Harryburgundy":2ib1eibk said:Nice write-up
Is it me..but in the picture you look like you must be something like 8'10"
Cheers Carl. Yes, 8'10" going on 6' Probably na optical illusion due to the expectation any Raleigh from this era is 23" or larger by default.
sinnett177":2ib1eibk said:Thats a great read John. We all started somewhere and its fantastic that you've gone right back to those early roots. Thats a very tasty find too, loving the reflector on the front!
Indeed, was good to take a bit of a step back and remember why.
nimbus":2ib1eibk said:Nice trip down (or rather up) memory lane, but I'm with Carl on this one. Judging by the amount of seatpost showing, that frame is far too small for you; it almost looks like a normal MTB.
As a rule of thumb when sizing Raleigh bikes for teenagers, while seated (with the seatpost stuffed irretrievably into the frame) there should be a minimum of two inches clearance between the ground and your outstretched toes - anything less is unsafe, and leaves no room for the rider "to grow into the frame". Moreover, the frame is probably also unnecessarily lighter and stiffer than had it been sized correctly.
Yet another reason to support your local Halfords rather than using risky internet shopping sites.
Of course I was somewhat torn about buying one in the right size. As mentioned in the article the original was big, a 23". However I was quite keen to get one to fit plus (and perhaps more importantly) this one was the first I found....
The fact this was the smallest Raleigh sold is evident in various features on the bike. A road post and 170 cranks for example. Still a healthy 19" though.