Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

Raleigh Professional Mk IV -- Will I fit it?

Notices
Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

Raleigh Professional Mk IV -- Will I fit it?

Old 09-17-20, 01:49 PM
  #1  
Ess4Bee
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: New England
Posts: 17

Bikes: 1985 Club Fuji, 199x Ciocc EL-OS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 7 Posts
Raleigh Professional Mk IV -- Will I fit it?

So here I am looking for a new bike -- something nice on a budget -- when I come across a fixer-upper 22.5'' 1975 Raleigh Professional. It has a little bit of surface rust and is missing some of its original Campy parts, but it looks alright in the pictures. The question though is: Will I fit it? I know that the best answer is to just check it out, but I live in a city and calling in a favor to have a friend drive me 1+ hour each way for a bike that might not fit isn't ideal, especially during the pandemic. I've also never owned a road bike before! My previous bike was a Trek 700 Multi-track that had a very hard life before I got it.

I'm just a hair under 6' tall with a 33.5'' cycling inseam. According to the internet look up tables, I would need a 58cm or 23''. Some folks on this forum might even suggest a 59cm. However, according to the Competitive Cyclist bike fit calculator, a French Fit for me would be 57.4-57.8cm and a Competitive Fit would be 56.2-56.6cm. I've read every forum post on there about the bike, but I really wanted to ask directly if anyone with this particular bike and size combination had any advice.

Of course whether or not it's a good idea for me to buy this bike is a totally separate question!
Ess4Bee is offline  
Old 09-17-20, 01:56 PM
  #2  
Narhay
Senior Member
 
Narhay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,731
Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Liked 568 Times in 314 Posts
For 6' I would wait for the 23.5" version. I am 6'2" and have 3 Raleighs of the 24.5" size.

If you are fairly flexible and ok with more saddle to bar drop you could make it work but as this is your first road bike you may find it uncomfortable.

Are your numbers for a modern sloping top tube bike or for a vintage horizontal top tube? Horizontal top tubes usually add a bit to the seat tube measurement that you want.
Narhay is offline  
Likes For Narhay:
Old 09-17-20, 02:04 PM
  #3  
cudak888 
www.theheadbadge.com
 
cudak888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Posts: 28,496

Bikes: https://www.theheadbadge.com

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2401 Post(s)
Liked 4,350 Times in 2,075 Posts
I have a 22.5" Pro Mk.IV and Mk.V, along with a 23.5" '75 Mk.IV - and I'm pushing the limits of fit on the 22.5's with a 32" inseam at 5' 10". I concur with @Narhay. Wait for the larger frame.

I made a grave error with this statement. My shorter Professionals are 21.5". Of course they'd be a tight fit - disregard what I say above, it's not a fair comparison.

FYI, I've been asked off-forum as to how these measure out at the headtube. For anyone curious:
  • 1975 Pro Mk.IV - 21.5" seattube CTT, 5.5" headtube
  • 1975 Pro Mk.IV - 23.5" seattube CTT, 6.5" headtube (interesting how the BB dropped an inch over two frame sizes)
  • 1978 Pro Mk.IV - 21.5" seattube CTT, 5.75" headtube (probably to compensate for the shallower crown and tighter wheel clearances on the redesigned model)
-Kurt
__________________













Last edited by cudak888; 09-19-20 at 10:01 AM.
cudak888 is offline  
Old 09-17-20, 02:06 PM
  #4  
Ess4Bee
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: New England
Posts: 17

Bikes: 1985 Club Fuji, 199x Ciocc EL-OS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 7 Posts
Thanks Narhay and cudak888 for preventing a potentially expensive mistake! I'll keep on looking.
Ess4Bee is offline  
Likes For Ess4Bee:
Old 09-17-20, 02:10 PM
  #5  
niliraga 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 557

Bikes: 1970s Coppi/Fiorelli beater, 1973 Raleigh Competition, 1972 Bob Jackson, 1970 Cilo Sprint-X, 1985 Fuji Touring Series IV, 1969 Legnano Roma

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 217 Post(s)
Liked 198 Times in 129 Posts
my inseam is just 0.5" more that yours, and I'm riding 60-61cm frames -- my own $0.02 is that a 22.5" Professional will never feel fully right under you.
niliraga is offline  
Likes For niliraga:
Old 09-17-20, 05:37 PM
  #6  
plonz 
Senior Member
 
plonz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Western MI
Posts: 2,878
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 648 Post(s)
Liked 451 Times in 293 Posts
If the 57.1cm is c-t-c, I think it is on the small end of your range but can absolutely work. I’ve opined in these forums many times about my preference for smaller frames and using cranks, post and stem to “grow” them. Biggest compromise I end up making is having to use a 90 degree stem (not a Technomic fan). If it was a screaming deal, I wouldn’t hesitate.

Here is my smallest of borderline-too-small subjects. Actually did use a long quill stem. Certainly not French fit but I like it!



Last edited by plonz; 09-17-20 at 05:41 PM.
plonz is offline  
Old 09-17-20, 05:47 PM
  #7  
jdawginsc 
Edumacator
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 7,425

Bikes: '87 Crestdale, '87 Basso Gap, '92 Rossin Performance EL-OS, 1990 VanTuyl, 1980s Losa, 1985 Trek 670, 1982 AD SLE, 1987 PX10, etc...

Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2385 Post(s)
Liked 2,930 Times in 1,861 Posts
I’m 5’11 with a 32.5 inseam and 56-57 feels right to me. I’ve been looking at slightly bigger of late for a sport-gravel gal to see if I am missing something.

like plonz I’m a fan of a bit smaller (55-57) depending on the top tube.
__________________
1987 Crest Cannondale, 1987 Basso Gap, 1992 Rossin Performance EL, 1990ish Van Tuyl, 1985 Trek 670, 1982 AD SLE, 2003 Pinarello Surprise, 1990ish MBK Atlantique, 1987 Peugeot Competition, 1987 Nishiki Tri-A, 1981 Faggin, 1996 Cannondale M500, 1984 Mercian, 1982 AD SuperLeicht, 1985 Massi (model unknown), 1988 Daccordi Griffe , 1989 Fauxsin MTB, 1981 Ciocc Mockba, 1992 Bianchi Giro, 1977 Colnago Super












jdawginsc is offline  
Old 09-17-20, 06:22 PM
  #8  
nlerner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 17,127
Mentioned: 480 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3788 Post(s)
Liked 6,573 Times in 2,580 Posts
I think top tube length is much more important to get right, and that’s a function of torso length, flexibility, riding style, and preference. I need the top of my saddle to be 73cm from the center of the BB, and can achieve that with frames that have seat tubes from 56cm to 60cm. I can fitz with stem length to get the top end right, but that has much more of an effect on handling than the length of my seat tube.
nlerner is offline  
Old 09-17-20, 07:43 PM
  #9  
Random Tandem
Old Bike Craphound
 
Random Tandem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 206

Bikes: 1974 Teledyne Titan, 1970's Sekine, 1980's Kuwahara Tandem, plus a few dozen

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked 58 Times in 31 Posts
I am 5'11.5" with a similar inseam to the OP and I have four old 23.5" Raleigh frames (1976 Professional IV, 1973 International, and two 1978 Super Course) in part because they fit me so well. I also recommend waiting for the larger size. I have other bikes ranging from 21" to 25" (all traditional vintage with horizontal top tube), but 23.5" is the sweet spot of not needing a long seatpost and riser stem and having no issue with standover (but I usually get off my bike when I want to stand around...).

-Will
Random Tandem is offline  
Old 09-17-20, 09:35 PM
  #10  
repechage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,320
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3449 Post(s)
Liked 2,800 Times in 1,974 Posts
23.5” Raleigh Frame would be my rec
while they went to a slightly shorter top tube later, at 6’ should be quite good
11cm stems provide a good “swing”
repechage is offline  
Old 09-17-20, 09:44 PM
  #11  
desconhecido 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,797
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked 144 Times in 107 Posts
If the 22.5" is the official Raleigh size, the frame could be a bit smaller than most people would measure it. The Raleigh measurement back in those days was, as I understand it, to the very top of the seat tube, a bit above the top line of the top tube, maybe 5mm or so. For example, I'm 5' 6" and a 21.5" Raleigh International is quite fine for me. When I go to measure it, it comes out to a small 54 cm, ctt and maybe 53 cm ctc. So, that 22.5" Raleigh might match up to a small 57 cm ctt or about 56 cm ctc. So, yeah, it would probably be a bit small for you
desconhecido is offline  
Old 09-18-20, 01:11 AM
  #12  
Lascauxcaveman 
Senior Member
 
Lascauxcaveman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Posts: 8,016

Bikes: A green one, "Ragleigh," or something.

Mentioned: 194 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1627 Post(s)
Liked 629 Times in 355 Posts
I concur; the frame is likely too small for you.

Great bike, though.
__________________
● 1971 Grandis SL ● 1972 Lambert Grand Prix frankenbike ● 1972 Raleigh Super Course fixie ● 1973 Nishiki Semi-Pro ● 1979 Motobecane Grand Jubile ●1980 Apollo "Legnano" ● 1984 Peugeot Vagabond ● 1985 Shogun Prairie Breaker ● 1986 Merckx Super Corsa ● 1987 Schwinn Tempo ● 1988 Schwinn Voyageur ● 1989 Bottechia Team ADR replica ● 1990 Cannondale ST600 ● 1993 Technium RT600 ● 1996 Kona Lava Dome ●

Lascauxcaveman is offline  
Old 09-18-20, 06:41 AM
  #13  
Prowler 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Near Pottstown, PA: 30 miles NW of Philadelphia
Posts: 2,185

Bikes: 2 Trek Mtn, Cannondale R600 road, 6 vintage road bikes

Mentioned: 83 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked 1,015 Times in 397 Posts
My Pro is one of the last MK IVs (8/76). These days, I tell people I'm 5 foot 11.14159 (only one person's got the joke). I purchase jeans in 32" length. I do not care about all the different tribal customs for measuring frame sizes - too confusing. I only talk metric ctc for my road bikes, all level top tubes. My MK IV is 58cm ctc with a TT of 57cm ctc. My 9cm stem is 4cm lower than the saddle and holds 38cm Road Champion bars. My saddle is nose down about 2deg. 700c wheels. 28mm tires. This bike is ALL day, long miles comfortable. A great bike. And that British chrome plating is just gorgeous.

I can flat foot on this bike with the TT just brushing me, no discomfort. I also rarely flat foot the bike, rarely just stand over it unless I'm checking the mailbox.

Prowler is offline  
Likes For Prowler:
Old 09-18-20, 06:58 AM
  #14  
Classtime 
Senior Member
 
Classtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,672

Bikes: 82 Medici, 2011 Richard Sachs, 2011 Milwaukee Road

Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1924 Post(s)
Liked 1,954 Times in 1,086 Posts
I don't know what cycling inseam means. Is that the barefoot-book-in-the-crotch-against-the-wall measurement? If it is a good price, you can make it fit. I would drive more than an hour for a deal on a Raleigh Pro that wasn't too big for me. FWIIW, My son is easily 3 inches taller than me and we have the same saddle height.
__________________
I don't do: disks, tubeless, e-shifting, or bead head nymphs.

Last edited by Classtime; 09-18-20 at 07:09 AM.
Classtime is offline  
Old 09-18-20, 08:05 AM
  #15  
cudak888 
www.theheadbadge.com
 
cudak888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Posts: 28,496

Bikes: https://www.theheadbadge.com

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2401 Post(s)
Liked 4,350 Times in 2,075 Posts
Originally Posted by Prowler
My Pro is one of the last MK IVs (8/76).
Wow - a Pro Mk.IV with Bocama Professional headlugs. Never seen that before.

Definitely goes to show that anything could happen at Raleigh.

-Kurt
__________________












cudak888 is offline  
Old 09-18-20, 10:08 AM
  #16  
Prowler 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Near Pottstown, PA: 30 miles NW of Philadelphia
Posts: 2,185

Bikes: 2 Trek Mtn, Cannondale R600 road, 6 vintage road bikes

Mentioned: 83 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked 1,015 Times in 397 Posts
Originally Posted by cudak888
Wow - a Pro Mk.IV with Bocama Professional headlugs. Never seen that before.

Definitely goes to show that anything could happen at Raleigh.

-Kurt
Yes, its the only one I've seen too. I can envision those halcyon days in late August 1976 when the MK IV production was winding down in preparation for the annual shutdown and retool for the Mk V. Reggie (or Claud, or Harry or whomever the builder was) turns to the lug bins and says "Blimey, mate. The lugs is gone, empty, skint! Wadda we do?" So he rummages and finds the Bocama Professionals, think no one will notice, eh? Then 45 years later some bloke in 'murica just glows whenever he sees them, happy for the unique and classy look they give that DL180 frame. How nice.
Prowler is offline  
Likes For Prowler:
Old 09-18-20, 10:25 AM
  #17  
Charles Wahl
Disraeli Gears
 
Charles Wahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,162
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 504 Post(s)
Liked 364 Times in 213 Posts
I have no idea what "cycling inseam" is; does that mean pubic bone height (PBH), or pants inseam, or something else? Here is a photo of a 22.5" nominal Raleigh lightweight with upright geometry (74 x 74 degrees) that I, as someone shorter than OP, rode for many years and enjoyed a lot, but I thought that the exposed lengths of seat post and stem looked dorky, and that bothered me enough to swear off bikes squarely in the middle range of size:


Based on limited height/inseam info given by OP, I'm inclined to agree with advice that this is not an optimal frame size for him, but not unrideable. Things would look worse with a non-fluted seat post, and eventually this bike got a Nitto Dirt Drop stem with up-angled forward projection that made the stem exposure look better too. These things can be done; but with lots of seat post and lots of stem, and you might as well be riding an MTB.
My standard saddle height is 77 cm from BB centerline, measured along seat post, with a 170 mm crank (so 94 cm from pedal spindle to saddle).
Full disclosure: I am long-legged for my 5'-10 1/2" height (83 cm PBH, 32" pants inseam), and prefer a more "toes-down" leg action, I think, than many cyclists, so that exaggerates things a little. I can ride up to a 63 cm CTT frame with no problem standover-wise, though 61 cm (24") or 62 CTT is probably a better fit. A 63 cm frame gives me about 5.5-6 cm of a Campagnolo vintage 2-bolt seat post exposed -- also entirely reasonable-looking at that end of the spectrum. And on a 63 cm bike, I can get away with a "normal" racing bike stem like an English GB or Cinelli 1A, and have the bars at a reasonably comfortable height for my "sexagenarian" cycling style with a somatotype that's just a bit into the "overweight" BMI category. YMMdefinitelyV -- just an example.

Last edited by Charles Wahl; 09-18-20 at 10:30 AM.
Charles Wahl is offline  
Old 09-18-20, 12:08 PM
  #18  
Kilroy1988 
Senior Member
 
Kilroy1988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,275
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked 1,838 Times in 608 Posts
Just as a note, based on your height and inseam the sweet spot will definitely be the 23.5" frame, as you would have the saddle raised quite a bit on the 22.5" and not enough stand over room left on the 24.5." The Mark IV had a high bottom bracket - the 24.5" frame I ride has a stand over height that is only 1/4" less than my 25.5" 1970 Raleigh Super Course (and if the Professional had the same 27" wheels and tires as my Super Course, it would actually be taller)! With my 34.5" inseam both of them feel snug when I stand over them flat-footed in shoes. The Mark IV's geometry is unique among the early-'70s Raleigh lineup and for standover purposes needs to be considered taller than it may usually be.

The 22.5" frame would certainly be workable and probably the most comfortable for standover, if you're willing to have the saddle raised quite a bit, but I would not consider the 24.5" frame for the reasons above at your height. I only chime in to mention that because the 24.5" frames seem to come up frequently for sale, and may seem tempting based on traditional geometry...

Last edited by Kilroy1988; 09-18-20 at 12:15 PM.
Kilroy1988 is offline  
Old 09-18-20, 01:57 PM
  #19  
Ess4Bee
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: New England
Posts: 17

Bikes: 1985 Club Fuji, 199x Ciocc EL-OS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 7 Posts
I ended up passing on it. It's a pretty big project even if it does fit. And I don't think it's that good of a deal. It's presently $450 and missing at least some of the original components.

A much cheaper 1985 Fuji Club came up for sale close by that I picked up instead. It's a bit rough, and I had to pay $225 for it, but it's pretty hard to get a bike these days in my city. At the every least, I doubt it'll depreciate much if I want a better bike in a year or two.

Last edited by Ess4Bee; 09-18-20 at 02:10 PM.
Ess4Bee is offline  
Likes For Ess4Bee:
Old 09-18-20, 03:05 PM
  #20  
LittleGinseng 
lurking nightrider
 
LittleGinseng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 576

Bikes: '84 Lotus Supreme, '85 Club Fuji, '86 Schwinn Peloton, '87 DS Ironman Expert, '87 Maruishi Professional, '88 Takara

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked 57 Times in 34 Posts
Originally Posted by Ess4Bee
A much cheaper 1985 Fuji Club came up for sale close by that I picked up instead. It's a bit rough, and I had to pay $225 for it, but it's pretty hard to get a bike these days in my city. At the every least, I doubt it'll depreciate much if I want a better bike in a year or two.
I'd love to see that '85 Club Fuji. Please post a pic if you get a chance. I've had my Club since new in May of 1985. It was what I rode for years until I began to expand to N+1.
__________________
"If there hadn't been women we'd still be squatting in a cave eating raw meat, because we made civilization in order to impress our girl friends. And they tolerated it and let us go ahead and play with our toys." Orson Welles
LittleGinseng is offline  
Old 09-18-20, 03:34 PM
  #21  
Ess4Bee
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: New England
Posts: 17

Bikes: 1985 Club Fuji, 199x Ciocc EL-OS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by LittleGinseng
I'd love to see that '85 Club Fuji. Please post a pic if you get a chance. I've had my Club since new in May of 1985. It was what I rode for years until I began to expand to N+1.
I'd love to, but apparently I haven't posted enough to upload photos yet. I guess it'll have to wait until I clean her up a bit.
Ess4Bee is offline  
Likes For Ess4Bee:
Old 09-19-20, 10:02 AM
  #22  
cudak888 
www.theheadbadge.com
 
cudak888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Posts: 28,496

Bikes: https://www.theheadbadge.com

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2401 Post(s)
Liked 4,350 Times in 2,075 Posts
FYI, I made an error in my initial post - my "22.5 inch" frames are actually 21.5's, which makes the comparison quite different indeed. I've edited my post above to reflect this.

-Kurt
__________________












cudak888 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.