|
Originally Posted by SirMike1983
(Post 22282469)
I think you have it right. I go out and try different bikes and see what you prefer. You can still get something like a 1960s-era Raleigh Sports or Schwinn Racer without spending a ton of money. Stuff from the 1950s and earlier tends to cost a bit more usually because of collector interest, though sometimes you strike a deal. But you can get the idea of how each bike feels with a relatively inexpensive 1960s or 70s era bike.
The Raleigh Sports will have a feel that everything is "closer together": the frame is a little tighter angle, with more compact handlebars, more compact stem, shorter reach from the seat to the bars. The Schwinn will have the feel that you're sitting back a little more, often with longer bars and a more pronounced stem. The front wheel on the Schwinn feels like it's a little more "out front of you". The Raleigh frame tends to be a little lighter and (for a lack of a better word) livelier, whereas the Schwinn welded Schwinn frame will tend to be heavier and tends to deaden bumps a bit more. If you have the space, there's no harm in having one of each. The 1960s-70s era models tend to be affordable still. They don't have the cachet of a 1940s-50s bike, but if you're just trying them out, they're serviceable and attractive bikes still. In general, the English bikes feel more nimble, they feel shorter than they are. Especially if your stepping off a Schwinn and onto a Raleigh. For me, the Raleigh is an easier bike to ride over longer distances, its both lighter, easier to handle, and easier on my old knees. |
Originally Posted by oldspokes
(Post 22283586)
This is a very good description of how each bike feels, I own several of each and both have their advantages. I tend to keep a few single speed Schwinn bikes around, and always a few Raleigh or other brand English bikes around. Currently I've got an early 60's Traveler, in a 24" frame, in three speed trim, one early 50's Traveler, I believe its a '52,, also a three speed, and a '67 and '70 Racer in coaster brake. That on top of a dozen or more English three speeds, most all are 23 or 24" frame models.
In general, the English bikes feel more nimble, they feel shorter than they are. Especially if your stepping off a Schwinn and onto a Raleigh. For me, the Raleigh is an easier bike to ride over longer distances, its both lighter, easier to handle, and easier on my old knees. My feeling is that the majority people tend to prefer the Raleigh because it's maybe a little more familiar coming from a modern bike or a road bike, or an old 10-speed. The people who seem to like the Schwinn are the ones who have a beach cruiser or ballooner, or middleweight already and want a sportier vintage bike. But that's not a very big fraction compared to people who come from modern bikes or road bikes. The fraction coming over from single-speed or two-speed American ballooners or middleweights who prefer the Schwinn feel is pretty small today. At least that has been my experience fooling with these old things. I'd feel kind of lost without at least one of each type around, but that's me. |
Originally Posted by SirMike1983
(Post 22283643)
That's a pretty good collection. The earlier Schwinns from before the 1960s are not easy to find, and the tall Schwinn frames are tough to find as well. It seems like the Raleighs are a little easier to find, but a tall frame in either brand is a nice plus.
My feeling is that the majority people tend to prefer the Raleigh because it's maybe a little more familiar coming from a modern bike or a road bike, or an old 10-speed. The people who seem to like the Schwinn are the ones who have a beach cruiser or ballooner, or middleweight already and want a sportier vintage bike. But that's not a very big fraction compared to people who come from modern bikes or road bikes. The fraction coming over from single-speed or two-speed American ballooners or middleweights who prefer the Schwinn feel is pretty small today. At least that has been my experience fooling with these old things. I'd feel kind of lost without at least one of each type around, but that's me. My newest Schwinn is a 72 Speedster, also a single speed coaster brake, and the oldest is my 52 Traveler. The '52 is the only one that's not a 24" frame, but for some reason the differences in those older models sit taller than most. My '72 Speedster sits taller than all the others, I never really looked close to see why, the forks and frame shouldn't be much different then the same frame size Racers or my '62 Traveler. I also just picked up a really rough '62 Traveler in 24", I'm not sure what I'll do with it, I grabbed it thinking of it as spare parts but after digging into a bit I think I can save it with lots of cleaning, some rust removal, and likely a set of forks. (The threaded portion of the forks is snapped off, someone brain surgeon welded it, thus no more threads, and thus, welded on the bearing cone, nut, and stem. The wheels were perfect though with a minty set of Western Flyer S5 tires. (The old square, flat, sawtooth tread pattern with the huge sidewall flutes around the edges). That bike came with a box of other bits and pieces and a couple spare sets of three speed wheels in nice condition. Maybe one of my Racers will get a three speed set up down the road. I had an earlier Schwinn 'New World' with a single speed freewheel and calipers, but it weighed a ton, I cleaned it up, got it into fair shape, rode it a few times and sold it. It felt like I was dragging a cinder block all the time. The guy who bought it has it hanging over his pool table in his game room. All but two of my English bikes are tall frames, I have two mid 60's Robin Hood Sports, one is a tiny frame, only 19", I keep it for a loaner. The other, a black Sports model has been with me for 45+ years now. I have four Raleigh Sports, a '59, '62, '69, and '78, all 23" frames, One Dunelt, a 1962, in 22", and one in 23", a Philips in 23" with a coaster brake, two Gazelle's in 22" both three speeds, and a 23" Raleigh LTD. Plus a BSA and a Norman that are both completely apart awaiting both a few parts and my time. My basement is half wood shop, half bike shop these days. On top of that, I'm going to pick up a baker's dozen of older bikes in two weeks that a buddy bought at an estate sale, 8 out the 12 are English, two are French, one Rollfast, and two Schwinn's. All three speed style bikes. He bought the lot only because they lumped everything in the garage at the sale together after not being able to get a bid on the bikes. He was only after the riding mower and chainsaw in the lot. The deal is a 30 pack of beer for the bikes if I want them, they're about 70 miles away. I'll just have to make some more room in the basement I guess and plan for a few more winter projects. For me, my English bikes seem to ride nicer, they roll along easier and are easier to maneuver at slower speeds, but a lot that is because they tend to get better tires. With good original tires or what ever Kenda sells these days as the only choices, the Schwinn tires are pretty limited. Also, a good 65psi tire will roll better than a cheap 45 psi tire. I wish someone would bring out a decent tire for the S5 rims but I doubt that's very likely. Finding good chrome is also getting harder for both brands these days. |
Originally Posted by strichzwei
(Post 22283543)
Hi, I have a 1973 Raleigh sport, can someone tell me if I should have 9 or 10 ball bearings per side in the front hub.
For some reason I ended up with an extra 3/16th ball bearing, I put 9 each in the front hub and even went back and opened up the rear 3 speed hub I rebuilt to ensure I had 24 ball bearings in the ball cup (they are also 3/16th). From what little I could find it appears there are only 9 on each side of the front hub. Can someone definitively confirm this? thanks, Scott https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...97e81f07dd.jpg |
Tire availability is not an issue to overlook. I run the Kendas on my Schwinn 3-speeds at 65 PSI, and they support that well enough. They're not a bad tire, but they're also not a truly good tire either. My Raleigh Sports bikes have Schwalbe Delta Cruisier white walls or Panaracer tan walls. Going from a Kenda up a notch or two to a better tire is well worth it because it immediately improves just about every aspect of how the bike rides. I'd love a set of Schwalbe white walls in the Schwinn size. It is possible to convert some of the old Schwinns to CR-18 rims, which I did with my wife's 3-speed Schwinn. She still preferred her modern, aluminum road bike though.
Originally Posted by oldspokes
(Post 22283761)
At 6ft 3in tall, I need a large frame bike and the middle weights are generally too small for me to ride comfortably. I've got two, both late 50's, one American, one Corvette, and bits and pieces of a Phantom that someone stripped down for newsboy duty years ago.
My newest Schwinn is a 72 Speedster, also a single speed coaster brake, and the oldest is my 52 Traveler. The '52 is the only one that's not a 24" frame, but for some reason the differences in those older models sit taller than most. My '72 Speedster sits taller than all the others, I never really looked close to see why, the forks and frame shouldn't be much different then the same frame size Racers or my '62 Traveler. I also just picked up a really rough '62 Traveler in 24", I'm not sure what I'll do with it, I grabbed it thinking of it as spare parts but after digging into a bit I think I can save it with lots of cleaning, some rust removal, and likely a set of forks. (The threaded portion of the forks is snapped off, someone brain surgeon welded it, thus no more threads, and thus, welded on the bearing cone, nut, and stem. The wheels were perfect though with a minty set of Western Flyer S5 tires. (The old square, flat, sawtooth tread pattern with the huge sidewall flutes around the edges). That bike came with a box of other bits and pieces and a couple spare sets of three speed wheels in nice condition. Maybe one of my Racers will get a three speed set up down the road. I had an earlier Schwinn 'New World' with a single speed freewheel and calipers, but it weighed a ton, I cleaned it up, got it into fair shape, rode it a few times and sold it. It felt like I was dragging a cinder block all the time. The guy who bought it has it hanging over his pool table in his game room. All but two of my English bikes are tall frames, I have two mid 60's Robin Hood Sports, one is a tiny frame, only 19", I keep it for a loaner. The other, a black Sports model has been with me for 45+ years now. I have four Raleigh Sports, a '59, '62, '69, and '78, all 23" frames, One Dunelt, a 1962, in 22", and one in 23", a Philips in 23" with a coaster brake, two Gazelle's in 22" both three speeds, and a 23" Raleigh LTD. Plus a BSA and a Norman that are both completely apart awaiting both a few parts and my time. My basement is half wood shop, half bike shop these days. On top of that, I'm going to pick up a baker's dozen of older bikes in two weeks that a buddy bought at an estate sale, 8 out the 12 are English, two are French, one Rollfast, and two Schwinn's. All three speed style bikes. He bought the lot only because they lumped everything in the garage at the sale together after not being able to get a bid on the bikes. He was only after the riding mower and chainsaw in the lot. The deal is a 30 pack of beer for the bikes if I want them, they're about 70 miles away. I'll just have to make some more room in the basement I guess and plan for a few more winter projects. For me, my English bikes seem to ride nicer, they roll along easier and are easier to maneuver at slower speeds, but a lot that is because they tend to get better tires. With good original tires or what ever Kenda sells these days as the only choices, the Schwinn tires are pretty limited. Also, a good 65psi tire will roll better than a cheap 45 psi tire. I wish someone would bring out a decent tire for the S5 rims but I doubt that's very likely. Finding good chrome is also getting harder for both brands these days. |
Originally Posted by Salubrious
(Post 22282649)
You just need to clean up the threads- they are the correct pitch. You've got dirt or rust (probably both) interfering. Those pedals in the photo are rebuildable and easily serviced. If you can find a set of blocks on ebay (usually about $15.00) you could cut them down to size to fit the narrower women's pedals.
French and English threads are the same pitch so tapping French cranks really isn't a problem. The difference is that the French thread is very so slightly less diameter. So French pedals thread loose in English cranks and English pedals simply won't go into French threads at all. Thank again! -Rick |
Continuing to tinker with the 79 faux Roadster. This time a cable change from bottom tube to top. Lesson on tube sizes had me digging in the bin for a smaller clamp for the ferrel.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2404536e0.jpeg More changes later, lots of riding. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...dc3d74c4b.jpeg Finally found my supply of metal Ferrel to replace the scorchers crumbling part. |
From what little I could find it appears there are only 9 on each side of the front hub. Can someone definitively confirm this? My '74 Raleigh Sports has 3/16 balls at 10 per side |
My front hub also says "Sturmey Archer" on it.....
thanks guys. Scott |
Skool me on Raleigh pedal threads. I've been reading it's 9/16", some might say 14mm. What did Raleigh actually have in the 1970s? I measured the stubs on 2 different bikes. A 76 Colt and a new to me 72/73 Sports. They measured .551" which is 14mm exact no decimal points. A metric thread pitch gauge showed 1.25 mm and a fractional showed 20 TPI; but the metric one engaged better fully into the threads where the fractional one just lined up along thread crests. Eyeballing they seem similar but what I'm seeing with a mike is the Raleigh has metric threaded pedals and crank arms. With that I can fully screw in an automotive spark plug with no slop or binding. Then there's the wrenches. I have several, a couple of thin bike wrenches and a couple of regular combo 15mm that fit perfectly versus 5/8 folks seem to use that seem loosey and could round corners on a rusty stubborn one.
If it was 9/16, it sure isn't in the 70s. At .562" an .011" difference is too fat. |
Originally Posted by Greg R
(Post 22284483)
Skool me on Raleigh pedal threads. I've been reading it's 9/16", some might say 14mm. What did Raleigh actually have in the 1970s? I measured the stubs on 2 different bikes. A 76 Colt and a new to me 72/73 Sports. They measured .551" which is 14mm exact no decimal points. A metric thread pitch gauge showed 1.25 mm and a fractional showed 20 TPI; but the metric one engaged better fully into the threads where the fractional one just lined up along thread crests. Eyeballing they seem similar but what I'm seeing with a mike is the Raleigh has metric threaded pedals and crank arms. With that I can fully screw in an automotive spark plug with no slop or binding. Then there's the wrenches. I have several, a couple of thin bike wrenches and a couple of regular combo 15mm that fit perfectly versus 5/8 folks seem to use that seem loosey and could round corners on a rusty stubborn one.
If it was 9/16, it sure isn't in the 70s. At .562" an .011" difference is too fat. |
I dunno. I've got Raleigh pedals dating from the 50's to the 70's....all 9/16' X 20. Way back they may have had 1/2" as were many early 20th century models.
|
Originally Posted by clubman
(Post 22284536)
I dunno. I've got Raleigh pedals dating from the 50's to the 70's....all 9/16' X 20. Way back they may have had 1/2" as were many early 20th century models.
|
The OEM pedal on the Sports goes on and off with ease, then:
I grabbed a pedal off of my 2019 Trek, which definitely has a 9/16"-20 stub. It will NOT go in my Raleigh's crank arm It does this as the previous poster says: . A 9/16" pedal will partially screw in, |
Originally Posted by Salubrious
(Post 22284648)
Usually the 1/2" stuff is reserved for Ashtabula cranks, like you see on older American stuff. My 1935 roadster uses 9/16".
Still, none of this explains Greg's problem. Hey Greg, how about pictures of the crankarm and pedals. Maybe there's a visible clue for the sleuths in the crowd. Edit. Strike the 5 pin. Checked it. |
Originally Posted by Greg R
(Post 22284681)
The OEM pedal on the Sports goes on and off with ease, then:
I grabbed a pedal off of my 2019 Trek, which definitely has a 9/16"-20 stub. It will NOT go in my Raleigh's crank arm It does this as the previous poster says: I may make it go with "cleaning" and grease and effort, but then it's screwed (or not) for original gear.. |
Originally Posted by clubman
(Post 22284692)
I've got a couple of 3 piece cottered cranks with 1/2"...one is actually a 5 pin and says British made on it. Union made some 1/2" pedals for the Thun style cranks too.
Originally Posted by Greg R
(Post 22284681)
The OEM pedal on the Sports goes on and off with ease, then:
I grabbed a pedal off of my 2019 Trek, which definitely has a 9/16"-20 stub. It will NOT go in my Raleigh's crank arm It does this as the previous poster says: I may make it go with "cleaning" and grease and effort, but then it's screwed (or not) for original gear.. |
It's a head scratcher for me. I know what the consensus is on 9/16" yet my tools and the pedals I have are showing a "metric" fit. What I would like to find is a specification drawing of a period correct Raleigh pedal; that would be the Holy Grail for me. What I've found so far is the archival records of Raleigh Industries is being held by Nottinghamshire County in the UK. Much like here in the U.S. International Harvester archives are held by the Wisconsin State Historical Society.
The bike in question is a 1972, there are "Made in England" scripts on the end pieces of the pedal set. Also I have a Churchill Deluxe with pedals that also fit the same way though their script says "Made in Germany". 9/16-20 and 14-1.25 is soooo close |
Originally Posted by Greg R
(Post 22285705)
It's a head scratcher for me. I know what the consensus is on 9/16" yet my tools and the pedals I have are showing a "metric" fit. What I would like to find is a specification drawing of a period correct Raleigh pedal; that would be the Holy Grail for me. What I've found so far is the archival records of Raleigh Industries is being held by Nottinghamshire County in the UK. Much like here in the U.S. International Harvester archives are held by the Wisconsin State Historical Society.
The bike in question is a 1972, there are "Made in England" scripts on the end pieces of the pedal set. Also I have a Churchill Deluxe with pedals that also fit the same way though their script says "Made in Germany". 9/16-20 and 14-1.25 is soooo close (https://www.sheldonbrown.com/pedals.html)
|
I've looked at SB also. I doubt the Trek is metric because it can take any off the shelf pedal available today as 9/16. I've tried swapping pedals. The ones off of the 2019 Trek, a 9/16, won't fit without excessive force. I can too easily screw in the Raleigh pedals in the Trek's crank. It's loose enough I wouldn't trust putting any torque on it to secure, just ain't enough thread engagement.
|
Originally Posted by Greg R
(Post 22285798)
I've looked at SB also. I doubt the Trek is metric because it can take any off the shelf pedal available today as 9/16. I've tried swapping pedals. The ones off of the 2019 Trek, a 9/16, won't fit without excessive force. I can too easily screw in the Raleigh pedals in the Trek's crank. It's loose enough I wouldn't trust putting any torque on it to secure, just ain't enough thread engagement.
|
Originally Posted by Salubrious
(Post 22285489)
Cool! If you get a chance, put up some photos? I've not heard or nor seen something like that.
I collected some weird stuff from a store close out a few decades ago. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...667c9832da.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...764fbca463.jpg |
So somehow you have some pedals that are 'Raleigh' but French thread, with matching cranks. Now I have 3 "English" bikes. 2 Raleigh: 1 Sports (1972) 1 Colt (1976) and 1 Churchill Deluxe which I think is made by Raleigh but not sure of the year. All their pedals interchange easily. So the question I think is: Did Raleigh use metric crank/pedals in some point or time frame of production? In car world there are Tech Service Bulletins, Dealer letters etc notifying of design change, supersession, and so on. I wonder if any exists in bicycle world? |
Originally Posted by clubman
(Post 22285913)
Here's two, one is standard cottered and the other is CCM triangular cotterless style. To be fair, the CCM 'triplex' BB's came in a regular 3 piece as well as a larger roadster 3 piece style. The regular models are usually tapped for 9/16. Pretty sure I have another standard drive side with 1/2 inch but can't find it.
I collected some weird stuff from a store close out a few decades ago.
Originally Posted by Greg R
(Post 22285935)
Thank you!
Now I have 3 "English" bikes. 2 Raleigh: 1 Sports (1972) 1 Colt (1976) and 1 Churchill Deluxe which I think is made by Raleigh but not sure of the year. All their pedals interchange easily. So the question I think is: Did Raleigh use metric crank/pedals in some point or time frame of production? In car world there are Tech Service Bulletins, Dealer letters etc notifying of design change, supersession, and so on. I wonder if any exists in bicycle world? |
Originally Posted by Salubrious
(Post 22285993)
Thanks!
I once refurbished a French made Riva Sport 3-speed from the 1950s that used a Brompton hub and had English threaded pedals. England and France have had a love-hate relationship since the dawn of time it seems. https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d3dfa7dc02.jpg |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:10 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.