Thanks DQ. Someday I might find fenders. The hunt will be fun. I do have a question for the engineering types.
I've set up the brakes as carefully as I can, the wheels are reasonably true, but the rear brake has noticeably more power than the front. The pads on the rear are mounted directly on the stirrup and in line with the linkage. The front pads are mounted on arms out in front of the stirrup. I was wondering if the leverage of those arms reduce the pressure of the pads against the rims.

Attachment 532056

My experience with rod brakes was the same. The rear brake mech has a tendency to be self actuating and feels much more 'grabby' than the front. There's no science in this one methinks, just trial and error.

Raleigh DL-1: Cycling Royalty?
 

Nicely done, [MENTION=45088]nlerner[/MENTION]! It's nice to see some DL-1s coming back to life. All this rod-braked roadster activity on the 3-speed thread inspired me to take my own Roadster out for a nice 38 mile expedition today. I rode the Hastings leg of the Mississippi Regional Trail down south of the Twin Cities.

I shot some photos around town after a nice breakfast burrito at the Red Rock Cafe. This is in the old part of town:

http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/...pscr4nkxvs.png

Why, some parts of Hastings' Old Town are so old, they are still in black and white: :p

http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/...psubtdkaix.png

Outside of town, things open up considerably. This is where we put on the miles - and they went by so serenely:

http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/...psd1xz2gox.png

There is something in the slack geometry of these old bikes that gives such a comfy ride and seems to maximize the efficiency of the pedal stroke. I'm being purely subjective here, but I would love to see the Raleigh engineer's notes that explain how they arrived at this design.

We turned around at Spring Lake, and headed back. Arriving in the old town again, we stopped for one more photo, with the brand new Hastings Bridge in the background:

http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/...psakjnko2c.png

It was a wonderful day out, and on the drive home I thought about how, every time I ride this bike, it becomes my favorite all over again. As long as I don't have to climb too many hills...

Mine are mounted in a "leading" shoe configuration, just the opposite of yours. I did this because it was explained to me by the "Gentlemen Cyclists" who put on the Lake Pepin 3-Speed Tour. There is a YouTube video out there where they give the same explanation:

Essentially, when the pads are mounted in the trailing configuration, like yours, the spin of the wheel actually pushes the brake pad away from the wheel, which greatly reduces the friction generated. When you mount the pads in the leading position, with the bulk of the pads aft of the stirrup, the spin of the wheel pulls the pads into the wheel, which increases friction and provides more stopping power.

That said, using the Kool Stop pink pads, my front brake has a tendency to judder. It stops just fine, but it's not a smooth operation. I'm going to replace them this winter with the Fibrax pieces, if I can find some, and see how that works. I'm betting that they will solve the juddering issue.

I love your pictures!
Hmmm...that's interesting. I think some experimentation is in order. I was considering removing the arms and attaching the pads directly to the stirrup, but I should try your method first. I would have thought there would be clearance problems between the pads and fork, but apparently not. I tried the salmon cool stop inserts to save money. Fibrax is expensive. They seem to work well.

Probably through trial and error. In the 20's and 30's there were a lot of different bikes with this lazy geometry but with little differences. This one has the head tube and seat tube at the same sharp angle, they're parallel, which gives it an even more beautiful stance, but there are also frames with the angle of the head tube just a tiny bit sharper than the angle of the seat tube, and the other way around. So they probably just picked the one that felt nicest for the kind of bike they wanted to make. In my very subjective experience, these frames also have the advantage that they suit a wide range of body sizes, the body will find a nice position even if the bike is too small or on the big side. That might also have been a consideration for the designers, as it's important for sales and production cost.

As a fan of lazy frames, I've been wondering for years what it is that makes it this nice. Basically, I think this geometry uses the body's excellent capability to walk the best, both the capacity to stroll effortlessly and to walk briskly with little effort. You're upright, because of the caster you're going in straight line without upper body movement, you balance from the hips by minor shifts in body weight, and you're using mainly the torque of the muscles in the middle of the thigh and the buttock, the biggest, most powerful muscles in the human body if I'm not mistaken. This geometry specializes in the range of effort from strolling to a brisk walk and kind of copies the movement and muscle use, so my guess is that this geometry is using the body's own efficiency in walking, and than about quadruples the forward motion, because that's what pedals and wheels do.

Thank you! :)

I was also told that the majority of the bikes imported here were assembled with the front brakes in the trailing position because it was easier to do, and the folks over here didn't know any better - or simply didn't care. That's how the trailing position was accepted as the "right" way to install them.

But the fellows with the beards in the tweed caps have set me straight on this, and I am pretty sure these brake pads were intended to lead, not follow... has anybody ever posted assembly instructions or technical literature on the DL-1? I would really like to see that.

You might want to contact Jon the Gentleman Cyclist and get one of his metal fulcrum sleeves. You can contact him through the Lake Pepin 3-speed Tour website.

OK, here's the results of my experiment. Mounted the pads with the arms in the leading position and did the usual set up. There may have been an improvement but it didn't really stand out. I can't say with any authority that it made a worthwhile difference or not. Too close to call. Then I mounted the pads directly onto the stirrups like the rear brake and bingo. The front brake became more powerful than the rear, just like a caliper brake bike. There's no doubt in my mind that offsetting the pads from the center line of the linkage diminishes pressure against the rim. The problem is that , even with the adjustment available, the pads need to be shimmed out too far to make up for the thickness and offset of the arms. There is only enough bolt left protruding to go half way through the nut, even if you leave off the washer. This arrangement is unsuitable for regular use, but was good enough for this experiment. I suppose I'll leave the pads in leading position for now and put building custom brake pads on my list of someday projects.
Attachment 532127

Attachment 532128

Wow, who knew? :foo: If it works better with the pads centered, I wonder why they didn't just do that in the first place.

This test will definitely be a topic of conversation at our next GC meeting at Barley John's.

Thanks, Big Chief! :thumb:

Are you sure you want the front brakes more powerful than the rear? It's probably designed as an all wheater bike and if it's a bit slippery and you front wheel locks, you're going down. If the rear wheel locks it's nothing a competent cyclist can't correct. I have rod brakes that apply both at the same time too, and I adjust them to lock the rear first.

Basic physics dictate that the front brakes are going to do something like 80% of the stopping under normal (dry road) conditions, simply because of the weight transfer once the brakes are applied. In bad weather, a competent cyclist is going to be cognizant of the front lockup risk, and do most of their braking with the rear.

Even when you adjust your front brake to be "tighter" than the rear, it is almost certain that the rear will lockup first - again, under normal, dry-road conditions, because it will be unweighted during braking.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that Big Chief experienced the same braking performance with both leading and trailing brake pad configurations. That just doesn't compute for me...:foo:

Yes, but aren't these rods operating both brakes at the same time? Mine are, but I have different type. The weight transfer is only happening when the bike actually slows down, not by just applying the brakes. If the front wheel slips over a slippery surface, there's hardly any weight transfer except your bodyweight moving in the direction of that surface.

Also these bikes have a lot of the weight on the rear wheel because the beautiful geometry, and the rider will also shift his weight to the rear to compensate. Not to add braking power but just intuitively not to go over the handlebars. And still, through the weight transfer, the front brake will get it's fair share of the stopping job if it's less agressive. So I would still consider the possibility that the brakes are designed to brake harder on the rear.

For those looking for some Raleigh in mainland Europe;
Raleigh - Marktplaats.nl

- Raleigh Royal ...
- Raleigh Routier 5-speed
- 50's Raleigh Royal Roadster ladies bike
- Unknown green Raleigh 50's ladies bike
- Red 60's Raleigh
- 50's/60's Raleigh/Sturmey Archer dynohub
- Wright w66 saddle
- Raleigh Ladys Roadster Model C from 1921 (The details on this one are great)
- 60's Raleigh Routier ladies bike
- Raleigh mens bike
- Raleigh rodbrake bike
- Green Raleigh mens bike
- 1959 BSA/Raleigh Star Rider ladies bike
- Raleigh frame
- 50's Raleigh Sports

And I can go on for a bit more. ;)
Granted, not all of these are true 50's/60's vintage bikes but they are all classic Raleigh 3-speeds.

Then there is the Dutch forum Oudefiets.nl (Oldbike) that talks about old bikes.

If anyone needs any translating/small shipping I can probably lend a hand as well.

Okay, now I see what drives your logic on this. The linked brakes are the key. If you can't practice differential braking in sketchy conditions, then you certainly do want the rear brakes to be more powerful.

My thinking comes from many years riding and racing motorcycles. As you know, most motorcycles have two large discs in the front, and one small disc at the back. This is because the braking is almost all done by the front end, especially once the rear wheel comes off the ground. If you watch modern motorcycle roadracing, you will sometimes see the rear of the bike up off the ground, waving like a flag as the rider struggles to retain control as he applies maximum braking force with the front when approaching a turn.

So of course I depend a lot on my front brakes for stopping in my day-to-day riding. But when it starts raining, or when I ride on dirt or gravel, the mental switch to rear-brake priority is almost automatic. I hope we're not wandering too far off-topic here...

I often ride my bicycle on snow, ice, and sometimes even black ice. And I don't know about motorcycles, but on bicycle with the front wheel locking on a slippery surface, there's no way you can save that. That's where my thinking comes from. So if the leaves start to fall, I screw the front rodbrake a bit looser, the nut is designed to do that by hand so probably the manufacturer had thought about this issue with linked brakes. Also with seperate handbrakes, I disconnect the front when it's slippery, because I applie them both or the one whichever hand is free, and that's not a safe habit in slippery conditions.

It's still about the brake design of an English 3-speed, so I don't think it's that far off topic. :)

Holy smokes!!! Look at that sky! Look at that trail! Look at that bike! Fabulous photos.

Its a simple fact that if the front and rear brakes are identical, the front will have 70-80% of the total braking power.

Additionally, the rear brake locks the wheel, the vehicle, whether 2,3 or 4 wheels will try to exchange the front wheel for the rear. Your closing comment is false- brakes are never designed that way.

Under most circumstances, the braking power should be applied equally to front and rear. On a very slippery surface with two wheels, the rear should be engaged first and then the front, using great care to not lock the wheel (else you are instantly off the machine and on the ground).

Agree but those rod brake linkages were more unpredictable because of the placement of the rear brake. The rotation of the wheel forces the flexible brake linkage into the the stay. The rear brakes always had the added 'foot' on the rear brake pad holder to prevent the stay from swallowing the linkage. This often resulted in uncontrolled stopping power, even the occasional lock up. Just my opinion from riding one for many years

Did some research and found that the "leading" position of the front brake pad is indeed the correct position for the arm and pad. It can be seen in this factory catalog photo from 1973. I think the Raleigh engineers added the arm and offset the pad to counter the condition clubman describes above. You do get a noticeable increase in stopping power from centering the pad directly on the stirrup, but at the cost of what I'll describe as grabbyness and perhaps unwanted lockup. I'll reassemble my front brake in the correct manner and many thanks [MENTION=429363]DQRider[/MENTION] for pointing out the error.
Attachment 532203

Yes, but the weight transfer will also shift the stopping power to the front wheel and prevent the front wheel from locking up, and the rear wheel will get 'light' and maybe skid. So even if you will set the brakes up to brake more on the rear wheel, through the weight shift the stopping power will still be mainly at the front wheel. The problem with slippery surfaces is that they take a lot of the weight transfer out of the equasion.

There's a big difference between 2 wheels and 4 wheels, on 4 wheels it's safer to have the front lock up first, on two wheels that's much more unsafe.

But do these rod brakes allow for that? I really can't see that in these or other pictures, all these rod systems look like they allow you to applie the brakes seperately, but the ones I come across never do.

And, with rod brakes, I have to remember that they are English style. ie: right/front left/rear unlike the rest of my bikes.

New Shoes for Robin Hood
 

Our LBS had ordered these new Schwalbe Delta Cruisers for a misguided customer to put on his "26" inch bike. I purchased them discounted and replaced the cheap Kendas I had on the bike. They look and ride great.


I found a broken pump for $10 at the Vintage Bike Show and have repaired it. The screw had come out of the leather piston but was still in the pump. I don't know its brand, but it is made in England.

I've not experienced that on my BSA Golden Deluxe. No matter how much braking action I ask of the rear wheel, I don't get an uncontrolled braking.

You've encountered linked brakes? I've not seen that on a bicycle before! Moto Guzzi had a patent for linked brakes on their motorbikes. IOW, yes, rod brakes allow for that, at least on my machine (I've had two) and every machine I've seen.

What a gorgeous bicycle! :love:

More pictures, please?