MikeyMK

Here in England, Raleigh were a bit mumsy in being the first name in domestic bikes. Like Schwinn in the U.S, i guess. We all had Raleighs but then in the '80s it went horribly wrong - quality went down the pan, and marketing worked hard to cover up what can only really be described as arc-welded scaffolding.

The '90s saw the rise of the U.S brands, particularly mountain bikes, which had really started with the Muddy Fox Courier in the '80s. Although Peugeot were No1 for road bikes at the time.

I'm not aware of Raleigh ever recovering from their K.O. They didn't recover here. The budget store bike of choice is probably B-Twin here now.

Hiro11

It's interesting that classic European steel frames are held in such high regard now. I'm old enough to remember high-end Belgian, Italian and French frames from the 80s. It was a bit of a unspoken truth back then that the higher end but relatively inexpensive Miyatas, Nishikis, Univegas etc in the bike shop were likely better made and better performing frames than the flashy high-dollar Italian frames you bought mail order. Some of those Rossin, Pinarello, Ciocc etc frames back then were more than a little suspect back then among bike shop employees. Many of the racers I knew back then went with local custom frame fabricators rather than the better known imported stuff for this reason.

BillyD

Quick and direct response which is what I think you’re looking for: No, they aren’t the standout brand they used to be in the 70s. Others have caught up and surpassed.

79pmooney

My '73 Raleigh Competition had virtually no braze under the lugs. Several tubes were cracked at the lugs for lack of support. (I didn't trust it so I had a local frmaebuilder inspect and repair it after being stripped. He basically had to braze all the lugs like a new frame. In his words, the bike had been held together by the paint carefully flowed under the lugs. Bike had low miles on it despite the years. Maybe the previous owner had the same doubts.)

By comparison, those Japanese bikes you think so little of are built well, are reliable and dimensionally consistent. A joy to build up. I've done it a few times now as I move parts from one frame to the next as my commuters sometimes die violent deaths.

Ben

fietsbob

Raleigh USA, like Bianchi USA , contract out their bike manufacturing, Pac Rim ..
Component suppliers are already over there , so its more cost efficient..

and do the Import warehouse distribution and warranted service thru their retail dealers

Wilfred Laurier

This.

Moving from an old Raleigh to an old Fuji is a startling experience. Raleighs were shoddily built and the closer you looked the more problems you found.
Fujis and Miyatas and Bridgestones et al were a decade ahead of the rest of the world in build quality.

I currently have in my fleet an early '80s Raleigh (Grand Prix) and an early '80s Fuji (Sundance). The Raleigh looks like a dinosaur (or perhaps built by dinosaurs) compared to the Fuji.

curttard

I absolutely love the Raleigh RXM I bought last year. 631 Reynolds, 105, I hope to get a couple decades out of it.

MAYAM

Surely the Raleigh RXM shooyld get you some couple of decades cos I’ve got my friends who has it and he had own it for some couple of years.
Really great

curttard

Hope so and don't see why not! Steel frame and everything else is replaceable.

Slightspeed

At the risk of sounding like a vintage bike curmudgeon, which is only partly true, with two carbon and an aluminum build in the stable, why should you buy a new Raleigh of questionable heritage, when you can ride a real Carlton made Raleigh for about the same $$? I have '73 and '78 Raleigh Super Courses, which I love and often take on any ride where I would take my modern bikes. They look better, ride better, are responsive, and have actually set Strava "bests" on many rides that I also do with the modern bikes. The green '73 was built from a scrap metal pile found frame, restored, upgraded as a first build by a rookie builder - me (except for paint). The gold '78 started out as a $20 Craigslist find. I enjoy the modern bikes, but if it's a classy ride that will do pretty much anything you could want on the ride, take a look at the old bikes out there, fun to find, fun to build or upgrade. Here's mine. BTW, I've been riding the same Legnano for 55 years, but you asked about Raleigh. Several have made comments about old school Raleigh quality, but luck of the draw (?) these two have been great rides.

My '73, built from a scrap metal frame, done 3,000 miles since 2016 build.

My '78, a $20 Craigslist find.

My favorire part.

Myosmith

Bikes Direct sells bikes at numerous price points. My road bike is a Motobecane Gran Premio that came from them a few years back and I'll put it up against any bike of the same style sold at a similar price point. I obviously can't speak for every bike BD sells, but in my experience, their price point to quality is equivalent to Raleigh and at least a few of the common bike shop brands (I was looking at Surly, Trek, Spec and a couple of others when I decided to order from BD).

dedhed

BookFinder 

Bingo! I've been reading and digging for a while and you are dead on.

I may get flamed for the following opinion, but so be it.

The primary difference in the mass produced bikes is in the type and weight of the raw frame materials. After that, paint colors and badging are purely cosmetic.

Several weeks ago I browsed through the racks at the local Walmart. A Schwinn caught my eye and I looked it over closely. A few days later I went by the Trek store in a nearby town. The colors were different, and I was working from memory with no pictures, but I am pretty sure the two frames were identical.

Components are where there does seem to be real differences, but even at that point, the Altus group-set on one bike will be identical to the same group-set of components on a different brand of bike. And that has become where I have come to focus while shopping.

So I'm stuck in rant about it: bike fit, riding style or purpose of use, convenience, and adaptability are the real questions to answer. After that, and assuming the frames are all of like quality, components are where the crux of the decision rests.

In a town near where I live there are several clusters of homeless type characters. Most of them shelter at the Salvation Army in bad weather, but they stay in various encampments during good weather. Anyway, I see several of the men riding all over town on department store bikes. And one of the independent LBS owners is a tender-hearted type who helps them with their bikes.

The upshot is that almost any well maintained bike can yield years of satisfactory riding pleasure. Just get something that fits your body and what you want to do with the bike, and in a color you can live with, and ride it.

ramzilla

IMHO the most important things to consider when buying a bike are the frame, wheels and, tires. I like to take long 20 mile and longer rides. Year round. On roads and bike trails. For fitness and pleasure. Good tires and wheels are essential if you want to go out riding 4 or 5 times a week with no worries. You can always make it back home if one of your brakes or derailleurs fail. Not so easy with a flat or broken wheel. Be good. Have fun.

Wilfred Laurier

[QUOTE=Slightspeed;21024441]

[QUOTE]
I looked at that picture over and over to try to figure out why and how you had a shifter mounted on the underside of the top tube

mstateglfr 

I would be interested to find out which model Schwinn's frame is exactly the same as which model Trek frame. I bet Trek would be interested to find out too.

Wilfred Laurier

I find this story 100% believable. I'm sure there would be a few more differences than the poster above noticed if the two bikes were placed side by side, but the vast majority of Trek's bikes are made alongside other mass produced brands on the same assembly lines.

BookFinder 

You know, I didn't think to make notes on models and such, but it would be interesting to compare. I'd venture that there are some subtle but distinct differences that would delineate between the two on close examination, but standing at arms distance and looking from the floor, they looked the same to me.

Years ago one of my brothers in law worked at a bakery. First thing in the morning they would run 10,000 loaves of Sunbeam. After the break, they would change the wrappers on the machine and run 10,000 loaves of Holsum ... or Merita. You get the idea.

A friend of mine (avid bicyclist, btw) is a roofing manufacturer. His company produces their own product, and they also do what is called "private label" work for independent contractors. The product comes off the line and goes into a different package, but company y's stuff is the same as company z's.

And the main difference between most of the mid-line washers and dryers one sees at stores all over the US is in the badging.

Modern engineering and quality control standards on automated manufacturing lines is such that we are fooling ourselves to think there is a difference of substance between two or sometimes more models of bicycles. As I noted above, materials may be thicker and thereby heavier, but aluminum is aluminum and carbon is carbon, within the characteristics that define parameters of the model lines.

Put another way, Gravity = Winsor = Motobecane = Fuji = Raleigh = GT, except for a few traits that might distinguish one line from the others.

Of course, this line of thinking is blasphemy to the purists who pay hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars more for some particular bike. More power to them if they can afford it and insist on going that route, but I'd rather have a reliable, "mongrel" bicycle in the carport and the balance of the money in the bank.

mstateglfr 

The poster claimed they were identical, save paint. So 'a few more differences' could make them actually look quite different.
Bikes in the Walmart price range will be at the lower end of Trek's lineup and at that pricepoint there isnt going to be a lot of distinction between brands. Even still, if I were Trek I would certainly want to know this since I would expect my frames to be manufactured with visual differences to make it identifiable and look unique from the competition. Otherwise...whats the point?

As for being made on the same assembly lines- I see that repeated frequently when manufacturing is discussed. 10 frames could be made 'on the same assembly lines' and look completely different from one another. Tube shape forming, S bend stays, dropped or traditional seat stays, geometry angles, compact sloping or traditional geometry- all these can be adjusted within 'the same assembly lines' to make frames/bikes that are visually different and also ride differently.
The changes may be for performance or may be for superficial visual differentiation- either way, its able to be done 'on the same assembly lines'.

mstateglfr 

This, to me, is bits of truth sprinkled with a healthy dose of misinformation.
I get what private label is. A can of corn from the store brand is often the same quality as from Green Giant.

But saying that Gravity is the same as Fuji is simply inaccurate. Saying Windsor is the same as GT is simply inaccurate. Both have bikes from each brand in categories where the products arent even close to similar- in appearance, geometry, or spec.
But then there is the Windsor Touring frame that used a similar(but often not same) platform as the Fuji Touring and Nashbar Touring bikes. That similarity is one of the bits of truth and seems to make it easier to then claim 'they are all the same'.

Do the BD brands(Gravity, Windsor, Motobecane) have a matching bike line to the Fuji Jari line? Do the BD brands have a matching bike line to the new GT Grade?

Wilfred Laurier

If we are talking about a ~$300 bike, then the differences are going to be minor and almost definitely aesthetic only. The people considering buying Trek 820s (or whatever) or Schwinns are not usually looking that closely, and Trek will have to pay extra to get a product that is different from the plain-Jane catalogue frame that the contract builders offer. And if they don't see a marketing reason to do this, they probably won't do it.

BookFinder 

It is certainly easier to ask the questions than it is to dig out the answers. My personal opinion is that the differences in quality of the entry level and mid-line bikes are real only to a minor degree. I agree that there are differences in design and geometry that make them distinct from each other.

Materials aside, the high-line racing bikes sold on the mass market would naturally be subject to more intense inspections. But when we talk about the bikes the pros ride, many of them are custom built to fit the particular cyclist.

In the context of this discussion, the OP started out asking if Raleigh is still quality. Many argued that Raleigh has never really been quality, citing lug and brazing issues, alignment issues, and others. My basic assertion is that modern mass produced bikes are of a higher quality than those of past generations, and that the differences in the brands and models are minimal. Can't prove it scientifically, but it sure appears that way to me!

hubcyclist

Raleigh is still quality, I have a rx 1.0 cyclocross bike and it's been through a season and a half of New England cx racing, a teammate of mine has a similar Raleigh and won a number of races on it (it's not the bike, it's the rider). But I've been more than happy with it and like it as much as I like my specialized allez.

I also had a 1995 Raleigh r600 as my first road bike and it served me well as well