Re: [CR]Boston CL Raleigh Pro now trashing Raleighs

James and all,

I guess me of all people should know better than to make such a blanket statement about any bike or bike brand. For that I must apologize. After spending the day at the shop painting stuff; I come back to this firest orm. I should have known.

There are a number of aspects of "build quality" that go into what might define same. Shaping of the lugs (or not), brazing quality, mitering, a nd alignment are all possible points to consider. One thing I know for s ure, very few of you guys have been inside a Raleigh nor any other type of bike. The only place you can see the mitering is in the BB shell. The re are several key junctions on the bike where the miters are important which you cannot see. I have seen.

All of these "production bikes" are technically rough as far as external workmanship goes. To me that does not matter, since that does not effec t the integrity of the frame. I judge the build quality of that part kno wing the circumstances under which the bike was made, and the price poin t of the original bike. Some care what it looks like on the outside and some do not. I sort of do; but I'm more concerned about the geometry and it's suitableness for the task for which it was designed, and the techn ical quality of the build. Those things have an effect on the rider and their well being. Needless to say, not everyone likes the same type of r ide. My opinion there is that if you like it, it's good. End of story. C ase in point. For the past 30+ years I have heard more times than anythi ng else that a particular person's favorite riding bike was a Nishiki Pr o. Yep! Verging on gaspipe, heavy, not particularly beautiful Nishiki Pr o. Second to that is actually the Raleigh International. Between the two , I would have to say that the Nishiki is a superior quality of construc tion in comparison; although the Raleigh's I've seen that have made this poor impression on me we Professionals, not Internationals.

I have no doubt that before the bike boom of the early 70's and since th en (the Team Pro in particular) have been very good or better machines. I think Raleigh Ilkston just cranked the production too high to meet the demand.

Regarding comparing some of the revered Italian builders to Raleigh in b uild quality; that's technically comparing apples to pork rinds. The Ita lian bikes of the early 70's were built in much smaller numbers and unde r very different types of production circumstances. I've seen my share o f not so well built Italian bikes; but the flaws are generally of a diff erent and not so critical type. I did however fix a BB shell on an early 70's DeRosa that did not get brazed after it was tacked in the fixture. To be perfectly honest, most of the classic Italian stuff, French stuff , English stuff, and one notable American company, all produce bikes tha t if you were to see what I've seen would be a disappointment to you and burst a lot of bubbles. What that means is that bikes do not actually h ave to be perfect in order to hold together, last several lifetimes, and ride well. But therein lies the difference between most American and ot her modern custom builders and the bikes of the past. We do focus on mak ing them perfect as possible even knowing that much of it doesn't end up being important to the degree that a bad bike will result.

This is what has caused American builders to be held in such high regard worldwide these days. We have integrated a sense of pride of workmanshi p that was missing in many of the earlier classic bikes. The reason for this is that we, just like you people, thought that the "masters" of the past were actually masters. A good number were and are; but most of the m were just pretty good at making a decent bike look like a million buck s and more than happy to have others do the work that bears their name. That trend was broken here in the States back in the 70's when most of u s simply decided we could do better or just couldn't afford to buy the t op class bikes.

When I left Masi in 1974 I knew a better job could be done. For one, I o wned an Eisentraut! That bike actually made the "light go on" and began me asking myself why one bike seemed so much better than the other. Turn s out there were a number of reasons.

So back to the point. I apologize for the opinion I should have kept to myself in this case. My personal impressions and experiences come from a generally different perspective than most of you and it would take year s to explain how and why I come to these conclusions. I don't have a rig ht to cast dispersions upon any bike in a context such as this list. Mai nly because I know that we all have certain emotional connections to cer tain bikes, and the way they ride as opposed to what they look like and how they are constructed. My bad. I really should know better. Sorry you Raleigh fans. I've never owned no r ridden a Raleigh of any sort. I nearly went over a cliff on my '71 PX- 10 back in the day (before I got my Colnago that knew how to go around a steep downhill corner at high speed), but she was a nice clean and well built bike for the money, even after that.

And George is correct, a distinction must be made between Worksop and Il kston Raleighs of the early 70's.

Brian Baylis La Mesa, CA Stepped in it today. Sorry to track it all over the living room.