am medium height - so, 170 is probably about right....165....I may not even be able to tell a difference.

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by Keith on 3/28/2003 at 4:47:21 PM
I have logged considerable miles on bikes with different length cranks. I own bikes with 165, 170, 172.5 and 175 cranks. I notice a difference in feel, and prefer 170 or 172.5 for longer rides of 100 miles or more. I'm 5'10" and have longer than average legs for my height. The 165s are on a track bike and it's easier to ride at higher rpms with the 165 -- simply because your legs don't have to travel as far per revolution. Note that crank length affects the gain ratio (go to sheldonbrown.com for explanation). Hence, a 165 with a 52 x 13 is effectively a higher gear than a 170 with a 52 x 13, etc. Like Eric, I've heard and read that longer cranks are harder on the knees, which is one reason, in addition to the feel, that I avoid 175s for longer rides. A site devoted to crank failures observed that longer cranks seem to fail more frequently. Could this be because they're subjected to greater stress because of the length, or because they're generally used by heavier riders? Any thoughts?

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by JONathan on 3/28/2003 at 5:05:34 PM
I think that at medium rpm at moderate velocities...not much to difference. The "drag angle" favors the shorter cranks, as was pointed out. The torque is better with longer cranks. The actual pedal velocity is higher (same rpm) in the longer cranks. How does all this factor? Well, there are lots of individual differences to consider, not the least of which is the rider. My opinion? I like higher torque for MTB's and for hills. The BB drop has a lot to do with clearance, so a 170 on a bike with small BB drop is probably OK. If you have 10 speeds (not 27), the differences are amplified. I feel OK with 170mm at cruising rpm, but I'm a bit of a "masher". The higer cadence riders may find shorter cranks as optimum. Bottom-line for me: The longer crank allows me to punch up from a higher gear (I know, I'm lazy) with ankle flexing over a greater distance f pedal travel. Knee flexing and extending more is not a problem for me. Try them both and decide, Grayln. That's an easy changeout, for what could be a major difference in your ride. Like so many changes, it may take a while to notice the effects of small differences in designs. Good luck. JONathan

    Crank length posted by John E on 3/28/2003 at 6:51:55 PM
I have always ridden 170s, but I just built up a bike with 165s, for three reasons: 1) I had salvaged a nice set of Sugino Aero 165s from a yard sale small-framed Fuji; 2) the bike, a Peugeot UO-8 with a less-raked replacement fork, has a bit of toe-to-tyre overlap; and 3) the extra 5mm of ground clearance may come in handy for offroad or cyclecross work. Frankly, I do not notice a significant difference between 165s and 170s, but perhaps I am just being insensitive!

   RE: Crank length posted by JONathan on 3/28/2003 at 9:17:05 PM
FWIW, I have scavanged 165mm cranks off a lady's frame Centurion. I agree that a 4% difference is negligible from a purely kinesthetic factor. However, for ground clearance...millimeter increments are significant, from my experience, of course. I'm thinking; traversing a slope where 5mm might be significant.

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by Eric Amlie on 3/28/2003 at 1:26:11 PM
I don't have much first hand experience but I've read exhaustive discussions of this on the Classic Rendezvous list. The general consensus is that you probably won't notice the difference. Short legged riders will sometimes notice that long cranks are harder on their knees after long rides. Those 165 mm cranks are good for fixed gear bikes though because they give you greater clearance for cornering.

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by Gralyn on 3/30/2003 at 1:59:08 AM
Well, I put the 165's on the Bianchi. I rode it a while - and couldn't really notice anything. Then, I hopped on one of my bikes with 170's.....then back and forth....and I could really tell a difference. I don't know how it would be for a long ride - or for long-term. But, I was surprised that I could really notice the difference - I thought that 1.0 cm in circumference wouldn't have made a noticable difference - but I was wrong.
I did discover, however, that I do have the exact same cranks - but in 170mm length....and ironically...it's on a bike with small frame. I will probably swap them out....then, the smaller cranks will be on the small frame - and the larger cranks on the larger frame.

   RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by JONathan on 3/30/2003 at 3:39:11 AM
Graylyn, describe what was different. Did you have the same size frames? I know it makes a big difference for me when I compare rides on different sized frames and different wheels and tires. The angle of the leg to the pedal perpendicular (how far the drive crank is from the center axis of the frame) makes a big difference to me. I think it's called; "Q-angle".
JONathan

   RE:RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by Dave on 3/31/2003 at 3:00:45 PM
That's Q-Factor , the older cranks usually have a narrow one and newer ones wide.

   RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Crank length posted by JONathan on 3/31/2003 at 5:26:30 PM
"Q-factor", not "Q-angle". Thanks, Dave. My bikes seem to fit the diagnostic you mention. Very interesting. JONathan