Harvey et. al. I am sorry to disagree but the early RRA's had the exact crankset that Allan has up on Ebay. Please to to my website http://www.vintagebikelife.com click on main menu, then on "general update and information" There you will find a PDF file. It is an article from Cycling Oct 9, 1935 showing the RRA that was released the year before. Look closely at the crankset. It is definitely the one Allen is showing and not the one that Peter put up a picture of. Edward Albert Chappaqua, N.Y., U.S.A.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Harvey Sachs <hmsachs@verizon.net> wrote:
> Thanks, Peter Kohler, for pointing out Alan Cote's error, that his cranks
> for sale (eBay 180454670191) are lower line Lenton rather than Raleigh
> Record Ace, and for the reference to your pictures of the actual RRA cranks
> http://tinyurl.com/
>
> Given Alan's notes on the history of the item, I'm sure it was inadvertent.
> Still, for those grounded in cotterless aluminum who wonder how us old guys
> find some of the legacy steel so attractive, it's worthwhile to look at both
> pairs of cranks. I call out two differences: The first is construction. The
> real RRA is a forging, as used also by Magistroni, Stronglight, and others
> for their top-line units. Note the smooth fillet where spider joins arm. The
> Lenton attaches a stamped spider with a forged (or cast) crank with a
> splined fitting, a much less expensive manufacturing operation. The other
> difference is aesthetics. The RRA just plain has grace of form. slender
> everywhere, honoring the strength of the material and manufacturing process.
> The Lenton just plain looks cruder with its large circle of sheet metal
> surrounding the spline fitting.
>
> One of my favorite steel cranks is the late cotterless Campagnolo 3-arm,
> although I think the RRA is even prettier. Personally, I think I prefer the
> Paramount to the RRA. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but
> construction methods are objective.
>
> harvey sachs
> mcLean VA