Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:43 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 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:31 am 
rBoTM Winner
rBoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:24 pm
Posts: 909
Location: N.Staffs
enjoyed the tinkering - threads were clean and the faces were straight under the paint


Attachments:
IMG_1553.jpg
IMG_1553.jpg [ 282.01 KiB | Viewed 1626 times ]
IMG_1554.jpg
IMG_1554.jpg [ 337.31 KiB | Viewed 1626 times ]
IMG_1552.jpg
IMG_1552.jpg [ 290.02 KiB | Viewed 1626 times ]
IMG_1550.jpg
IMG_1550.jpg [ 375.14 KiB | Viewed 1626 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 2:51 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 1239
...and we can't help noticing JSH that your front brake shoes are bottomed out in the slots whereas the rear ones ain't..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 3:11 pm 
rBoTM Winner
rBoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:24 pm
Posts: 909
Location: N.Staffs
torqueless wrote:
...and we can't help noticing JSH that your front brake shoes are bottomed out in the slots whereas the rear ones ain't..


Actually, I did a lift n shift from a 1983 LU frame from Nottingham (maybe a Gran sport on similar) I haven't touched the brake shoes yet and TBH they ain't far out. Could it be that Raleigh have been shit for 40 years? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 3:14 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 12:12 pm
Posts: 2547
Location: Bournemouth
Nice to see one built up!
I do understand the very detailed technical discussions and appreciate the reservations some have. However, seeing JSH’s pictures, built with sensitive period kit, I think it very much looks the part, all sits together well, a cool bike.
For me, and I’ve no idea whether this could have been delivered to the number of frames needed or the price point, a UK built frame would have been better.
Cheers for sharing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 3:20 pm 
Feature Bike
Feature Bike
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:13 pm
Posts: 1355
Location: York-ish UK
that looks great.

On the great brake drop debate, I’m a bit baffled:

Say a frame builder is making a custom frame, and requires a certain fork curve to achieve the trail needed to get quick steering, but also has to fix the TT length to fit the rider, what variable has to give to keep the brake drop exactly the same front and rear? I would have thought a couple of mm is an acceptable difference to mange trail correctly?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 3:42 pm 
rBoTM Winner
rBoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:24 pm
Posts: 909
Location: N.Staffs
MatBH5 wrote:
Nice to see one built up!
I do understand the very detailed technical discussions and appreciate the reservations some have. However, seeing JSH’s pictures, built with sensitive period kit, I think it very much looks the part, all sits together well, a cool bike.
For me, and I’ve no idea whether this could have been delivered to the number of frames needed or the price point, a UK built frame would have been better.
Cheers for sharing


Me too but the amount of overthinking is sucking the joy out of it :D If you want a steel frame that you can be pretty sure isn't rusting from the inside out, this is an option.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:56 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 1239
Quote:
Could it be that Raleigh have been shit for 40 years?


Well, there's a couple of Team Replicas on sale right now here:
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... p;t=419505
and neither of them appear to have a longer drop at the front- if anything, the opposite is true- there is a longer drop at the rear.
doctor-bond wrote:
that looks great.

On the great brake drop debate, I’m a bit baffled:

Say a frame builder is making a custom frame, and requires a certain fork curve to achieve the trail needed to get quick steering, but also has to fix the TT length to fit the rider, what variable has to give to keep the brake drop exactly the same front and rear? I would have thought a couple of mm is an acceptable difference to mange trail correctly?
I don't understand why anyone would think brake drop, within the customary range, was a limiting factor in frame geometry? I'm no frame builder, but I assume frame builders can both cut and bend tubes- even fork blades. If there's a variable, I would think it was the head tube length, which would be finessed to keep the other two clearances balanced (rear tyre to seat tube and front tyre to down tube)
Btw, your Andy Powell is interesting in this respect because to my eyes it suffers (aesthetically) from unbalanced clearances and perhaps not unconnected- the front brake drop is greater than the rear. Are you sure they are the original forks? Or is there a rationale for building a frame this way that I am unaware of?


Last edited by torqueless on Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:30 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 2797
Looking at the first of JSHs pics, I can see dropout adjusters. I thought someone said they were flat-plate dropouts with no adjusters. Looking at the bike built up from that angle it looks good...... best not let me see the sloping tube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:46 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 1239
I assume they are flat dropouts, but as thick all over as the thickest part of a Campag dropout? ie they are 7mm thick rather than the 1/8th of an inch or whatever of the plate dropouts of yore..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 7:35 pm 
Feature Bike
Feature Bike
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:13 pm
Posts: 1355
Location: York-ish UK
torqueless wrote:
Quote:

Btw, your Andy Powell is interesting in this respect because to my eyes it suffers (aesthetically) from unbalanced clearances and perhaps not unconnected- the front brake drop is greater than the rear. Are you sure they are the original forks? Or is there a rationale for building a frame this way that I am unaware of?


Well spotted; that’s what’s behind my query: I thought the forks had been changed but it doesn’t add up with the history, and it rides very well.

So ... say you need a tall frame with a short TT: that will give you an ungainly head tube length. Then you want trail to be right to give quick steering, so you curve the forks to move the axle forward, which pulls the rim away from fork crown = bigger drop.

You could rectify this with a longer head tube that sticks down to meet the fork crown, in a reverse Freuler sort of way, or live with a bit of brake drop .... which is probably the one variable that has absolutely no effect on handling.


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 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bigplinky, Holiocornolio, jim haseltine, keithglos, Midlife, old_coyote_pedaller, Peuf, pigman and 49 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