Early 80's Guerciotti - Update



A

Antti Salonen

Guest
A few months ago I asked about an early 80's Guerciotti racing bike,
which I then purchased. Some of you wanted to know how it turned out
with it, so I'm writing an update. Here's a new photograph:

http://www.pp.fishpool.fi/~as/pics/misc/guerciotti.html

The bike got:

- New Continental Sprinter tubulars, as the original Pirellis were in
lousy condition. The Nisi Toro tubulars rims are in fine condition so
I decided to stick with tubulars. Besides, finding good clincher rims
with similar aesthetics is almost impossible.

- KoolStop salmon brake shoes, as the original Universal shoes were
quite worn and probably not very good anyway.

- New cables and casings.

- SRAM chain with the quick connector to replace the old Regina chain.

- Cork tape to replace the old plastic handlebar tape.

Other than that, the bike is as it was originally sold. The derailers
and downtube shifters are Campagnolo Gran Sport. Brakes and brake levers
are Universal. Hubs, BB, headset and crankset are all by Ofmega. The
hubs seem cheap, but the BB and the headset are very nice. With fresh
grease all of these basically seem as good as new. The chainrings are in
good condition and the Regina Oro 5-speed freewheel feels and sounds
fine. In short, it has some minor scratches on the frame and a bit of
surface rust on the spokes, but functionally it should be as good as
new. I haven't had the opportunity to ride it yet, as the weather is a
bit hostile right now.

If any of you can tell more accurately what year this bike is from, I'd
be most interested. The shop that I got it from claimed that they sold
it in the late 80's, but the bike definitely seems to be from early
80's. It has 120 mm rear dropout spacing and a 5-speed freewheel. If
it helps, the Universal brakes say "Mod 77", the rims just "Nisi Toro",
the Ofmega crankset is "Strada 170". The saddle is Selle Italia Turbo
"Bernard Hinault".

-as
 
P

PBridge130

Guest
>If any of you can tell more accurately what year this bike is from, I'd
>be most interested.


> It has 120 mm rear dropout spacing and a 5-speed freewheel.


120 rear spacing was pretty much done with in '77 or so. Universal 77's were
available at that time, and, in fact, I believe that the "77" actually refers
to 1977, although that model endured for a number of years.

Some of the parts are from other years. The rear der, for instance, is 80's
vintage.

Is there a serial number? I have no info on Geurciotti numbers, but it may
exist. I suggest that you post your question to the Classic Rendezvous mailing
list:

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/main.htm <-- main site


http://www.phred.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous <-- mailing list

A description or photo of any tubing sticker might be helpful, as well.

Cheers,

Peter
 
A

Antti Salonen

Guest
PBridge130 <[email protected]> wrote:

> 120 rear spacing was pretty much done with in '77 or so. Universal 77's were
> available at that time, and, in fact, I believe that the "77" actually refers
> to 1977, although that model endured for a number of years.


That was my guess as well.

> Is there a serial number? I have no info on Geurciotti numbers, but it may
> exist. I suggest that you post your question to the Classic Rendezvous mailing
> list:


There is no serial number on the underside of the bottom bracket.

> A description or photo of any tubing sticker might be helpful, as well.


There is no tubing sticker either. The frame is pretty heavy at about
2.4 kilograms (size 54 cm c-t), so I'm guessing that it wasn't a
top-level racing frame, but perhaps something more ordinary and
mid-priced. I'm not an expert on bikes this old, as it's basically as
old as myself, so I might be wrong here.

-as
 
D

dynohubbill

Guest
Antti Salonen wrote:
> PBridge130 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 120 rear spacing was pretty much done with in '77 or so. ...

> That was my guess as well.
>

....
> > A description or photo of any tubing sticker might be helpful, as

well.
>
> There is no tubing sticker either. The frame is pretty heavy at

about
> 2.4 kilograms (size 54 cm c-t), so I'm guessing that it wasn't a
> top-level racing frame, but perhaps something more ordinary and
> mid-priced.


As a point of reference, I have a 1978 Guerciotti. It has 126 mm rear
spacing and internal Allen headed fasteners rather than nuts as shown
in your photo. This would suggest that your frame was made before
1978. As others have mentioned some of the components now on your bike
are from a more recent era. My bike was built up from a bare frame at
Yellow Jersey in Madison Wisconsin USA www.yellowjersey.org and
components included Campagnolo Nuovo record deraillers, Campagnolo
Record hubs, Fiamme red label rims, Cinelli #66 bars and 1/A stem, SR
Laprade seat post, Universal brakes, Regina chain and freewheel.

Typically a frame and fork made with Columbus SL in a medium (around 56
cm) size weighs about 2.5 kilograms, when you say your frame weighs 2.4
kilograms does this include the fork? Headset? Bottom Bracket?

I hope you enjoy riding your Guerciotti, I like riding mine more than
any other bicycle I've ridden. It could be that after more than 20
years riding the same bike my body has adapted to it!

Bill Putnam
 
A

Antti Salonen

Guest
dynohubbill <[email protected]> wrote:

> Typically a frame and fork made with Columbus SL in a medium (around 56
> cm) size weighs about 2.5 kilograms, when you say your frame weighs 2.4
> kilograms does this include the fork? Headset? Bottom Bracket?


Just the frame and nothing else. The fork was about 740 grams when I
weighed it. The total weight of the bike, ready to ride, is about 9.8
kilograms. Considering the relatively modest components, I think it's
fair to assume that the tubing used isn't the lightest available either.

-as
 
D

David L. Johnson

Guest
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:00:35 +0000, Antti Salonen wrote:

> A few months ago I asked about an early 80's Guerciotti racing bike,
> which I then purchased. Some of you wanted to know how it turned out
> with it, so I'm writing an update. Here's a new photograph:
>
> http://www.pp.fishpool.fi/~as/pics/misc/guerciotti.html


Pretty.

> lousy condition. The Nisi Toro tubulars rims are in fine condition


I don't know that model, but had Nisi tubulars way back in the '70s.

> Other than that, the bike is as it was originally sold. The derailers
> and downtube shifters are Campagnolo Gran Sport.


Geez, my first 10-speed I got when I was maybe 13 had those. Unless they
re-used that model name, those derailleurs are likely very old. More like
'60s than '80s. But they probably did re-use the model name. Rear
derailleur almost looks like a modern slant-parallelogram, and looks at
least as new as a Nuevo Record.


> Brakes and brake levers
> are Universal.


From the pic, those brakes are newer. I'm judging that based on the
barrel adjusters on the brake arches, which were not common until Campy
introduced them, and IIRC Universal did not have them in the '70s.

> If any of you can tell more accurately what year this bike is from, I'd
> be most interested. The shop that I got it from claimed that they sold
> it in the late 80's, but the bike definitely seems to be from early
> 80's. It has 120 mm rear dropout spacing and a 5-speed freewheel.


I find it hard to believe that any road bike sold in the late '80s had a
5-speed Regina freewheel. Those were headed out in the mid '70s.

The saddle was probably replaced, but the rest of the bike seems to be
from around 1970 -- my guess, anyway. Damn good shape if it is anywhere
near that old.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but
_`\(,_ | what canst thou say? -- George Fox.
(_)/ (_) |
 
D

David L. Johnson

Guest
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:08:34 +0000, Antti Salonen wrote:

> dynohubbill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Typically a frame and fork made with Columbus SL in a medium (around 56
>> cm) size weighs about 2.5 kilograms, when you say your frame weighs 2.4
>> kilograms does this include the fork? Headset? Bottom Bracket?

>
> Just the frame and nothing else. The fork was about 740 grams when I
> weighed it. The total weight of the bike, ready to ride, is about 9.8
> kilograms. Considering the relatively modest components, I think it's
> fair to assume that the tubing used isn't the lightest available either.


That weight is about what my old Frejus came in at. It is Reynolds 531,
from about 1970. If your bike is older, as I would guess, it could have
been a high-end bike at the time. But, boy, that is in nice shape.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. --
_`\(,_ | Michael Crichton
(_)/ (_) |
 
P

PBridge130

Guest
>From: Antti Salonen

>There is no tubing sticker either. The frame is pretty heavy at about
>2.4 kilograms (size 54 cm c-t), so I'm guessing that it wasn't a
>top-level racing frame, but perhaps something more ordinary and
>mid-priced.


what's the seatpost diameter?

pb
 
A

A Muzi

Guest
Antti Salonen wrote:
> A few months ago I asked about an early 80's Guerciotti racing bike,
> which I then purchased. Some of you wanted to know how it turned out
> with it, so I'm writing an update. Here's a new photograph:
> http://www.pp.fishpool.fi/~as/pics/misc/guerciotti.html

-snip-
> If any of you can tell more accurately what year this bike is from, I'd
> be most interested. -snip-


If it has the original Campagnolo hubs, the locknuts are dated

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
A

A Muzi

Guest
Antti Salonen wrote:
-snip-
> There is no serial number on the underside of the bottom bracket.

-snip-
> There is no tubing sticker either. The frame is pretty heavy at about
> 2.4 kilograms (size 54 cm c-t), so I'm guessing that it wasn't a
> top-level racing frame, but perhaps something more ordinary and
> mid-priced. I'm not an expert on bikes this old, as it's basically as
> old as myself, so I might be wrong here.
>


If that's frame and fork 2.4Kg then it is likely Columbus
SP/SL the premium material in the late seventies/early eighties.

Serial numbers on left side frame end
http://www.yellowjersey.org/ebay/MCR5.JPG
or:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/ebay/mcr.html
for a similar 1983 bike
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
A

Andrew Lee

Guest
"David L. Johnson" wrote:
> The saddle was probably replaced, but the rest of the bike seems to be
> from around 1970 -- my guess, anyway. Damn good shape if it is anywhere
> near that old.


The frame looks like it's from the late '70s or early '80s. The graphics
look too modern for early '70s and the details on the frame don't look that
old... I would think that most bikes that old would have clamp on cable
housing guides and shifters. In the early '80s it seemed that there was
still a mix of nutted brakes and recessed allen nut brakes. The 120 mm
dropout spacing sounds incongruous though. Antti, did you measure the
spacing or did you just assume it was 120 because of the 5 speed freewheel?
 
A

Antti Salonen

Guest
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> If that's frame and fork 2.4Kg then it is likely Columbus
> SP/SL the premium material in the late seventies/early eighties.


However, it's just the frame that is 2.4 kg. The fork is about 740 grams
more and reasonably light, but the frame is quite heavy. I'll recheck
the frame for a serial number.

-as
 
A

Antti Salonen

Guest
Andrew Lee <whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:

> The 120 mm
> dropout spacing sounds incongruous though. Antti, did you measure the
> spacing or did you just assume it was 120 because of the 5 speed freewheel?


I measured both the hub and the frame, and both are 120 mm.

-as
 
D

dynohubbill

Guest
....
> > what's the seatpost diameter?

....
> It is marked on the 3T seatpost - 26.4 mm.


Then the frame is likely not Columbus SL. My '78 Guerciotti is
Columbus SL and the seatpost diameter is 27.2 mm.

Your bike is pretty! It may weigh 400 grams more than an SL frame, but
it would probably be very difficult to detect a difference in how the
bike rides compared to a Guerciotti built with Columbus SL.
Enjoy it!

Bill Putnam
 
A

Anthony Leverock

Guest
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:23:01 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:08:34 +0000, Antti Salonen wrote:
>
>> dynohubbill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Typically a frame and fork made with Columbus SL in a medium (around 56
>>> cm) size weighs about 2.5 kilograms, when you say your frame weighs 2.4
>>> kilograms does this include the fork? Headset? Bottom Bracket?

>>
>> Just the frame and nothing else. The fork was about 740 grams when I
>> weighed it. The total weight of the bike, ready to ride, is about 9.8
>> kilograms. Considering the relatively modest components, I think it's
>> fair to assume that the tubing used isn't the lightest available either.

>
>That weight is about what my old Frejus came in at. It is Reynolds 531,
>from about 1970. If your bike is older, as I would guess, it could have
>been a high-end bike at the time. But, boy, that is in nice shape.


Yup, same here on my Frejus, which is a late '60's model.

Also, I don't recall there being any low end Gureciottis. They were
all great to excellent bikes.

Ditto on the comment about the condition of the bike.

- --
Anthony
 
D

David L. Johnson

Guest
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:56:28 -0900, Andrew Lee wrote:

>
> "David L. Johnson" wrote:
>> The saddle was probably replaced, but the rest of the bike seems to be
>> from around 1970 -- my guess, anyway. Damn good shape if it is anywhere
>> near that old.

>
> The frame looks like it's from the late '70s or early '80s. The graphics
> look too modern for early '70s and the details on the frame don't look that
> old... I would think that most bikes that old would have clamp on cable
> housing guides and shifters.


Some, not all. My Frejus has clamp-on shifters, but my roommate's (at the
time) had braze-on. The Frejus does have braze-on cable guides.

In the
early '80s it seemed that there was
> still a mix of nutted brakes and recessed allen nut brakes. The 120 mm
> dropout spacing sounds incongruous though. Antti, did you measure the
> spacing or did you just assume it was 120 because of the 5 speed
> freewheel?


Well, the 5-speed freewheel does imply 120mm spacing.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you
_`\(,_ | killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds,
(_)/ (_) | thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't
kill that fast. -- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).
 
D

David L. Johnson

Guest
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:28:15 +0000, Antti Salonen wrote:

> Andrew Lee <whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom> wrote:
>
>> The 120 mm
>> dropout spacing sounds incongruous though. Antti, did you measure the
>> spacing or did you just assume it was 120 because of the 5 speed freewheel?

>
> I measured both the hub and the frame, and both are 120 mm.


My Campy bottom bracket axle has 70 and 120 stamped on it (70mm shell,
120mm rear spacing). You might look at that sometime.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |
 
A

A Muzi

Guest
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:00:35 +0000, Antti Salonen wrote:
>>A few months ago I asked about an early 80's Guerciotti racing bike,
>>which I then purchased. Some of you wanted to know how it turned out
>>with it, so I'm writing an update. Here's a new photograph:
>>
>>http://www.pp.fishpool.fi/~as/pics/misc/guerciotti.html

-snip-
>>Other than that, the bike is as it was originally sold.

The derailers
>>and downtube shifters are Campagnolo Gran Sport.

-snip-
>>Brakes and brake levers
>>are Universal.

-snip->>If any of you can tell more accurately what year
this bike is from, I'd
>>be most interested. The shop that I got it from claimed

that they sold
>>it in the late 80's, but the bike definitely seems to be

from early
>>80's. It has 120 mm rear dropout spacing and a 5-speed

freewheel.

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Geez, my first 10-speed I got when I was maybe 13 had those. Unless they
> re-used that model name, those derailleurs are likely very old. More like
> '60s than '80s. But they probably did re-use the model name. Rear
> derailleur almost looks like a modern slant-parallelogram, and looks at
> least as new as a Nuevo Record.
>
> From the pic, those brakes are newer. I'm judging that based on the
> barrel adjusters on the brake arches, which were not common until Campy
> introduced them, and IIRC Universal did not have them in the '70s.
>
> I find it hard to believe that any road bike sold in the late '80s had a
> 5-speed Regina freewheel. Those were headed out in the mid '70s.
>
> The saddle was probably replaced, but the rest of the bike seems to be
> from around 1970 -- my guess, anyway. Damn good shape if it is anywhere
> near that old.


Campagnolo dumped the Valentino/Velox stuff in the mid
seventies in favor of a New Gran Sport,later Gran Sport so
indeed the name got reused. Not your early 60s Gran Sport
at all.

Originally, 1974, a beautiful 3-arm chromed steel crank
(chainring bolts _not_ allen headed!) then an unremarkable
3-arm sluminum then a downright ulgy 5-arm 144mm copy of the
1049a crank. BB is the Record ( thinner cups than Nuovo
Record , no reverse crud-pump grooves)

Rear changer began with a non-allen pivot version of the
1020a. Inscrutably, the front changer used all the small
parts of the 1052/1, includingthe expensive body, except
the outer arm was stamped not forged. Really ugly and not
cheap either. Shift levers had a sculpted steel clamp,
flared and larger than the simple Record band, and a knurled
cover instead of the pretty wire-bail bolts. Same shift
lever arm. Hubs were the Nuovo Tips we've been dicussing
lately and the headset was a Record Track in a different
package. Calipers had a Record-quality arm but a binary
release rather than the nice works-in-any-position cam of
Record. Brake levers are Record with a black hood.

Universal #51 (50s)and the pretty version, Super 68,(60s)
adjusters are in the lever. Universal AER, 125 and CX ('70s)
are too. Only the model 77 adjusters are on the caliper.
Universal supplied the same levers with adjusters for
sidepull calipers and also with their nice #61 centerpull.

Nisi was a popular brand with uneven quality. Riders sought
their overly lightened models ( partially drilled through
the tire bed between spoke holes!) because riders always
demmmsnd j, wheelbuilders dreaded them. Even Nisi's special
nylon/steel nipple washer didn't slow the crack propagation

I think this equipment looks like 1978~1980.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
D

David L. Johnson

Guest
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:30:37 -0600, A Muzi wrote:

> Campagnolo dumped the Valentino/Velox stuff in the mid
> seventies in favor of a New Gran Sport,later Gran Sport so
> indeed the name got reused. Not your early 60s Gran Sport
> at all.


It did not really look like that. The '60s Gran Sport front derailleur
had a pushrod arm controlling the cage, rather than a parallelogram,
which seemed like what was in the picture.

> downright ulgy 5-arm 144mm copy of the 1049a crank. BB is the Record (
> thinner cups than Nuovo Record , no reverse crud-pump grooves)


Those were pretty dumb.

> Nisi was a popular brand with uneven quality. Riders sought their
> overly lightened models ( partially drilled through the tire bed between
> spoke holes!)


I had those!

because riders always demmmsnd j, wheelbuilders dreaded
> them. Even Nisi's special nylon/steel nipple washer didn't slow the
> crack propagation


When I got back on the bike in the mid-90s I resurrected a pair of wheels
with those rims, respaced to 130mm. After a few hundred miles every damn
right-side hole cracked.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a
_`\(,_ | conclusion. -- George Bernard Shaw
(_)/ (_) |
 

Similar threads