NEW TI RALEIGH 753 40TH TDF ANNIVERSARY MODEL

[otherself]

Re: Re:

And aero seatpost's look crap when they ain't stuck out enough

My Aero seatpost

That could slice a lamb in half

 

[vcballbat]

Re: Re: NEW TI RALEIGH 753 40TH TDF ANNIVERSARY MODEL

As I mentioned earlier Raleigh have allowed for the opportunity to fit bigger tyres for greater comfort which I'm sure many owners will do. This is clear in the photos on the Raleigh website. If you study and investigate this bike it will give all the answers why slight changes had to be made. Looking at the brake pads will tell you why Raleigh choose to lower the seat tube from Joop's original 57.5 cm center to top, down 15mm to create a 56 cm center to top slightly sloping top tube. :shock:

Raleigh said "The bike was indeed based around Joop Zoetemelk's TDF winning machine, but has been adapted slightly to allow for a comfortable riding position"

 

[vcballbat]

By allowing clearance for fatter tyres shows Raleigh has put a great deal of thought into the design of the machine. Making it more adaptable for modern real life use and road conditions all seems pretty logical to me. This is something Ritchy didn't consider on their bike which we can see when 28mm tyres are fitted. :facepalm:

 

[originalshinkicker]

By allowing clearance for fatter tyres shows Raleigh has put a great deal of thought into the design of the machine. Making it more adaptable for modern real life use and road conditions all seems pretty logical to me. This is something Ritchy didn't consider on their bike which we can see when 28mm tyres are fitted. :facepalm:

Are you actually reading what I wrote? Raleigh haven't allowed for fatter tyres. The rear clearance on this frame is the same as SBDU which is 45mm - that is Piccolo brakes and period racing tubs.

The new frame has 45mm on the rear and 50mm on the front - if you think the 50mm is an intentional design for fatter tyres then why just do that on the front? Wouldn't you do that on both? Or do modern cyclists only ride fatter on the front?

 

[vcballbat]

Re:

Your measurements are irrelevant, study the pictures and the brake pads tell a different story. :facepalm:

 

[torqueless]

Re:

Looking at the brake pads will tell you why...

You'll have to explain that to us idiots. If I were looking for the rationale behind a given frame geometry, that's about the last place I would be looking?

If the frame pictured in your post is dimensionally identical to originalshinkicker's, and the rear brake shoes are at the bottom of the slots, where the hell are the front brake shoes in their slots?

Fwiw I have an early 80s Holdsworth Special with the same problem: The axis of the brake pivot to the axis of the axle measures about 357mm at the rear, and 363mm on the forks, (and that's after taking a file to the front dropouts in an attempt to mitigate the discrepancy. It was worse before.) I can't think of a reason for intentionally building a frame that way? If there is one I would like to hear it.
Back in the 60s rear brakes were typically deeper drop than front- the exact opposite. I think only with the advent of Campag. Record brakes were the front/rear stirrup depths equalised?

 

[vcballbat]

Okay I shall explain.... looking at the brake calipers the pads are at the bottom of their slots on both front and the rear. This tells us allowance has been made for bigger tyres which is the fashion these days to give us old guys a more comfortable ride. Bigger tyres are not only wider, they have a deeper section thus increasing the ride height. Not only does this deeper section increase ride height, it increases standover height as well. Standover height is the the measurement from the ground to the top of the top tube and important when we come to rest on the bike. So the use of bigger tyres will result in an increase in standover height which Raleigh has compensated for by lowering the top tube... Raleigh are protecting our Knackers so we don't end up sounding like Joe Pasquale on Helium.

 

[torqueless]

Re:

That doesn't answer this question:

If the frame pictured in your post is dimensionally identical to originalshinkicker's, and the rear brake shoes are at the bottom of the slots, where the hell are the front brake shoes in their slots?

I would guess that originalshinkicker is vexed that he's spent a grand on a new frame with inexplicably mismatched brake drop heights, as I would be. No doubt he would like to know whether or not the frame in the picture shares this feature, and whether the mismatch is by design, or the result of sloppy workmanship? ...and if by design, what's the rationale?

If, as you say, the front brake shoes are likewise at the bottom of the slots, then it does not seem possible that the pictured frame has a rear drop of 45mm and a front drop of 50mm, like originalshinkicker's?

Fwiw the axle axis to pivot bolt axis measurement for the forks seems to be visible on the plans in one of the publicity photos- 360mm.

 

[vcballbat]

Re:

The variation between front and rear brake drop can be quite simply be put down to fork rake which alters the angle of the brake caliper in relation to the rim...I hope this helps.

 

[pigman]

Re:

I'm so glad I didn't get one.
I see the arguments in making it more comfortable etc, but I would have wanted something closer to the original.
if I had got one, I would already be out of love with it and waiting for the production run to finish and wonder how I can shift it on