George...the point I brought up and that Brian B. seconded was that the Ralieigh PRO, and to some extent, the International models were pretty sketchy when it came to the framebuilding. Brian's experience in noting that the dt and st had tack brazing when attached to the BB shell is NOT, and I mean this seriously, NOT an unusual occurence. A lot of these came apart. Brian was certinaly more forward and braver in his comments than I, but while I understand the attraction to the top end bikes many of us saw at our LBS in the day, these units in question were not great. And I can tell you, I worked on a number of Ilkeston built frames that had similar problems, although the five or six that came to mind were chainstay/dropout failures. At least that was what my shop owner allowed me to torch up and fix. This shouldn't happen. They weren't very pretty, as you state, but a lot of bikes in the 70's didn;t have pretty lugwork. I know a lot of people that raced on them (Raleigh Pros), and they were not good racing bikes, per se....too stiff in the seat stays, making for a jarring ride (although the fastback seat cluster of the Pro looked nice) and too dead in the sprints...they just did not corner as well or handle as well as most bikes of that era, including the PX-10 and Motobecanes. Long rides on them were, well, not as 'nice' as long rides on others. Once Italian bikes became popular in the mid 70's, framebuilders here started copying those designs and then experimented from there...the good steel builders (Baylis is certainly one of them) (thanks to Masi, Sachs, Lippy, Eisentraut, etc.) seemed to really take off and fly forward...while Raleigh got bought by Huffy, and then by Darby, and then....(Many argue that Raleigh after England was actually far better than Raleigh solely in England). I just don't get the attraction to them as machines... Ah well, ten cents now, not two.... Cheers, Dean Patterson Alpine CA USA
James G Allen <jgallen@lexairinc.com> wrote: 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 was spent filing/shaping lugs (these were production bikes after all) these were still well-built frames with a true racing pedigree. Brian, tell us 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
brianbaylis@juno.com wrote:
> Dean,
>
> I have to agree with you. 70's Raleighs are my choice for the worst cons
> truction of any frame that we commonly see and know. I'd take a PX-10 ov
> er a Raleigh in a heartbeat, insofar as construction goes. I've seen a g
> ood number of Raleigh Pro frames that were tack brazed at the DT/BB junc
> tion and ST/BB junction but never got the rest of the braze material add
> ed. All kinds of other stuff too.
>
> Raleigh is my last choice for a bicycle. Sorry guys.
>
> Brian Baylis
> La Mesa, CA
>
>
>
> -- dean 53x13 wrote:
> I know there is a certain appeal to these old Raleigh Pro and Internatio
> nal frames, but really, people, and I know this is MY OPINION only, whic
> h may not be worth much...but they are not a good value. These bikes wer
> e pretty poorly brazed....I worked in Raleigh shops for years as a teena
> ger and college student, and we had a lot of bad ones. They rode okay, b
> ut on the stiff and dull side, at least IMHO.
> Just two cents.
> Dean Patterson
> Alpine, CA USA
>
> Peter Naiman wrote: Jack; I was cruising the w
> eb doing my usual Hetchin's search and noticed the advert which I think
> you're referring to. Below is the URL to the advert on Craigslist.
>
> http://boston.craigslist.org/
>
> I called as well and if the bike is mint why the seller using a stock
> photo on Craigslist, and
>
> willing to email photos. He might be honest, but seems a bit fishy. Pl
> us the advert has been around for a while. The only way to buy is if you
> know someone close by who could check out the bike and purchase it for
> you. My thoughts !!
>
>
> Peter Naiman
> Milwaukee, WI USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jackson Kokeny wrote:
> Careful with this one. If the fluctuation in model year and list price
> isn't
> enough of a red flag, I offered the guy $700 (this was on the 1974 $1,00
> 0
> version from a few weeks ago). He accepted and I haven't heard from him
> since. Could be he's just playing the market or could be he's collecting
>
> numbers (*no emails*) for his boss at for 24 Hour Fitness. In any case,
> I'm
> not touching it, but I did manage to get a few fuzzy photos of it if any
> one
> else wants to have a go. Hit me up off list and I'll share the pics. Oth
> er
> than some hideous bar tape (which I ironically just replaced on my non-m
> int
> '74), it does appear to be a nice mount.
>
> Jackson Kokeny
> Aspen CO
> USA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> Dean Patterson
> Alpine, CA, USA
> DPCowboy
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
> Total Access, No Cost.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DDeYdbgFBGazEPCuZmEzDSxzpn/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
Dean Patterson Alpine, CA, USA DPCowboy
---------------------------------
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.