Please, Master, tell me your secret for going 34 years without a rear flat. My lips will be sealed. Promise.

Ah yes, good spotting. Not the correct fork. That explains why I haven't seen it before!

Sal, can you give us pics/examples of the six/nine cranks? Thanks!

Fork looks to be a 700c or 27" size. Top tube slopes backward.

Here you go...extra web creates a 9 point.
http://www.kurtkaminer.com/TH_raleigh_cranks.jpg

Beautiful roadster and good call on keeping the heron crank. With new grease and bearings, these can be just as smooth as a modern crank. It's just a matter of a few ounces of weight. They add so much charm to these old bikes.

Big, I feel your aspiration/enjoyment/pain and it reminds me... I just finished two three-speeds. These with the Shimano coasters with the one front hand brake. One is an early '80's Schwinn World Tourist, the other, don't laugh, a '70's Free Spirit Brittany. I have been commuting on them to get them "dialed in" and am becoming a fan - ya, the Sears FS rides great! Both of these bikes ride great and I will be sad to let them go; they have been my go-to commuters this winter. But here's my problem: On a whim last week, I jumped on my early '60's Hercules for a quick dash to the hardware store and 'bout ran the light at the end of my street as I couldn't get that (not there) coaster to engage. Yikes!

Anyone appreciate of what I speak or deem me a hapless sort?

Thanks, Club! Glad I asked. I don't think I've ever noticed the 6/9 difference (or maybe all my Raleighs were older?). The 9 was a 1970's design - came out in '73?

I am a fan of the S3C. As a tinkerer of all bikes (speeds of 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 12... can I stop?) with brakes of all sorts (don't get me started). Optimistically thinking, you kinda get the best of both worlds with the SC3 don't you? Of course, as long as you don't forget that you don't have that rear caliper. Oh, and when you change to a regular AW or derailleured bike, that you don't have that solid and sure coaster brake to "back" on. Oh, and you can't free-pedal back-pedal at a 10-o'clock position at a stop light - there's that. Alas. Regardless, I appreciate them all.

One of my "next" bikes I'll install that rear caliper on a classic roadster coaster 3-spd to help alleviate that cursed muscle-memory-bike-swap problem that can happen.

Paul, can you expound? Firstly, what is the aforementioned "Sta-Tru 590 alloy front wheels?" Does this equate to what my tire size that says "26 x 1 3/8?" And will a said alloy rim work with my stock of 26" x 1 3/8" tires?

Also, if I'm understanding you, I would agree that alloy wheels from the '90s would be an appreciable betterment in performance. Especially if you care to eschew originality and save that (rolling) weight. So, if I'm getting your drift, why splurge on modern, new and expensive wheels for a rescued vintage (non-performance) ride if 1990's wheels/rims are available? Right? So, if I'm still correct in my reasoning here, what "modern" (1990's) alloy rims will fit my Raleigh/Robin/Herc/etc? IOWs, when I visit my local co-op, and the myriad wheel cache, what should I look for?

If I'm all-wet here, set me straight. Regardless, I will, as a rule, never think to replace those classic steel, original rims on my prizes, but I might, just maybe, experiment with myriad, and unoriginal projects be-damned.

I find it clears up some confusion by using the modern ISO name for rims and tires. For the usual English 3 speed light roadster, you need 590mm tires. That's the inside diameter. The other number is the width and is usually 37mm sometimes 40mm. I never swap out good steel rims on my project bikes unless it's a customized sort of build like a scorcher. There's some advantage to alloy rims in the rain, but riding on paved roads in the rain (especially when it first starts) is always tricky. Ask any motorcyclist. Cheap front wheels like the Sta-Tru is an easy option for replacing a wrecked front wheel, but not something I would do generally.

Totally in agreement; it is very satisfying to get everything back together and working right. I especially feel this if I've done some cleaning at the same time.

I was making a sort of off-hand, probably unsupportable remark, which is pretty typical for me, about something where many enthusiasts disagree. I liked the book It's All About the Bike where the writer-bike fan Robert Penn is in midlife and he decides he wants the perfect bicycle so he goes on a world quest to find the best of everything that can go on one. It includes a journey to California to buy his wheel set from the "best wheel builder anywhere." I really didn't get that. It made good reading, and it was a good tv show too, come to think, but I'm dubious his wheels are any better than what my LBS friend here can build, as long as he uses his spoke tension meter. And bike enthusiasts will spend huge money on wheel sets.

The original steel rims on my Sports were so far gone they had to be replaced, I had no choice. To simplify I bought SunRingle's CR18s (alloy) in the exact replacement size. I don't remember what they cost in 2013, but although they weren't nothing, I wouldn't say they were expensive. And no spoke replacement was needed, except for one that was stubborn and broke. And at the LBS it was $10 to tighten and true each one. Performance wise are they better than the originals, if those had been in good shape? Not sure.

Now I have a '63 Rudge coming along. I haven't seen the bike yet except in photos but I think the rims are usable if not cosmetically perfect. I want it to be a scorcher, but it's too soon to have made all the little decisions. And as the bike wouldn't be a commuter, Panaracer's Col de la Vie tires are very tempting.

I'd just like to build something 3/4 as nice as some of the bikes I've seen in photos here.

One reason the CR18s are liked is that in the EA-3/590 ISO (oy vay) size they are available in a polished finish that doesn't exactly mimic the chromed steel but at least keeps the spirit of the original.

Looks great. In Brooklyn that would get noticed.

Step through frames can be harder to estimate than a diamond frame. I would guess 21", but I could be wrong.

In my experience most English ladies' Sports-type bikes are either 19" or 23" and this one looks smaller rather than larger. I have one of each and they're pretty easy to differentiate. There may be 21s or 22s out there but I have not seen them.

Between a couple of opportunities, we find ourselves having ladies frames in 19", 21", and 23". (They cost $0, $35, and $40 - one of them I kind of bought for parts)

Right now I'm partway through moving many of the parts from the 19" frame to the 21" frame. I can ride 21 and 23 happily enough. 19" is a less happy ride for me.

Anyway, here's a crude field guide to sizing

Main frame tubes:
I *think* the downtubes on the 21" & 23 are more nearly parallel than on the 19. It's hard to tell in pictures, but when you're looking right on one size the downtube ("displaced top tube?) is not quite parallel to the lower downtube. I believe on the 21 & 23 they are for all practical purposes parallel, but I could be wrong and maybe it changed from one year to another.

Head Tube:
The gap between the top & down tubes on the 19 is less than on the 21 or 23. The step-through 23 head tube appears to have the dimension of the men's 25. I haven't measured it, but the 21 and 23 may have similar displacements.

Seat Stays:
This is a pretty good tell. The 19" has maybe room for 4 or 5 fingers between the brake bridge and the seatpost bolt. The 21 has room for a couple more, but the 23 has stays above the bridge about the length of a fresh #2 pencil. Or if you prefer, it should accommodate a decently sized cabbage between the seat and the fender - with the seat all the way down.

What I measured at 23":

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8238/...d15c1628_z.jpg

Thanks. Yes - Banjo Brothers Minnehaha barrel bag. I have a bunch of them because they're just the right balance of low-cost; compact size; and hauling capacity for a short ride. They look pretty nice and are easy to fit. This particular bike has the darkest shade of Raleigh green I have seen.

I'm not a huge fan of the older Sturmey coaster brakes. The TCW hubs do have the "neutral no brake" issue, though that can be avoided with careful adjustment. I think the bigger flaw for us today is the fact that the TCW relies heavily on a rather weak E-clip to hold the transmission on one side and the brake on the other. If you take apart the hub, you'll find the axle has a groove and the E-clip that rides in the groove. Also of concern is the fact that the braking power fluctuates based on which gear you're in.

If a TCW has been ridden hard or abused by slamming the hub into 3rd while applying the brake, you'll find the E-clip tears around the edges and jumps out of the axle groove. At best, this causes the hub to stop working in 3rd gear, but will still run in 1st and/or 2nd. At worst, it will lock the rear wheel. The solution is to partially disassemble the hub and get the E-clip back into place. Sometimes you can do that by only tearing-down the brake side of the hub.

In order to get 2, decent and working TCW hubs for a pair of bikes I rebuilt several years ago, I needed 4 TCW hubs, and then to assemble parts to make the best 2 hubs I could make.

On the plus side, the old coasters have smooth braking action and a relatively positive feel when applying pressure. I wouldn't ride a bike equipped solely with a TCW hub - I'd want a hand brake along with it.

I have a Sturmey SC3 hub that I will never use. If you have any interest, PM me.

Hi all,

A few days ago, a friend of mine dumped the “wreck" of “an old Raleigh" at my door.
He was on his way to the local recycling centre, but wondered if - maybe - I could use it, as I own a few post- Raleigh takeover Triumph bicycles.
Of course I could :)
The “old Raleigh" turns out to be a 1980 Superbe in pretty good condition, though it has been in the open air for quite some time.
Today, I had a closer look and started to clean it up a bit.
I plan to use it as my daily ride instead of my - 3 speed - 1954 BSA Tourer.

Digging in my boxes of Raleigh stuff, I found some better brake calipers and other usable parts to make it a reliable bike...
Rear ( stainless steel ) rim was dented, but I managed to straighten that out and the wheel turns smoothly now.

Peter

Hang on to Your Nuts!
 

I was browsing Amazon and saw this axle nut priced at a reasonable $42.14 (plus shipping).
Attachment 607213
Also listed, an axle key at the bargain price of $51.92 (plus shipping).
Attachment 607214

People an dream, can't they? :roflmao2:

I have a hard time convincing my eyes it is not black.

You could go to the LBS

This bike should clean up nicely. Love the color. I have a question. All light roadster frames had a round lug brazed into the drive side chainstay for mounting an enclosed chaincase. They did away with these in the early 60s. How were the chaincases mounted on these later frames? Does it have anything to do with that stamped piece the kickstand is mounted on? That piece is something I haven't seen before. There used to be a tube there.

Can't see that clearly but it looks like there is still the interior bolt to chain stay in the full side picture....so the lug appears to be there.

On one of my elderly italian bikes the chaincase is held by the drive side bb cup.....

winter is hitting hard Pigseye

I see what you mean. I see the bolt right in line with the chainstay. I guess Raleigh made some frames with the lug and kept them aside for full chaincases in the later years.
Not so with the DL-1. Every one I've seen has the lug.