Pretty much. Those measurements refer to length of the seat tube measured from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube. I just measured my 21" Sports and 23" Superbe, and top tube was the same on both (around 55cm measured center to center). I suppose the downtube on the taller frame must be a bit longer than the shorter one; otherwise, the top tube would be sloping down rather than level.

My bike is a 21 though I also have a nice 23 frame. But it is back home in storage in my hanger. So I am trying to understand the differences in geometry, it would seem for those who want the handlebars seat level or higher they would prefer the 23 frame, assuming standover is acceptable for the purpose but that for folks who prefer some drop to the bars would prefer the 21? Thus most people of average height 5'8 to say 6'0 would prefer a 21 since the more compact diamond frame would be stiffer/stronger.

Is there anybody riding a men's 19?

It is just that I see the seats slammed down on so many of these 23 inch frames and the bars up very high, just not sure why one would want the seats so low to the top bar. This would indicate to me that somebody might have a collision between the tt and some private bits if dismounting on less than level ground. But I guess this compromise is made for those who wish the bars above the seat top? Is that why?

Fit is personal, for sure. It's quite unusual to see a Raleigh Sports set up with bars lower than saddle, particularly give the few inches of rise to traditional North Roads bars. They're not quite the "sit up and beg" position of an old DL-1, but the expectation is that the rider would be fairly upright. If that fit doesn't work for you, then a 21" with a long seat post and perhaps flat bars might work. But it's difficult to achieve that kind of fit with what came stock on a Sports.

Fit is also determined by inseam, not height. Since frame choices are limited, seats are often slammed down on 23's or raised up high on the 21's. I've ridden a 19 but they really suit smaller people. I'm 5' 9" with a short inseam (~28") so I could just get away with it. L seat posts can also help you better fit on these bikes, shifting the seat position forward, which is more typical of a sporting ride. Like this one, even though I think the bars are too high or seat too low to be comfortable for long.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Y...2969903b_o.jpg

I'm 6' with a 33" inseam. My Motobecane road bike is 24 1/2" and I'm comfy on my 24" DL-1 riding upright, but I can get enough seat post and stem height on a 21" Sports to be reasonably comfortable. I used to use a 10" Sunlite stem with a shim for the Raleigh bars on 21" Sports, but I've found, for the type of riding I do on these bikes, the loss of some leg travel isn't a big enough deal to modify the bike for. With the stem adjustment maxed out and the seat post set for a nice balance to the bars, I'm OK on a 21" sports even if I do sacrifice some efficiency.

I have the bottom set of headset off of a Raleigh Twenty, if you want it. Couldn't swear to it, but it should​ work on other Raleighs.

I really do like those old 'gallows' seat posts. You can customize the fit nicely, and on older bikes from the 40s and earlier, they really look proper.

On SWAT (Sir Wayes A Tonne) with my BSA cover on a Brooks flareing was a problem. decided to lace with leather and tie under the saddle. I used a brad point drill and cut the laces from a scrap piece. It has worked http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519065http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519066http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519067well.

[MENTION=319010]Narhay[/MENTION] - I've used a modern headset pressed into a Raleigh Twenty (folder) without issue. I'm guessing you could use a modern one on your Raleigh. I'd measure inside head tube and outside of crown race, to be sure.

I am not sure I understand. I would never compromise saddle height or adjust saddle height to get it above or below the bars. The saddle should always be set to the cycling inseam and that should really be the same for any bike you own. I think that is more than an opinion but actual science. But that aside, I was just curious why the frame sizes seem rather large but the seats slammed down. I guess I understand now, you are lowering the seat relative to the handlebars to get an upright sitting position even though it compromises a proper leg extension and a big frame facilitates getting the bar up above the seat crown. No worries, I was just curious, now I know. I always set my saddles around 75.5 or so, plus or minus depending on the crank length, shoes, pedals etc. I think I am at a skosh over 75 on my Raleigh because the pedals are thin and I am not using cleats or SPDs and my Sperry shoes are fairly thin soled compared to the sneakers commonly worn by most for casual wear.

I think the B72 will allow me to drop my seat post some because the stack height is greater than my current cheap saddle, the distance to crank center to saddle top however will remain the same. I think that will be useful.

Those bottle or sidewall dynamos, the ones, like mine, with a single + terminal, what is supposed to be the output typically?

The "tracks" that are molded into many tires, including most 26 inch tires, I assume those are dynamo wheel tracks? Though probably just decorative now they are intended to engage the dynamo wheel?

Edit to add:

Just found a very complete 21 inch silver ladies model for $50 complete. It is a 76 I think. Nice shape, just needs tires and a cleanup, has a Brooks mattress saddle. Oh, it has the "favored" frame crusher kickstand. The frame does not appear damaged :) however. So now I have two Raleigh kickstands. This bike has aluminum non self adjusting Weiman brakes.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...pspvj7epip.jpg

Thanks. I think the bottom set can be replaced by a modern one. I am looking more for the top set as the 26tpi threaded race has a specific cup it sits in.

I agree. It is science. For years, even for upright bikes, I set the saddle for proper leg extension and if the frame was too short, I used a long stem to lift the bars until I had the upright balance I wanted. A couple years ago I bought a 21" S5 equipped Sprite because I was intrigued with the idea of the S5 hub. The bike is so pretty that I couldn't bring myself to install the ugly Sunlite stem. And to my surprise, the sky didn't fall. I love riding that bike. A 23" frame might fit me better, but somehow I kept picking the Sprite for my daily ride over my 23" Sports. The loss of efficiency just isn't that big of a deal for me here in flat, flat southern Florida. Hill climbing...well, that would be different.

We call that a "Persuader".

I have straightened crank arms by blocking them in a hydraulic press and then pushing them straight.

Cabel Stop Help!
 

Good afternoon! I am trying to fix a Sturmey Archer 3 speed and for the life of me cannot figure out a suitable manner in which to create a cable stop at the end of the cable where it goes into the adjusting barrel. I have attached a picture of what I am talking about. It looks like a thin piece of metal went over the cable and then was pinched onto the cable, but I can't seem to find a piece of metal with a diameter small enough to fit a cable and still fit inside the adjusting cable. Any suggestions?

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519175

You probably need to buy a new connector ($5 or so) that has a pinch bolt on the cable side of it, and then screws onto the indicator chain on the other side of it. It gives a lot more options when replacing the cable.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519210

I agree, the pinch bolt adapter is, by far, your easiest option, but...Don't loose that original barrel adjuster. An original style cable connection can be made with a short piece of 3/32" brass tubing. I used to always silver braze these to the cables, but I recently discovered that they can be attached easily with JB Weld and hold up.

Sounds good. I ended up picking up a pinch bolt connector at the LBS. I've kept the original adjuster, but there is small piece of steel jammed up there for eternity now after a failed attempt to create a cable stop.

I have just bought this bike. At first I thought it was a Raleigh Record Ace from the 30's but it says "Club" on the down tube instead of "R.R.A". Could anyone help me identify it please?

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519393http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519394http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519395http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519396http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519397http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=519398

Thanks

[MENTION=177723]Loose Chain[/MENTION], generally, if you ride bent over, as with drop bars, you don't want too wide a saddle, because extra width interferes with motion. If you ride more upright, the seat won't interfere and you're likely to want more support, as there is more weight needing support. That's why you see wide saddles on upright bikes and narrow saddles on leaning-forward bikes.

There is a new school of thought (and maybe it's old, too) that says bike size should be according to height, not inseam. This would mean that I've been riding bikes too small, since my inseam is short for my height. It could explain some of the discomfort I often experience. I'm 5'9" tall, and my bikes range in size from 53cm to 57cm. I probably ought to favor the bigger end of the range if I should buy any more bikes (perish the thought). My Levi's jeans are a 30" inseam. Then again, I have huge feet, and maybe that compensates for short legs in some ways.

Thanks, I may just go with a standard B17. I need to think on it some more. I have a 17N on my CC but it is definitely set sportingly with the bars most decidedly below the saddle top by about two inches.

Pants inseam means nothing, I wear 34 Levis in 514s and in 511s a 32 and suits usually cut to 32 and I am right at 5'11" and shrinking ;), some people like high water pants :) but that would have nothing to do with frame size. My cycling inseam is 86cm and I like a 56C/C or 57C/T but I can ride as large as a 58 but it feels like a boat or as little as a 54 but it gets crowded if it is a square frame. But I go by (effective) TT length. I do not disagree with sizing per height but I do completely disagree with not setting your saddles per well known and scientific and verified saddle height calculations at least as a good starting point, not by the bar top position ;). The bar tops should be set after the saddle is adjusted to the optimum starting point and then tweaked from there. But I do come from a competitive/performance background I suppose.

I was taught, size the frame by TT length, set the saddle height per (cycling) inseam, adjust reach with the stem.

What I am figuring out on these English three speeds is that the bike frames remained essentially the same for TT length, especially between 21 and 23, the only thing that changed is they moved the top bar up two inches but the top tube length remained the same. What this means to me is that a rider (of my approximate size plus or minus) wanting a "sport" fit would choose a 21 and a rider wanting to sit upright would choose a 23 because the longer head tube would facilitate getting the bars up higher, thus why I see so many saddles slammed down to the TT. But I could not ride that way, just too much pressure on my rear parts and too inefficient. These three speeds are very odd, kind of unique in the way the frames are sized, actually a bit weird as they do not seem to be proportionally sized?

Did Raleigh build a few 25 inch frames?

I know I am rambling but what I am saying is that moving the TT up or down does not make a larger bike but it does facilitate a higher bar. Now if the TT is moved up and made longer proportionally, now that is a larger bike in combination. But just raising the TT and not lengthening the TT proportionally, that is just a taller bike and my small sample size indicates that is what they did on these.

I notice the workmanship on my new silver step through, 1978, is less than on my 73. Still nice but the fitting work is slightly more crude and the paint not as clean.

Just an observation, after working on my fit on my three speed, I have it in the rack beside my Surly CC. Oddly ;), the two bikes are the same :). Yes, aside from the slightly smaller wheel diameter, the relative position of the saddles and bars are the same height-wise when I look at the bikes side by side, but the Raleigh bars (grips) are further aft thus forcing a more upright position.

I have owned a 68 model Sport and now roll a 73 Sport around so I see what you are saying. I think the advancing years brought declined attention to details. My 73 is very nice but has less quality of workmanship to it then my 68.

I ride a 21" model and find the B67 fine for the job. It is wide like the B72 but not fancy. I have the saddle approx 1" above the handlebar height and find it fine for short trips. Have not spent all day in the saddle and would probably desire a B17 for that. We will see.

By height is not new. Raleigh marketed the 23 inch frame Sports as suiting someone 5'8" or taller. In later years, it also indicated the 24 inch DL1 was specifically for "taller" people.

My guess is they got 5'8" from an average leg size and applied it back to the frame. I am 5'8" or so, and I prefer the 23 inch frame, though 21 works OK for me too. The 24 inch DL1 frame is too tall. The 22 inch DL1 is fine.

I just resurrected an old "bump on the inside of a fork" thread and wish that query could be moved here.

Neal suggested this feature was used for a light mount. My bump is on the inside, right, of a '56 Lady's Sports fork. Any suggestions for the sort of mount or light paired with this "bump"?

Your question answered on the old thread.