Re: [CR]In praise of My Raleigh (a wee bit long)

Tom Ward asked:

"Who has a truly positive association with a Raleigh to share? Such a th read

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?"

Here is my contribution in praise of My Raleigh!

I never raced - there was never much of a racing scene where I grew up.

Moreover, we never really had exposure to the great races on TV, but som ehow

from my late-teens I knew about the TI-Raleigh team and the mystique

associated with GOD and the Ilkeston unit. As I have mentioned several t imes

in the past, in 1981, I was lucky enough to have a special order 531SL

frameset built for me at Ilkeston (if you want the full story it is in t he

archives). The day I finally picked up the frame was magical and I remem ber

it to this day. I wasn't concerned about the quality of the brazing (whi ch

seems fine to my untrained eye) or the fairly plain lug-work.

It wasn't the prettiest frameset I had ever seen. I had an older neighbo ur

who had a nice Frejus and friends of his had Condors, Holdsworths, Dawes

etc. But, my frame had its own simple charms. It was never painted in th e

Team colours as it came to me just primed (and without a headbadge).

Instead, I had it painted by an obscure local frame-builder in my home-t own

of Kingston, Ontario, in a metallic blue with white-lugs. Raleigh is

displayed in Gothic script in white on the down-tube. The lugs were line d -

not expertly - with gold by me. In the process of having it finished, fo r

some reason, I made the decision to have the SL transfer applied above t he

shifter bosses on the downtube.

I still have that bike 27 years later and, in my heart of hearts, it is

still my favourite. It is now in need of a new coat of paint and still h as

the dent in the seat-tube, courtesy of Heathrow baggage handlers, which

occurred only a year after I got it. It has never been raced, but it has

done centuries, has been loaded up for touring (moreso when I was in my

twenties), has been used for commuting, and has been pushed to the limit up

the, at times insanely steep, valley coal roads of South Wales. It has s een

many thousands of miles of road as it was my only bike for the better pa rt

of 25 years!

I use it now only in the dry months and run it through its paces on my 5 :00

am 30-40km pre-work etc. rides. For a long time it was built up with an

eclectic mix of parts, but is now fitted with all Campag SR and the usua l

accompanying, Cinelli, Mavic, etc. It has always had its quirks and is, at

times, a bit squirrely, but it is a thoroughbred which seems to like to be

ridden fast.

As a graduate student it lived in my bedroom at my digs and shared space in

my tent while doing my archaeological fieldwork It had pride of place in the

first small flat I shared with my wife. Now it hangs with care in my

workshop.

My collection is minute compared to most on the list so I have not been able

to compare the ride of my Raleigh against too many other bikes. So forgi ve

me if I still maintain something of a love affair with my first real bik e

... I am not wedded to Raleigh and have my own issues with the way the

company steam-rolled its way over smaller marques and then eventually

became, itself, a marque associated with mediocrity. But, the mystique o f

the marque at its height of success still echoes in MY Raleigh!

Paul Williams, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

p.s. I ask Dean and others, if Raleigh were such crap racing bikes why d id

they have such success in the late-70s and early-80s - was it just the

quality of the riders?

From: <tom.ward@juno.com> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 6:12 PM Subject: [CR]In praise of '70s production bikes, high and low

>
>
> George,
> Thanks for your post in defense of Raleigh. One small correction to ma ke
> in a moment; forgive me--but in essence I am with you, and will explai n
> 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 int o
> 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 ther e
> a Raleigh myth that needs debunking?
> Every one knows that Raleighs (and Peugeots, and on and on, for that m at
> ter) were rolling out as fast as possible during the bike-boom, "on-to pi
> c" years, because they seemed desirable to so many--and there are so d an
> g many of you who were in competition for any reasonable machine at th e
> time. They filled a definite need. Some proved highly competitive. The y
> served in the name of Utility, and they served in the name of Sport. T he
> y have served (and still do) in the name of Riding Pleasure. Some of y ou
> don't like them because they just seemed too Common. It could have bee n
> Dawes, but they weren't as well-known to common folks in the States, s o
> 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 "o ur
> 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 Ral ei
> gh, as if they succeeded in spite of themselves. Perhaps they did. Wel l,
> their business failed; the Nottingham works is gone; are you satisfied ?
> I for one greatly miss knowing that they and their giant works are the r
> 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 t hr
> ead would be penance for any recalcitrant Raleigh-bashers out there. W ho
> was soundly beaten in a race with one? Even just around your block? Wh o
> has commuted on one--perhaps over the space of years? Raleigh is the G o
> 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 o f
> them are still out there. A moment ago on the list, we were offering e nc
> ouragement to the young and the--relatively-speaking--poor. Now what h as
> 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 Compet it
> 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 al l
> the joins are looking very sound (and clean). Was it built on a wednes da
> 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 (pru gn
> 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 f il
> 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 sold er
> flows, and that the file leaves no trace as it passes--this is the gre a
> ter harmony that speaks to the soul's yearning; yet there may be beaut y
> 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"? Especia ll
> 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 m us
> t rise in defense. Today, Raleigh somehow (implausible as it is) seeme d
> the underdog. I'm off for a ride now. Hmm, which? Actually, maybe it w il
> l be the PX-10, ha--or will it the Frejus? It's still a production bik e.
> Custom-made is nice, but it's no requirement for effective cycling. Be s
> ides, if we owned perfection, we'd miss the joy of improving and perso na
> 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 be ca
> use it would be financially inconvenient at the moment, but also becau se
> it appears so nice that it will be a heavy responsibility to a new own e
> r. You wouldn't race one now, would you? Yet you can use a Raleigh Com pe
> tition or a Bottecchia with perfect peace of mind for nearly any cycli ng
> you might care to do--while still doing your best to conserve it. Rale i
> gh-runners everywhere, I salute you!
> Now for that small correction: it's Worksop--no "h". Worksop is the na me
> of a place. Perhaps relate it in your head to the Sopwith Camel, if yo u
> 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 re ad
> 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 "bew ar
> 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 h a
> ve glamour--the best having considerable glamour--and offer good perfo rm
> 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 w a
> s
>
>>spent filing/shaping lugs (these were production bikes after all) thes e
>
>
>>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. Som e
>
>
>>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 t o
>
>
>>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
>
>

al