I think that's likely with the Wayfarer, but the Traveler had a larger seat post. I didn't measure it but I know a 25.4mm post from a Sports fell right in with a noticeable gap.

The fork was what really caught my eye on the Traveler, and the bottom of the top tube pump pegs.

They were both rather plain looking bikes, painted solid blue, with no pin striping, just a seat post panel, a headbadge, 'Raleigh' on the DT and 'Traveler' on the chainguard. There were no stripes, darts, or accents. If I remember right, the decals were even a bit misaligned.

I had a Traveler model here some years ago, the bike was pretty much just parts by the time it got here.
It was a 23" men's frame with 26" Endrick rims. like mentioned above, it had Sports type peaked fenders, stamped steel fork crown, one piece bar/stem assembly, top pump pegs, (that someone ground off), flat brake bridge, I don't recall if it had a kickstand bridge or not, I seem to recall it had been fitted with a too short Wald kick stand. It had a bike shop decal from somewhere in England and a hub dated 3/84. It was a dark blue, non metallic. It had the stamped steel brake levers too. The calipers looked like common Raleigh chrome steel side pull calipers, unlike the later Sports that mostly came with alloy calipers and levers. It had a wrap around type chain guard that someone had cut the bottom off of too.
The bike had a Nottingham headbadge but I do remember not being able to find any other mention of it being made in England, or anywhere else. I had my suspicions that it may have been an imported model from Asia being sold in the UK.
The rims were rusted, the frame was rough, and it had some hideous gel cruiser saddle on it. I think it went with a pile of bikes I gave to a guy who used to fix up bikes for kids for free. I seem to remember that bike having an alloy seat post, which may have been stuck if memory serves me right. Either way, it wasn't anything I cared to deal with at the time.
It had come out of a closed up shop I emptied out and was among about 30 other rather rough bikes that were mostly parts or scrap.

I did have a customer here a few times that had a huge collection of old Raleigh bikes, including many models never brought to the USA.
I remember fixing two wheels on a BSA Traveler model which had a 1969 AW hub laced to Endrick rims and a lower end crankset.
But that bike was a pretty much a normal lower grade model, much like a common Hercules or Robin Hood of that time. It just had been badged BSA.

Reasonable Raliegh
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a8d6917689.jpg
Seller is asking $179.00 for this one here in Toronto.

Another Good deal
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b373dd6b77.jpg
A Raleigh Twenty for $100
Rims look rough

I have a Robin Hood question...

I have two frames, women's, one 21" bare frame a 23" entire bike...at least, I assume they're 21" and 23" since one is smaller than the other, and I think 21 and 23 are the only sizes they came in (entirely possible I'm wrong).

Anyways. Neither frame has a serial number that I can find. I've checked closely in all the usual spots. Is this unusual for the non-Raleigh Nottingham bikes? They appear to be of a similar (but not the same) age...the fork crowns are different. The whole bike's AW hub is dated 6/70, and I have the feeling that the smaller bare frame might be a couple years newer.

I apologize for the disjointed description of the situation. My question is about the apparent lack of serial numbers. I don't NEED the serial numbers, it just seems odd to not find any. Do I need to look closer?

arex : on my Eaton’s Glider (Raleigh made) the serial number is in the usual (well one of them) location in front of the seat post but so lightly stamped it’s near impossible to see. Perhaps you have a similar situation.

I've got a pair of Robin Hood bikes here right now, both have no sign of any serial numbers, I have a slightly older, 2/65 Robin Hood with very lightly stamped numbers on the left side of the seat tube. I've got four other bikes with clearly stamped numbers across the top of the seat lug, all four are older than 1962, two are Dunelt, two are Hercules branded bikes.
The 1967 Robin Hood has a random 'W' on the bottom of the bottom bracket, and what looks like maybe a missed serial number stamp or some sort of machine mark. The '69 has no markings at all.
I've also got a 1965 Robin Hood that apparently has no numbers on it but I've not cleaned it nor flipped it over yet, its in the last bike in a row in my "I'll get to it one of these days" row of bikes that became mine by default or abandonment over the years.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...53c3f997a.jpeg
Love to ride errands on my unrestored 1956 Hercules.

When I shine a very bright flashlight across the seat clamp band, i can barely make out numbers. I can't read them, though. I might try doing a rubbing with paper and pencil.

TEN BUCKS for some Sports bones, including Brooks bones.

https://richmond.craigslist.org/bik/...347109680.html

https://images.craigslist.org/00U0U_...t2_600x450.jpg

I just checked my Robin Hood. I believe it's a 1970 based on the date on the AW hub. There is a serial number on the top tube lug right in front of the seat tube. It's fairly easy to see.

YES! You can swap out the entire core/axle.
 

YES!
When I worked in a bike shop in the 80s, we started just replacing sturmey cores as you describe.
Apparently SunTour had some clones they made under license and we got a deal on them.
It was less labor, and the repairs never came back with issues.

I don't recall having any issues with other years - but this is a memory from long ago.

You have to remove the axle nuts, lock nuts, and cone from the non-drive side.
Then remove the clip holding the sprocket on.

Carefully remember where the 2 sprocket spacers are and if your sprocket is dished, which side it is dished to.
This is so you can get the chain alignment back how it was when you re-assemble.

Under the sprocket, there is a large gray "ball ring" nearly as big around as the hub.
(#13 in sturmey's diagram on their web site. "HSA584 Ball Ring")
It has 2 notches.
It is threaded into the hub.
I think we used a chisel and hammer to unscrew it.

I see "STURMEY ARCHER HSX161.0001.BX SA REBUILD KIT" listed on ebay.
at $43.46 (They cost less in the 80s! )

The rebuild kit is all new parts.
A LOT better than replacing with used parts.
Some old Sturmey hubs went forever, some started skipping after just a few years.
Also, a bare used hub not laced into a wheel is going to be a lot harder to unscrew that big ball ring from the hub.

After you do your first one, it is as easy as changing a tube for a flat tire.
Good luck!

Anyone know where to get the little light clamp that fits over the bracket on the stem of some Raleigh Sports?

I can think of at least 4 or 5 types off the top of my head. Maybe you can post a pic?

The best way to get a part is to upgrade your membership and post a Wanted to Buy in the sales thread.

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I have tried and failed to find an answer, so here goes:

Why were these bikes geared as high as they were from the factory? England is not without hills. Does anybody know for sure? Was that old Irish postman in that video posted a while back getting it done for 40 years with a 51-52 inch low on a 40+ pound roadster with who knows how much mail weight?

My recently acquired '51 has a threaded driver, and I don't think I'm going to change it - sticking with the 18t cog. I have other three speeds that now have larger cogs.

That’s probably why when you see pics of vintage 3-speeds in the Rough Stuff Fellowship they’re usually being walked.

I get that, and have come across that explanation before. But a 92" high on what amounts to a mostly utility bike (I know they were also toured on)? Were these casual hill walkers bombing down the other side? Maybe they were. It couldn't have been lost on the bicycle industry engineers of that time that the gearing could stand to come down a bit. Or maybe it wasn't seen as necessary. If the gearing was considered practical back then, then why is it not practical anymore?

My DL-1 still has its 19 out back, and I'm in no hurry to change it.

Oh, and check out this old Triumph for sale in NJ.
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace...tory_type=post

https://scontent.fagc1-2.fna.fbcdn.n...bd&oe=60ED9475

Most of my bikes have been swapped out to 19/20/21T COGS

is anyone else having trouble finding these pages recently?
My bookmark doesn't work.

I would be on that quickly if it was local - it's a Coventry-era Triumph, not something usually seen in the USA. I love the old-style "rain gutter" fenders. It's a good deal for that price.

They all had to have some kind of stock gearing. But Sturmey Archer had cogs with as little as 11 or 12 teeth and as big as 23 or 24. Plus the front sprocket was available in 44, 46 and 48. If you had a higher end crankset that had removable chainrings you could have even smaller sprockets. A friend of mine found a 30s British bike (I don't recall the brand but it was a hand made higher end frame) that was equipped with a 42 in front.

True enough, but it seems every account from folks much more knowledgeable and experienced than I indicates that the consensus was an unexplained overgearing from the factory. Even on Hadland's blog, Vernon Forbes says "The only explanation I ever heard for why Raleigh over-geared their three-speeds was that cyclists used to turn higher gears with longer cranks at lower RPMs." He also says that it never made sense to him.

It's just the geek in me that wonders if an actual explanation from the manufacturers exists somewhere, perhaps in an old manual or something.

My initial plan was to call and ask about a '51 Sports that was about 1 hour and 45 minutes away from me. If it didn't pan out, the Triumph was my next try as it's a little farther away. I ended up getting the Raleigh.
The price on that Triumph keeps dropping, too. Hope somebody here grabs it.

The original posters bike.
 

Yeah the bike with all the lights is a Maruichi Cycle “Young Holiday” model.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...f5c348ba6.jpeg