My 52 CM Raleigh Pro Mark IVs (appx. 1974-1975?) had high BBs and a short TT as well. Rode like it. too. The guys at Collins Cycle Shop that sold the bikes and kept mine in tune for me were puzzled, too, but surmised that the Mark IV was some sort of a cross between an English flat-road time trial bike (lots of fork rake and an un-quick front end that wanted to go straight ahead) and a criterium racing bike (short TT, high BB). Riley McLean's older (and taller) Raleigh Pro Mark III, on the other hand, was a much longer stage-race design, and handled quite differently.
Jon Spangler Alameda, CA USA
On Feb 23, 2009, at 5:32 PM, <classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.org>
wrote:
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:16:49 -0600
> From: "Cheung, Doland" <CheungD@bv.com>
> Subject: Re: [CR] Raleigh Professional
> To: "classicrendezvous@bikelist.org" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Message-ID:
> <2D8A426FC4FC0E4A9E6038E8A4F6D3632E1AFB0C@tsmc-mail-16.na.bvcorp.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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
Jon Spangler
Writer/Editor
Linda Hudson Writing
510-864-0370/FAX 864-2144
MOBILE 510-846-5356
hudsonspangler@earthlink.net