NEW TI RALEIGH 753 40TH TDF ANNIVERSARY MODEL

enjoyed the tinkering - threads were clean and the faces were straight under the paint

...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?

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

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?

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

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. 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?

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

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..

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.