Re: [CR] Raleigh Professional

(Example: History:Ted Ernst)

From: "Cheung, Doland" <CheungD@bv.com>
To: "classicrendezvous@bikelist.org" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:16:49 -0600
Thread-Topic: [CR] Raleigh Professional
Thread-Index: AcmWCbsr1zqjOmcEQnuuv3AHh8LOhwACls3A
In-Reply-To: <8CB64207D966274-109C-E7E@webmail-me03.sysops.aol.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Subject: Re: [CR] Raleigh Professional


I'm not so sure about the short top tube. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a geometry difference over the years. I have a Mark V and IIRC, for it s size, it has a top tube length similar to my more modern bikes. In the p ast, I've measured it to be 51cm c-t seat tube with a 54cm c-c top tube.

I don't know about the head tube angle, as my Pro doesn't feel overly quick up front, but I suspect the seat tube angle is on the steeper end for it's size, something more than 74*.

Doland Cheung LA, CA

-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-boun ces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of drstuarts@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:52 PM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: [CR] Raleigh Professional

Dear Louis:

As I recall, Raleigh Professionals had a very short top tube, and a relativ e ly step head tube angle. To provide front wheel clearance from the down tub e , given these design considerations, one would have to elevate the bottom b r acket. This would increase the height of the head tube. 

Stuart Stiffey

Woodstock, NY