Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:21 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 290 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 29  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:12 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 1236
Well... I might be wrong about this, but as far as I can see, there is nothing about building to a specific top tube length, or to a specific fork rake, or both at once, that prevents you from choosing a specific brake drop, and getting the brake drops equal. I mean, they are never perfectly equal, but sufficiently equal that one pair of shoes is not noticeably in a different part of the slots than the other pair? If both pairs are near the bottom of the slots, ok. If both pairs are near the top of the slots, ok. If both pairs are near the middle of the slots, ok. Anything else looks like a lack of attention to detail to me, but like I say, I am open to having the rationale explained to me, if there is one?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:01 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:49 am
Posts: 460
Location: Hampshire
A simple drawing of four lines and two circles might help. :wink:


Attachments:
20201021_135352.jpg
20201021_135352.jpg [ 2.41 MiB | Viewed 538 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:51 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 1236
That's not an accurate representation. Seat stays are not vertical in elevation, and along with 40 odd mm of fork bend, there is about 25mm of forward/backward axle positioning potential in the rear dropouts, as you know..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:27 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:25 pm
Posts: 2722
Location: It's not easy being a dolphin.
This thread is offering true entertainment.

I would assume the forks were designed first taking into account a pre-determined HT angle, wanted tyre size and clearance, wanted rake, available fork crown, available drop-outs, and of course wanted brake caliper reach for particular sourced brake. All that would have decided the finished fork blade length - not necessarily the fork blade length from Reynolds.

When that was done, selecting and setting the rear brake bridge height (and hence finished length) to "reasonably" match the front fork would have been a no brainer.

I'm no framebuilder, not especially a Raleigh fan, but did "borrow" my brothers Europa to do my paper round when my Pug had a puncture and hence I feel qualified to comment here. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:24 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 1236
I can't tell whether you're being self-deprecating or whether I've been rumbled..
Yeah what the hell.. if people are happy to have a bike that looks and performs best on a slight downhill gradient, who am I to argue? What's so bad about that? Let's face it, once you are old enough to remember forty years ago it's all slightly downhill anyway.. and that's if you're lucky. I couldn't build the thing.. where do I get off nit-picking over a few millimetres? I don't know what came over me... I apologise.. :facepalm: :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:59 pm 
rBoTM Winner
rBoTM Winner

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:54 am
Posts: 1748
Location: Derby
I had a copy of this some years ago .
https://www.vintagevelo.co.uk/wp-conten ... icycle.pdf

It was the go to book for the trade/builders back in the day .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:58 pm 
Feature Bike
Feature Bike
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:13 pm
Posts: 1351
Location: York-ish UK
Excellent link: loads of fascinating details (a few pages in and I’m already adopting a Mr Cholmondley-Warner reading voice).


Last edited by doctor-bond on Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:05 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:25 pm
Posts: 2722
Location: It's not easy being a dolphin.
torqueless wrote:
I can't tell whether you're being self-deprecating or whether I've been rumbled..
Yeah what the hell.. if people are happy to have a bike that looks and performs best on a slight downhill gradient, who am I to argue? What's so bad about that? Let's face it, once you are old enough to remember forty years ago it's all slightly downhill anyway.. and that's if you're lucky. I couldn't build the thing.. where do I get off nit-picking over a few millimetres? I don't know what came over me... I apologise.. :facepalm: :)


Well, I assume this was directed at me, but no, not self deprecating or wanting to rumble anyone.

Just interested in bikes, and the processes involved. Can't see any reason for an apology; it's just a discussion
about a bike. Personally I think all bikes should have proper cantilever studs, clearance for proper tyres at least 35c, and front forks should have the freedom to put the cantilever studs anywhere where you like for wanted mechanical advantage aka the Pace RC31 for example. 8)

My USA Masi, while retro and classy looking is just and only that. Made in Taiwan, fairly well put together, but thoroughbred it is not, and I never expected it to be. I think Raleigh did an admirable job with the 40th Anniversary Replica bike considering the shit storm we are dealing with in 2020. Is it a super bike though - no. Is there better value elsewhere - yes. Will it be a future classic - can't say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnJk6bkjgko ..... always a nice watch and gives a warm feeling.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:58 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:25 pm
Posts: 2722
Location: It's not easy being a dolphin.
bagpuss wrote:
I had a copy of this some years ago .
https://www.vintagevelo.co.uk/wp-conten ... icycle.pdf

It was the go to book for the trade/builders back in the day .


Thanks. Bed time reading ahead.... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:18 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 1236
Woz the first sentence in my post was directed at the last sentence in yours. My apology was directed at anyone who derives no entertainment from my obsessing over brake drop anomalies. It seems that every time I ask for a rationale, I get a diagram that suggests some sort of fork rake-related inevitability to the bigger front brake drop. I know this to be untrue, and as you say, it is a no-brainer to put the rear brake bridge in a position that matches the front. The question is: Why wouldn't you?
I've been through Bagpuss's link without finding an answer. I doubt I'd find an answer in Paterek either.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 290 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pigman and 64 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group