George, Thanks for your post in defense of Raleigh. One small correction to make in a moment; forgive me--but in essence I am with you, and will explain myself. I would wish we could discuss our bikes without always seeming to be establishing some sort of hierarchy. It's all fine wine. I'm not sure how a small mention of a Raleigh on craigslist turned into the possible beginning of another Raleigh-bashing session*, but after a few years on the list, it's funny that this thread comes around as it se ems to do. This tendency must be a betrayal of a prejudice as much as an ything, as it can't really be out of public spirit, can it? Or is there a Raleigh myth that needs debunking? Every one knows that Raleighs (and Peugeots, and on and on, for that mat ter) were rolling out as fast as possible during the bike-boom, "on-topi c" years, because they seemed desirable to so many--and there are so dan g many of you who were in competition for any reasonable machine at the time. They filled a definite need. Some proved highly competitive. They served in the name of Utility, and they served in the name of Sport. The y have served (and still do) in the name of Riding Pleasure. Some of you don't like them because they just seemed too Common. It could have been Dawes, but they weren't as well-known to common folks in the States, so they can be safely ignored. It could have been Schwinn, but they were m ade exempt by being Our Own, perhaps, and Paramount was the contender th at We put forward. But a lot of "we" like Raleigh, and they are not "our s", so those dissenting from we can dump on Raleigh and remain one of "u s"--or something like that? Now any fool knows a 409 is no Ferrari, but there were plenty of nice up per-echalon Raleighs. Some of you just seem to have a problem with Ralei gh, as if they succeeded in spite of themselves. Perhaps they did. Well, their business failed; the Nottingham works is gone; are you satisfied? I for one greatly miss knowing that they and their giant works are ther e. Sure I value my Frejus more, but: I would prefer that more of you come to praise Caeser rather than bury h im. Who has a truly positive association with a Raleigh to share? Such a thr ead would be penance for any recalcitrant Raleigh-bashers out there. Who was soundly beaten in a race with one? Even just around your block? Who has commuted on one--perhaps over the space of years? Raleigh is the Go liath that is somehow David on this list.... Every time I see a Raleigh Grand Prix, Super Course et al I'm grateful f or the masses of these entry-level machines--and the fact that a lot of them are still out there. A moment ago on the list, we were offering enc ouragement to the young and the--relatively-speaking--poor. Now what has been implied? A nice-appearing Raleigh would be a let-down, or should b e avoided? That would be daft. A Raleigh is a fine machine, right down t he line to three-speeds and folding bikes! I am not really a partisan, b ut out of twenty or so mounts here, there are three Raleighs. The '58 Le nton is a keeper--so period, so much crazy decal-ification! The Competit ion is going soon, but for a couple of years, it was my best bike. It ha s panache; it has Huret Jubilee, TA, Normandy Luxe Competition--and all the joins are looking very sound (and clean). Was it built on a wednesda y at 10:30 in the morning on a full stomach two days after a pay raise? Well some of them must have been, and the gold luglining on black (prugn at lugs) looks great. A chrome DL-1 is fun and matches a certain mood. I t's lugs could have done with more filing (maybe any filing? or some fil ing?), but dare I say--("smile when you say that")--the fabric of the un iverse is not rent when someone witholds the file. We do hope the solder flows, and that the file leaves no trace as it passes--this is the grea ter harmony that speaks to the soul's yearning; yet there may be beauty in the plain, and even the ugly and the flawed as well. Not that I sometimes don't want to ask, "Why oh why, Raleigh"? Especiall y as the years progress, especially with reference to graphic design.... And then, I'm not really too pleased with what became of Carlton glory in Ti Hands.... Still, if someone trashes something on list, it's inevitable someone mus t rise in defense. Today, Raleigh somehow (implausible as it is) seemed the underdog. I'm off for a ride now. Hmm, which? Actually, maybe it wil l be the PX-10, ha--or will it the Frejus? It's still a production bike. Custom-made is nice, but it's no requirement for effective cycling. Bes ides, if we owned perfection, we'd miss the joy of improving and persona lizing these machines. I stayed my hand from a buy-it-now '71 Colnago th e other day (congratulations to the fellow who bought it), not only beca use it would be financially inconvenient at the moment, but also because it appears so nice that it will be a heavy responsibility to a new owne r. You wouldn't race one now, would you? Yet you can use a Raleigh Compe tition or a Bottecchia with perfect peace of mind for nearly any cycling you might care to do--while still doing your best to conserve it. Ralei gh-runners everywhere, I salute you! Now for that small correction: it's Worksop--no "h". Worksop is the name of a place. Perhaps relate it in your head to the Sopwith Camel, if you need the assistance of a mnemonic device. I beg your pardon in advance if this correction to the record has been made ten times between my read ing of George's post and the concluding of my essay here.... Tom Ward / Brooklyn, NY (NYC) USA * I think someone said "beware that deal" and it got flipped into "bewar e Raleigh"; is Raleigh really something to be saved from? I think not. I suppose one could say "they are mere table wine" but they in fact do ha ve glamour--the best having considerable glamour--and offer good perform ance, so let's consider them an important staple varietal, suitable on m ost occaions for the best of tables.
>I think you guys need to make a distinction between Workshop-built and
>Ilkeston-built frames. I'll be the first to agree that some of the
>Workshop stuff was as crappy as any old PX-10 ;-) . However, the
>Ilkeston frames were a different story entirely. While not much time wa
s
>spent filing/shaping lugs (these were production bikes after all) these
>were still well-built frames with a true racing pedigree. Brian, tell u
s
>about the build quality of some other sought-after Italian frames. Some
>famous nameplates weren't always paragons of frame-building virtue
>either, were they? And I've heard aspersions cast at the build quality
>of some high-dollar French steel as well. I think it a little unfair to
>trash all things Raleigh because some Internationals and Super Courses
>were thrown together poorly. Plus, it is a historical fact that riders
>on Ilkeston-built Raleighs thrashed their competition in the
>late1970's/early 1980's.
>George Allen
>Lexington, Ky
>USA