# Road bikes: Comfortable?



## PaulSecteur (30 Apr 2010)

Hi,

When I decided to get a bike I chose a mountain bike because...

1-I like the ruft-tuffty image
2-Front suspension helps smooth things out
3-Big soft tyre, to absorb road imperfections

Recenty, I have been reading road bike reviews that say they are "Comfortable and flexible"

Does this relate to the actual on road experience (bearing in mind the state of our roads), or the seating position?


----------



## paddy01 (30 Apr 2010)

Well correctly set up for the rider they are indeed comfortable, many people ride hundreds on miles (in 1 sitting) on them.

For gentle pootling about for a more upright ride an MTB may well be thought of as more comfortable, but for any sort of distance it's my road bike for me every time.

Of course personal preference will come into play. Best suggestion is see if you can borrow / test ride one and see how you get on.


----------



## automatic_jon (30 Apr 2010)

Mountain bikes are alright for some but I've converted to a road bike and not looked back.

I first rode a slicked up mountain bike, then when this was totaled by a driver I went for a hybrid, again assuming that the position would be more comfortable. Now I have a compact road bike and I love it, the drop bars give me more variation in hand positions and the 'standard' hand on hoods position is more ergonomic than flat bars. Once I'd had a few goes at tweaking the set up of the bike (seat back a little and a shorter stem) then the riding position is great I can, and do, go miles without without even thinking about my positioning, it's just become natural.

Mine is certainly not flexible, steel forks and cheap heavy wheels transmit every bump and lump in the tarmac!


----------



## gbb (30 Apr 2010)

Never had a proper fitting session, but my out of the box roadbike, with a few tweeks here and there is relatively comfortable.
Carbon forks do take out a lot of the buzz from the road, dont know about carbon rear triangles, i'd imagine they do the same.
80 miles is the most i've done and although i was a bit achy (i do get a bad back anyway), its generally comfortable.
It grows on you...when i first got serious with a roadbike, i did find it hard work, but your muscles strengthen i assume and its only a phase you go through.


----------



## PaulSecteur (30 Apr 2010)

Thanks for the replies.

Another question, with those thin tyres pumped to over 100psi and the lumps and bumps in our roads... Doesnt it give you botty a bit of abuse?


----------



## Zoiders (30 Apr 2010)

I ride both, the MTB gets used well...for mountain biking of course.

The road bike is a an old 531 fixed.

The road bike is the most comfortable of the two for racking miles up with even on slightly rougher stuff like tow paths, the ally frame on the MTB has no give in the rear triangle at all and causes an old back injury to flare up, even though it's got 100mm forks and off road tyres, I did have it set up with 1.25 slicks and rigid forks at one stage and it was murder, it wasn't the ride position as the road bike is far more stretched out it's simply the frame material.

Even with 23mm tyres running at 125 psi the long skinny tubes of the 531 are the better choice, if I had the money I would have a steel lugged MTB frame built up from the same material, some say you might want something a bit more rugged but I can't see the service life of such a frame being any worse than a coke can thin MTB frame like I have now.


----------



## Jaguar (30 Apr 2010)

I've ridden my old Dawes Galaxy for 1000s of miles now: it's an old friend. MTBs just feel big and bulky and slow in comparison


----------



## getfit (30 Apr 2010)

I'm new to road bikes, less than 100 miles so far and coming of a hybrid with a sprung seat post I was very pleasently surprised at just how good the road bike is at smoothing out even poor roads. It's far to say that on a couple of longer rides (1.5 hrs) my arse has been sore on the seat bones, but I belive this to be down to the seat and am looking at upgarding soon. 

GF


----------



## Zoiders (30 Apr 2010)

Jaguar said:


> I've ridden my old Dawes Galaxy for 1000s of miles now: it's an old friend. MTBs just feel big and bulky and slow in comparison


Depends on the MTB.

A slicked up XC race stick MTB with a lock out fork will leave a galaxy for dust to be honest.

There are many different kinds of MTB, some are very racey some are for all day riding off road some are for chucking down downhill courses, they are an under rated and misunderstood type of bike.


----------



## buggi (30 Apr 2010)

the thing about the bum being comfy...2 things:

- making sure your pelvic bones are on the saddle. make sure you get fitted for a saddle.

- for long rides, padding in the shorts is better than padding on the saddle (which makes the saddle bigger and more likely to rub) hence why the saddles on road bikes look small and thin... and why you need to be measured for one


----------



## xpc316e (30 Apr 2010)

Of course, if you wanted to experience real comfort you could try a recumbent. People talk about drops offering many different choices of hand positions, but if they were truly comfortable you wouldn't need to keep shifting your hands around in the first place. When I stop for a rest during a long ride on my 'bent trike, I am happy to remain seated on the bike - riders of normal bikes tend to want to give their backsides a bit of respite by getting off the bike.


----------



## PaulSecteur (30 Apr 2010)

Whilst I salute anyone road riding on whatever bike they choose, Im not brave enough to have a go on a recumabant.

What worries me is that cyclist can be difficult to spot at the best of times, but being below the height of a cars bonnet, espicially considering how many 4x4s are around now, would be pushing my luck.


----------



## Globalti (1 May 2010)

Like automatic_jon I went over to road riding last year after 21 years of mountain biking. My first impression was how unfit I was compared with the average roadie! Now I'm doing 30-40 mile rides without any trouble and have done 60s and a 100. It helps that I have a nice carbon bike but it definitely gets more comfortable the more you ride as your muscles become strengthened in the right areas. Don't underestimate your body's ability to adapt very fast to whatever stresses you are putting it to. 

Nowadays when I ride my MTB, which is a titanium hardtail built up for fast XC riding, I am shocked at how slow and agricultural it feels. I'm a little hacked off that I didn't go over to road riding until so late (I'm 54 now) because I would have done much better in the races and trailquests I've done on the MTB in those 21 years, by virtue of my now much greater fitness. The thing about MTBs is that they don't really get you that fit, there's a lot of standing around and faffing about whereas on a road bike you ride for much longer periods of time at a more consistent high rate of work.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (1 May 2010)

Globalti said:


> Like automatic_jon I went over to road riding last year after 21 years of mountain biking. My first impression was how unfit I was compared with the average roadie! Now I'm doing 30-40 mile rides without any trouble and have done 60s and a 100. It helps that I have a nice carbon bike but it definitely gets more comfortable the more you ride as your muscles become strengthened in the right areas. Don't underestimate your body's ability to adapt very fast to whatever stresses you are putting it to.
> 
> Nowadays when I ride my MTB, which is a titanium hardtail built up for fast XC riding, I am shocked at how slow and agricultural it feels. I'm a little hacked off that I didn't go over to road riding until so late (I'm 54 now) because I would have done much better in the races and trailquests I've done on the MTB in those 21 years, by virtue of my now much greater fitness. The thing about MTBs is that they don't really get you that fit, there's a lot of standing around and faffing about whereas on a road bike you ride for much longer periods of time at a more consistent high rate of work.




+1.

even riding my brommie for 200+ of miles per week has made me much fitter. the brommie had to have warranty work done so i had to use my very expensive scott genius ltd for a day or 2. it was awful. my back ached, the un road friendly position killed me. the roads felt much much smoother but that really didn't matter.

it was that bad, that i fixed up the lbs loaner brommie, which was 6 year old dog of a bike. even that was so much better than the mtb. 

now i know that my scott is no good for a back up bike, it will be getting traded in for a tourer or moulton.

but the road fitness is not really much use to me when mtbing. different muscles. eg my shoulders are nowhere as strong for downhilling as they were and my triceps get on fire over rough technical terrain.

its the old 'horses for courses' thing.


----------



## jimboalee (1 May 2010)

I've now done 2 x 100km Audaxes and a handful of 50+km rides on my 'slicked up' MTB.

It has the plastic logo'ed saddle and becomes a bit hot after a couple of hours, causing me to raise my backside now and again.


The bike I ride longer Audaxes on is a Dawes Giro 500 with a Brooks B17N.
A 50km stretch between controls is no problem. It's like a leather armchair.

When I take my SWorks out for a spin, the miles fly past unnoticed ( Fizik Arione ) and I'm not in the mood to stop when 50km has been covered.


One thing must be said though. All three of these bikes are dimensioned to formulas passed to me by a well respected framebuilder.


----------



## Norm (1 May 2010)

I think it was Hotmetal who said to me, a few weeks ago, that riding an MTB is 5 minutes of hard climbing work followed by a gossip at the top, then a short time descending followed by another stop to natter.

Riding a road bike solid for 60 minutes is nothing, it's pretty unusual to ride off-road for that sort of time without stopping.

Get fit to ride an MTB, don't ride an MTB to get fit.


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 May 2010)

xpc316e said:


> ...you could try a recumbent.




Weirdo


----------



## GrasB (1 May 2010)

xpc316e said:


> People talk about drops offering many different choices of hand positions, but if they were truly comfortable you wouldn't need to keep shifting your hands around in the first place.


Not really, no... on an upright your hands take an awful lot of stick in terms of vibration. So while I could ride for hours with one hand position having multiple hand positions allows the muscles in my hands to recuperate some what. 

You see it's the same thing as preventing rsi by stretching your hands etc. when using a computer. While most people can use a computer for hours without feeling the need to take the breaks if they do actually take them they find that they feel more relaxed. 

The other thing with drops is that it allows you to change your body profile immediately depending on the conditions presented. Want to get a bit of speed on or going into a strong headwind, you go to the drops a more aggressive position & one that you may not want to hold for a long time but it's easier to be on the drops then when going up hill you may want to be on the tops to allow you to make better use of your weight. With flat bars you're stuck with one compromised position.


----------



## Davidc (1 May 2010)

I have both, although the mtb (Ridgeback MX) is modified with slicks and rack for town use. (It's used for shopping and general transport). The road bike is a tourer (Dawes Horizon).

The (front only) suspension on the mtb actually makes it less comfortable than the tourer. It does however make it more suitable for going up and down kerbs and the like, and travelling along the canal towpath, without wrecking the wheels.

On the occasions I've used the mtb for more than about 10 miles I've ended up with sore wrists and backside. The tourer I can ride all day, 50+ miles, and hardly notice apart from my leg muscles. A part of that is the difference in the saddles. If I put the tourer's saddle on the mtb if I'm using the canal to go to Bridgwater I don't get such a sore b*m.

I wouldn't want to part with either of them. The straight handlebars and tense, hard geometry of the mtb is great for buzzing around locally, whereas the tourer's gentler geometry, drops, and general feel are right for a relaxed longer ride. The tourer is also more efficient, which can be used either for greater maximum and average speed (by 15 to 20%) or to increase range/ decrease effort.

I don't find the inflation pressure of the tyres makes much difference to ride comfort. A bit to resistance, and soft tyres are good in slippery conditions.


----------



## Davidc (1 May 2010)

Zoiders said:


> Depends on the MTB.
> 
> A slicked up XC race stick MTB with a lock out fork will leave a galaxy for dust to be honest.



On a rough off-road course, yes.

On roads then maybe over a mile, possibly a bit further, but I doubt any MTB would keep up with a good tourer over 50 let alone 120 miles. Up against a lightweight audax style road bike any MTB would be crucified from the off over any distance.

All that assumes equivalent riders of course!


----------



## Chrisc (1 May 2010)

Paulkraken said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> Another question, with those thin tyres pumped to over 100psi and the lumps and bumps in our roads... Doesnt it give you botty a bit of abuse?



Not really. I'm used to a Dutch bike with suspension forks, sprung seatpost, brooks flyer special sprung saddle, and squashy tyres and I can do a few hours in comfort on my bianchi roadbike with 23m tyres at 130PSI in perfect comfort.


----------



## Zoiders (1 May 2010)

Davidc said:


> On a rough off-road course, yes.
> 
> On roads then maybe over a mile, possibly a bit further, but I doubt any MTB would keep up with a good tourer over 50 let alone 120 miles. Up against a lightweight audax style road bike any MTB would be crucified from the off over any distance.
> 
> All that assumes equivalent riders of course!


The galaxy isn't a lightweight audux bike, it's a tourer and a bit of a pig in the weight department.

You can change the controls and the bars on an XC bike, the real racy ones you could even go rigid and easily have a bike a good 5 lbs lighter or more than a Galaxy, many a person commutes on a slicked up "road bike killer" MTB.

This idea that XC bike means heavy and slow is false.


----------



## ASC1951 (2 May 2010)

Zoiders said:


> ... many a person commutes on a slicked up "road bike killer" MTB.
> 
> This idea that XC bike means heavy and slow is false.


It's not just the weight, it's the upright riding position, which is much less aerodynamic. Good for commuting but you'll struggle to keep up with a roadie on a light bike over 20+ miles.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (2 May 2010)

ASC1951 said:


> It's not just the weight, it's the upright riding position, which is much less aerodynamic. Good for commuting but you'll struggle to keep up with a roadie on a light bike over 20+ miles.



i agree.

my scott has a very racy stretched out position. i don't think for one minute that anyone could ride my bike slicked out and keep up with most road bikes. my scott is still lighter than most audax bikes. i used it once, slicked out, to go on a colinj hilly 50 mile ride (ended up 100km for me by the time i got home). it was surprisingly faster downhill than most of the roadies bikes. but it was a complete back killing pig by the end. totally unsuitable to be in the saddle for hours. 

i did the mtl on it and it took me 10 hours to complete. the bike was a dream and caused me no pain at all, it was my fitness that slowed me down.
like others have said an mtb in mtb slicked out mode is nowhere near as fast as a dedicated road machine.

that said tho, cannondale tourers are based on mtb alloy frames.


----------



## GrasB (2 May 2010)

Depending on your route weight may not make much difference & it's more about body position. In the respect the 30% heaver MTB I used to commute on didn't actually impact my speed that much, the average speed difference was mainly due to the slower acceleration up 2 inclines. Even up the main drag of my commute, for which I had a 'run up' the speed difference was minimal. My MTB however had bull horn bars so I was in a much more road bike like position.


----------



## hotmetal (2 May 2010)

First you have to define what you mean by comfort. Pedalling? Buzz/bumps? Or seating position?

My road bike is carbon so it soaks up a lot of the 'buzz' that 700x23c tyres with 110psi transmit, but you don't get any 'buzz' with a slicked up MTB on road. The road bike is also quite racy so it does stretch my back quite a bit, especially on the drops. However, I would be far from 'comfortable' on either of my MTBs over a long distance, and overall would easily prefer the road bike for distance work, mainly because of the extra effort involved with the MTB, but also because of the 'bum-heavy' position the MTB puts you in. It starts off more comfortable, but even with slicks the extra weight and rolling resistance make it harder going. Over longer distances, the upright position is actually harder on bum and lower back than the road bike, although you do learn to avoid potholes and rough patches, and I also find my hands hurt after 50+ miles on the road bike - therefore I'm constantly moving from tops to hoods and even the corners. 

Ultimately it comes down to having the right type (and size) bike for what you're doing.


----------



## Zoiders (2 May 2010)

ASC1951 said:


> It's not just the weight, it's the upright riding position, which is much less aerodynamic. Good for commuting but you'll struggle to keep up with a roadie on a light bike over 20+ miles.


Again it depends on the MTB and how you build it up. You can even add drops if the reach allows it.

A racey XC frame especialy the early 90's ones are stretched out like a road bike, with a long stem and flat bars with bar ends they are more than "aero" enough, in fact a lot of new sportive bikes are more upright than some older race orientated XC bikes.

More modern mid range MTBs are aimed at the recreational rider who may use it for off road all day tides and enduro racing perhaps, they are more upright and relaxed but a top of the range race MTB is going to be very stretched out, it's not something you would buy for road use today but an older XC race bike with a similar set up is perfectly usable and with the correct chainset and tyres you will have no problem keeping up.

Comparing a rigid MTB with a new soot bike is not the point, as I said, there all sorts of MTB to be had and some of the more retro ones make very good commuters/tourers or even audax bikes, a lot of the skinny steel ones even have all the braze on's as well.

It's not the old "road" versus "MTB" argument, I am simply pointing out that if you limit yourself to what is merely labelled as being sutiable for just the one job then you may miss out on a perfectly good, versatile and cheap way of getting out on the road.


----------



## Backache (2 May 2010)

Paulkraken said:


> Hi,
> 
> When I decided to get a bike I chose a mountain bike because...
> 
> ...



Looking at teh original question I wonder if we are answering a different question.

For me my own road bike is much less comfortable over a rutted road surface than my MTB.
It is the most appropriate bike for roads and will be a fair bit quicker but whenever I am b going over a poor road surface I still get a bloody sight more jarring than I do on my MTB.
Now my road bike is not the most expensive but I honesly don't know anyone who would actually claim that riding their bike over a poor road surface is more comfortable than riding a mountain bike over the same surface.
Yes, if you are covering many miles in the long run you will be less tired and possibly less sore but whilst hitting the poor surfaces they still jar more.


----------



## HJ (4 May 2010)

Paulkraken said:


> Hi,
> 
> When I decided to get a bike I chose a mountain bike because...
> 
> ...



Road bike are meant for boy racers (or club riders as they prefer to call them selves), they are not supposed to be comfortable, they are about going fast, that is why to have to stick your arse in the air to ride them. But that is OK it is where boy racers keep their brains...

Touring bike are more intended to more comfortable, as they are designed for covering distance.


----------



## jimboalee (5 May 2010)

HJ said:


> Road bike are mean for boy racers (or club riders as they prefer to call them selves), they are not supposed to be comfortable, they are about going fast, that is why to have to stick your arse in the air to ride them. But that is OK it is where boy racers keep their brains...
> 
> Touring bike are more intended to more comfortable, as they are designed for covering distance.



Ah, so that's where I went wrong.

Trying to ride 240km one day and then 230km the next, followed by another five days of 220+km rides from Land's End to JOG on a Spesh SWorks is just 'boy racer brain in arse' mentality.

I should have ridden my old ten speed tourer and only covered 50km each day for a month.

The fact that the SWorks is the most 'near-perfect' fitted and most comfortable bike I own is neither here nor there.


----------



## youngoldbloke (5 May 2010)

HJ said:


> Road bike are mean for boy racers (or club riders as they prefer to call them selves), they are not supposed to be comfortable, they are about going fast, that is why to have to stick your arse in the air to ride them. But that is OK it is where boy racers keep their brains...
> 
> Touring bike are more intended to more comfortable, as they are designed for covering distance.



Gosh! - my brains are in my ARSE - that's what's been going wrong all these years - anyone got a Galaxy for sale?


----------



## Randochap (5 May 2010)

Not meaning any offence but It's strange that even in a country that played no small part in the development of the road bicycle we need to discuss this topic.

I'm not surprised however. Going on my last visit to the UK, I noticed that most people were riding department store MTBs. Where were the great British bikes I'd grown up around?

I'd venture that, after a long infatuation with the mountain bike (and there are plenty of mountain bikes around -- we have mountains) Canada and NA in general has re-embraced the road bike ... sometimes to the opposite degree.

That is, as I've argued here at length, there is room for bigger tyres ... but often not within the forks and stays of most modern road bikes.

I and many others have found the perfect answer in the 650b wheel size w/ wider tyres (up to 42mm), which was perfected in France in the 30s -- before roads were commonly paved. These are fast _and_ comfortable bikes.


----------



## HJ (5 May 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Ah, so that's where I went wrong.
> 
> Trying to ride 240km one day and then 230km the next, followed by another five days of 220+km rides from Land's End to JOG on a Spesh SWorks is just 'boy racer brain in arse' mentality.
> 
> ...





youngoldbloke said:


> Gosh! - my brains are in my ARSE - that's what's been going wrong all these years - anyone got a Galaxy for sale?



Yep, it just the same as with drivers, the boy racers take themselves far to seriously


----------



## PaulSecteur (6 May 2010)

Randochap said:


> Not meaning any offence but It's strange that even in a country that played no small part in the development of the road bicycle we need to discuss this topic.



Also not meaning any offence, but that does seems to be one of most ill thought out statements I have read on this forum!


----------



## Willo (7 May 2010)

I converted to a road bike 6 mnths back. Beforehand, my main concerns were comfort and stability. Re comfort, I looked at getting a Specialized Secteur or something similar but when my C2W supplier couldn't source one I went for a test spin on the basic Allez and found it comfortable and perfect for me. That hasn't changed since (although my rides are mostly shortish commutes between 30-60 mins with the odd 2hours or so spin at a weekend). Obviously you feel the bumps a bit more if the road is rough and padded shorts are essntial.

Re stability, I feared I would feel relatively unsafe riding on a bike with thin tyres and much lighter than my MTB. However, to the contrary, I find I feel much more secure. Difficult to describe but I think the greater 'efficiency' of a road bike means I can maintain a better/consistent position and motion which in turn makes it easier to hold my road position. It is also more responsive giving me greater control and confidence.


----------



## jimboalee (7 May 2010)

HJ said:


> Yep, it just the same as with drivers, the *boy* racers take themselves far to seriously



I'll take that as a compliment.


----------



## MacB (7 May 2010)

Another aspect of comfort is work rate this changes the weight distribution, on your contact points, quite a bit.


----------



## HJ (7 May 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I'll take that as a compliment.



You do that Jimbo


----------



## Davidc (7 May 2010)

Willo said:


> Obviously you feel the bumps a bit more if the road is rough and padded shorts are essntial.



Interesting - my mtb only has front suspension, and I feel big bumps such as kerbs less than on the tourer on my arms, but I don't notice any difference in road surface vibration or small defects. I wouldn't take the other bike over some of the things the mtb goes over - new wheels for it are too expensive.




Willo said:


> Re stability, I feared I would feel relatively unsafe riding on a bike with thin tyres and much lighter than my MTB. However, to the contrary, I find I feel much more secure. Difficult to describe but I think the greater 'efficiency' of a road bike means I can maintain a better/consistent position and motion which in turn makes it easier to hold my road position. It is also more responsive giving me greater control and confidence.



Again, interesting. I find the mtb great for short trips round town, and on paths such as towpaths, which is what it was bought for. It sometimes ends up on more open roads, and I don't feel secure on it. The tourer isn't as convenient as the mtb round town, but on more open roads I feel much safer and more stable on it. Your last sentence applies, and I'm sure it has a lot to do with the frame geometry giving sharper response, which in town at slower speeds feels twitchier, on open roads feels more responsive.


----------



## tyred (7 May 2010)

I have two old steel road bikes and find them infinitely more comfortable than my slicked up MTB (also steel). The road surfaces have disintigrated here and any more than about ten mph on my MTB feels like I'm being beat up. On my old Carlton, I just don't feel these bumps despite the thinner tyres.


----------



## Davidc (7 May 2010)

tyred said:


> I have two old steel road bikes and find them infinitely more comfortable than my slicked up MTB (also steel). The road surfaces have disintigrated here and any more than about ten mph on my MTB feels like I'm being beat up. On my old Carlton, I just don't feel these bumps despite the thinner tyres.



I agree about steel generally, but I'm sure the older frame geometry gave a mor ecomfortable ride on bad roads than the modern compact frames do, even when the new ones are steel. perhaps the older alloys (501, 531 etc.) were more shock absorbing as well.

Hang on to the Carlton - IMO one of the best and up with Holdsworth and Falcon.


----------



## decca234uk (7 May 2010)

I've got a hybrid and an Allez Specialized road bike. I hardly ride the hybrid anymore because my road bike is just so comfortable. It can get a bit shakey on a rough tow path but I'm happy to put up with that for the sheer pleasure it gives on a quiet back road when the only sound you can hear is the whels on the road.
I spent some time making sure I got a bike that fits me and changed the seat to a more comfortable one, now I can't imagine riding anything else.
I went riding with my son a few months back to York. I was on my road bike he was on the hybrid. on the way back from York he asked to swap. I agreed and sulked for the rest of the ride. the hybrid felt heavy and clumsy, I had to work twice as hard to keep up with him.


----------



## GrasB (8 May 2010)

Davidc said:


> I agree about steel generally, but I'm sure the older frame geometry gave a mor ecomfortable ride on bad roads than the modern compact frames do, even when the new ones are steel. perhaps the older alloys (501, 531 etc.) were more shock absorbing as well.


I think it's the metals, I know someone who had a new steel frame made to the exact geom. of an old frame. Even with everything else identical the new bike was harsher to ride.


----------



## Davidc (9 May 2010)

GrasB said:


> I think it's the metals, I know someone who had a new steel frame made to the exact geom. of an old frame. Even with everything else identical the new bike was harsher to ride.



I'm not surprised. I've suspeted that for some time.

Memories can of course be very misleading, but I'd rank the most comfortable bikes I've used or owned as Holdsworth Mistral 1972 as top (unfortunately not owned by me, borrowed for 9 months while I looked after it), Holdsworth Cyclone 1967 (I'd still strangle the person who nicked it if I found them) and a Peugeot with anumber I can't remember from 1978 (kept it 18 years). The Holdsworths were 531 and the Pug was I think some sort of french steel.


----------

