Bike tinker man

I seem to perpetually collect old bikes which have been have been hand painted & therefore the original manufacturer & any decals lost & unknown.

I did post this frame with a couple of photos very quickly last year without any information bit silly really, having left it for over a year, I’ve now dug it out & started work on it again, so hopefully with some more information it maybe possible for people to recognize it.

The frame number F3E00010 interestingly its stamped in line with frame & not across the BB, the seat post size 25.8 mm, the frame looks reasonable quality with the forged seat post clamp, & drop outs, very noticeable is the very thin gauge of the seat post, the only other bike I have where that thickness appears to be the same is a chrome-moly frame, the head-set lugs are also very light gauge & are faintly stamped G3 assume this is of course a lug part number. The rear brake cable routing is very neatly via a brazed in tube in the top tube. The rear dropout spacing is 128.mm I’ve no comment on the bike’s geometry but I noticed when I stripped the bike & I’ve since rebuilt the rear wheel & with a new tire its about 13. Or 14.mm clear of the rear of the seat post tube, to me that’s very close.
My humble guess is one of the Centurion models.

Primitive Don

T-Mar's Asian Serial Number Guide is a good place to start.

https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vi...ber-guide.html

Bike tinker man

Appreciate I have already a copy of T-Mar's excellent serial number guide, & several of his other postings, that's what makes me think it might be a Centurion, as I understand it the F would indicate its made by Fairy of Taiwan & they made frames for Centurion, who used Chrome-moly in the later 1980s I'm hoping someone will have some more or definite information.

fleslider 

Two things that stick out that makes me think its not a Centurion,
1. Centurion never had a bike that Internally routed Brake cable
2. The Fork does not look like any models forks i can think of

my $0.02

Rollfast

Cue Johnny Rivers and Secret Asian Bike...


They've given you a serial and taken 'way the badge .


Well, I'll be watching this, I'm intrigued!

jetboy 

i second that. the fork looks sort of cool to me.. but its not a centurion fork. its odd enough that it might be the best avenue for identification???

Chombi1 

Looks to be of decent quality. The only thing odd is where the internally routed rear brake cable comes out of the top tube near the seatpost on the "wrong" side of the bike, if it is to have higher quality brakeset calipers......
The rear dropouts seem to be ready to accept adjusters, but it looks like it was not drilled and threaded for such(?).
I think the unusual looking fork crown, if the fork is original to the frame, might also help you identify the frameset.
Interesting low serial number too..... just the 10th frame in the production line?

Bike tinker man

Reading about the fork I suddenly had a thought, I'm a dumb cluck here, I picked what little was of the bike up over 2 years ago, the frames are hung in one place, the forks on a shelf there, & the few bits all stored in separate boxes, I then rechecked the original photos I took of the bike, & my apology the forks shown in my original post above were the wrong ones ---- so attached are the forks that belong to this frame ---- sorry for the confusion.

Very interesting that Centurion never had internally routed cables, appreciate the comment.

unworthy1

no idea but odd that the fork seems to have bulges in the blades where the internal socketed "plugs" might have been forced into blades that were too small for this crown.
That plus the quality of the brazing makes me wonder if this is possibly not a mass-produced frame but maybe the work of a student who took a frame-building class, or...?

Bike tinker man

A fair comment looking at the photos but I think it s the way the light has caught the forks, & the rubbing down marks, actually running your finger over there its barely noticeable, & I think with painting & assembly it would be difficult to pick out.

himespau 

Is there a sleeve all the way through the top tube or is it just entrance/exit holes? With respect to the internal routing being on the wrong side, my first thought was some custom (or later addition of brake cable routing by someone who hadn't had their coffee yet) cross bike with internal routing for FD cable for a top pull FD, but the frame is probably too old for that and looking down I see downtube braze-ons for the shifters, so that's out.

Bike tinker man

Good comment but the tube goes all the way through, as you & others comment its seems on the wrong side as you say "someone who hadn't had their coffee yet" there again per a previous comment the serial number tends to indicate # 10 so maybe they were still on a learning carve !

Yes The FD cable ran underneath BB with little screw in plastic guide, & was bottom pull, I cannot believe someone would have added the tube later, it looks like part of the original manufacture.

There is a complete miss match of the few components on the bike so there is no clue there.

Assuming the seatpost is original its stamped 93-3 but I would have thought the rear drop spacing been wider by then as its only 128.mm

T-Mar

The serial number format is not Fairly. They did not use an alpha character in the 3rd position. The other possibility that came to mind was Fuji, as they regularly changed formats and did use a similar format for a short period in the 1970s and 1980s.

The serial number suggests 1983 or 1993 and with a 93-3 date code on the post, 1993 would seem to be the immediate choice. However, had this been 1993, I would have expected some combination of dual bottle bosses, a pump peg, a unicrown fork and TIG welding. A check of my database revealed a 1993 Fuji Club (2nd from the bottom of the line) but ironically it was built by Fairly and had all the aforementioned 1993 features. Notably, the Fuji also had an extnded seat tube. However, the dropouts do look very similar. It doesn't match any catalogued 1983 Fuji.

The 25.8mm post is quite interesting as that is down in hi-tensile territory. Even the entry level sport models circa 1993 typically used butted CrMo. Tange would have used 26.8mm posts, so might this be a typo? It would be strange to utilize things like a cast seat lug and brake bridge on an entry level model circa 1993. Yet the fork does exhibit the lawyer tab retention holes typical of the entry level models. Curiously, the fork has eyelets, which the rear dropouts does not, suggesting the possibility that it does not match the frame.

Regarding the orientation of the brake cable ports, the production process likely would have been set up to install these prior to the frame build (due to the internal sleeve), in which case the tube could have be mitred and/or installed upside down. Rotating the tube 180 degrees would put the ports on the top and allow for a conventional, left side exit. However, is we consider 1983, a lot of the less expensive models, including the ubiquitous Dia-Compe 500, used a cost effective single casting for both front and rear brakes, which would position the cable on the right/drive side for the rear brake.

Had this been from a 1993 major brand, I would have expected some proprietary embossing on the lugs, stay caps, crown and/or dropouts. Of course, the other possibility is that it is 1983 and most of the characteristics do seem better fit this era, though internal brake cable were more rare during this period and it would appear to be OEM given the full length, internal sleeve.

I realize this post has posed more questions than provided answers but felt I should reply, given my mention in one of the posts.

himespau 

The 128 spacing is close enough to either 126 or 130 that I suppose that could be consistent with either 83 or 93.

Bike tinker man

T-Mar.
I must thank you for your time & expertise in replying to this posting, your knowledge is legendary on this forum, & anyone posting an unknown bike or frame on this forum can only hope for a reply from your good self.

So the best possible chance it would seem to maybe a 1993 Fuji ?

A couple of further points.

I can confirm the seat tube to be 25.8mm I still have the original seat post, with its marking & I also have a unused 1997 seat post of 25.8mm size its confirmed. The bare weight of the frame as seen is 2.69 kg this is of course on my cheap digital scales.

Another thing I’ve not seen on the frames I’ve stripped down before is the fact that the lugs & tubes when placed in a jig have then been touched with a weld to hold them prior to brazing. I’ve not personally seen this method before it maybe common practice, see couple close-up photos.