[CR] Wasted Opportunity was Re: 1934 RRA

(Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2002)

Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 12:22:17 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Hugh Thornton" <hughwthornton@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2u738af061005050215sf3dd7127i21235196256941a2@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [CR] Wasted Opportunity was Re: 1934 RRA


  Yes absolutely.  I know and almost believe all the arguments about why Raleigh made retro machines long after their sell-by date.

But here was the world's mightiest bicycle manufacturer making wonderful utility bikes for the world and a range of sports and racing bikes no good for anything except the backwater of British cycling.  And if you look at the top time trialists of the 1950s, there are not many on Raleighs.  The most successful being Ray Booty, whom I mentioned in my first post, riding a special built machine that was not much good for anything but out and back on a flat course.  A specialist machine just like the successful track bikes that weren't sold to the public either.  I think it arrogant to publicize racing success and not make replicas of the winning bikes available  to the public.  I don't think any mainland European manufacturers were that silly.

It is an interesting concept that the "RRA post war was targeted specifically at the top-end of Club riders and for the average customer".  I presume that would be the "top-end" in terms of age, who would have been stuck in their pre--war mindset.  I do not know what the production figures were, but better bikes from that era are far more prevalent today.  This would seem to indicate that the bikes were made for a small number of old fogeys who had accumulated a few bob (they weren't cheap) rather than serious all-round cyclists.

It is a pity that there was no real racing in Britain for so long.  Even with all this time-trialling, the Brits weren't competitive against their European neighbours in time trials.  In spite of this Carlton, Viking and some small builders were building pretty good bikes, but Raleigh weren't.  Certainly they sold lots of Lentons and Super Lentons to school children but didn't offer them anything decent to graduate to when they wanted a proper bike.

Later Raleighs are just great.  Until Ilkeston was set up, all the good Raleighs available to the public came out of the Carlton factory.  And Ilkeston was headed by a Carlton man.  I have had quite a few Worksop and Ilkeston Raleighs and still have one of each.  Super bikes, even though I don't know what the angles are.  I am definitely not "slagging off anything Raleigh".  It is just the wasted opportunity of the one-time greatest cycle manufacturer that I find so disappointing.  Unfortunately this used to be a British thing - the motor cycle and auto industries went the same way, as did others.

Hugh Thornton
Cheshire, England


--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Derek Athey wrote:


From: Derek Athey <devondirect@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: [CR] 1934 RRA To: "P.C. Kohler" <kohl57@yahoo.com> Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Date: Wednesday, 5 May, 2010, 10:15

Well argued Peter!

Don't lets forget that the post war Raleighs were never intended to be a competitor to the continental styled mass start frames/cycles.

The RRA post war was targeted specifically at the top-end of Club riders and for the average customer, time-trials. Ray Booty's infamous frames were custom built for him by Raleigh and differed from the of-the-page version.

Reg Harris who famously rode professionally for Raleigh and was *the*definitive World Champion pursuit rider for decades always rode Raleighs, that he NEVER had any involvment in, regarding frame geometery etc. He said that this was a particlar trait of British Clubmen only and that none of the top crack continentals even knew what a frame angle was...size of frame was all that they were concerned with. And the same went for Reg! he left it entirely to the Raleigh frame builders.

Nothing's changed in 60 years!!

Regards Derek Athey Honiton, Devon UK On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:38 AM, P.C. Kohler <kohl57@yahoo.com> wrote:
>   Are those howls of protest I hear?
>  
> Hugh Thornton
> Cheshire, England
>
> Nope. Maybe a wee sigh. Slagging off anything Raleigh is as British as
> Bovril. And I guess among some not being "European" in anything is the worst
> thing imaginable.
>
> Then again, weren't all these European machines built for something that
> really didn't exist in England when this particular Raleigh RRA was built
> (1934): Mass Start Racing? The British never excelled in this area of
> cycling anyway with a few exceptions like Charles Holland and Tommy Simpson
> until the 1960s. Wasn't the RRA intended instead for classic British time
> trialling and club cycling? I am pretty sure there were lots of these
> retrograde RRAs that, with their riders, did pretty well in what was then
> the principle British road competitive cycle sport: time trialling. I rather
> think there were some world records set on them that lasted longer than the
> professional careers of most if not all Continental pros.
>
> http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/raleighbooty.html
>
> As for taking a 1948 pattern RRA frame and making it something it was never
> intended to be, a Continental Mass Start racing bike, go for it. It will
> certainly save you the princely sums that the exquisite custom components
> that really make a RRA are fetching. I'll trade you a 1948 Fiamme or Cinelli
> stem for an RRA one anytime or a Simplex Tour de France derailleur for a
> Sturmey-Archer alloy shell FC hub gear.
>
> Finally, it's worth remembering that the one and only British made machine
> to win that most coveted of Continental road races wasn't a Claud Butler, a
> Holdsworth, Hetchens or Carlton. It was a Raleigh.
>
> How's that for a "howl"?!
>
> Peter Kohler
> Washington DC USA