-1

I'm looking for some information on this bike, it's a steel frame road bike with chrome dropouts the rear ones are SR suntour ones, theres no badges or decals on it it was like that when I bought it , thanks

enter image description here

  • 2
    Possible duplicate of Why shouldn't I care what model/make/year my bicycle is? – mattnz Apr 17 at 8:58
  • 1
    Possible duplicate of How can I tell what year my bike was made? – David Richerby Apr 17 at 10:45
  • It's a road bike. Old enough that it has downtube shifters rather than brifters. What do you want to know about it -- there probably isn't much at all to say. – David Richerby Apr 17 at 10:46
  • I would say 1980ish. And in pretty good shape! The frame is pretty much standard for the era, though -- looks a lot like my old Nishiki. (Though note that my Nishiki didn't have those brakes. And also note that it's missing pump pegs and eyelets for water bottles and front rack, so it's not a touring/road bike.) – Daniel R Hicks Apr 17 at 12:16
2

Not the greatest of photos but not bad. These are the points I can see.

  • Cantilever or Centerpull brakes. We can see the hole in the stem that terminates the outer cable, and the exposed inner cable that goes down in front of the head tube to the front brake.

  • Quill Stem

  • Appears to be a lugged steel frame with an understated plain paint job. This suggests it has been repainted.

  • Almost no seat post is visible. I'd bet the whole seat post is no more than 100mm long (4 inches) so it probably can't go up much.

  • Super-long head tube.

  • Front Radonneuring rack and mirror and full mudguards

  • Sissy bars on the tops of the handlebars - common in the 80s era Bike Boom styles.

I'm seeing an early-mid 1980s touring bike. The chromed fork legs and lower/aft chain/seat stays are a nice look and suggest something more than a cheap model.

The only thing that is off is the bottle cage on the frame. Few bikes had on-frame mounts, but that could have been added easily enough. The cage itself looks period.

Overall its a very tall frame - guessing its at least 60 cm and probably more like 62+ cm. The angle of the photo is a little deceptive. I'd totally ride it!

All in all a loverly bike and you should enjoy riding it.

  • Thanks all for the replies, I'm really trying to nail down a manufacturer? She's smooth ride and lot lighter than she looks – Vinny Apr 17 at 14:59
  • There's no seat post visible because the bike is built for someone about 4" taller than the current rider. – Daniel R Hicks Apr 17 at 16:09
  • @DanielRHicks probably - but "less seatpost" was also more common back then. The modern "several feet of seatpost" look is much more recent. – Criggie Apr 17 at 22:22
  • 1
    @Criggie -- I rode a similar bike back then (my Nishiki), but it was not nearly as tall. That frame is designed for a guy who stands about 6-foot-four. I mean, consider the stand-over height of that thing. (And, yes, stand-over height was a "thing" in 1980.) – Daniel R Hicks Apr 18 at 0:32
  • 1
    @Criggie - And note that the reason that longer seatposts are more common is that frames with horizontal top tubes are less common. – Daniel R Hicks Apr 21 at 1:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.