70s Worksop Raleigh Team Professional in US/France - different 531 frame tubes/gauges
#26
WingsToWheels
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: France
Posts: 231
Bikes: Italian, French, British
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
41 Posts
Maybe I should ask to have the thread title changed for better targeting the topic. Can an admin do that?
#28
Fat Guy on a Little Bike
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,944
Bikes: Two wheeled ones
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1254 Post(s)
Liked 345 Times
in
174 Posts
I had one of these some years ago. Only an SBDU built frame is a "team" frame...the others are replicas, and there were several replicas made. Most were Raleigh records with team livery, but not all; they also had a Raleigh Professional - Worksop built - in team livery. I think they also had a competition level bike with the livery as well.
It was a very nice frame.
It was a very nice frame.
#29
WingsToWheels
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: France
Posts: 231
Bikes: Italian, French, British
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
41 Posts
I had one of these some years ago. Only an SBDU built frame is a "team" frame...the others are replicas, and there were several replicas made. Most were Raleigh records with team livery, but not all; they also had a Raleigh Professional - Worksop built - in team livery. I think they also had a competition level bike with the livery as well.
It was a very nice frame.
It was a very nice frame.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3464 Post(s)
Liked 2,829 Times
in
1,995 Posts
In the mid 70's the team pros were too expensive and just not hip way back.
753 was too long a wait.
the shop I worked for never ordered any.
we had Masi, Confente, why bother trying to push a sale?
753 was too long a wait.
the shop I worked for never ordered any.
we had Masi, Confente, why bother trying to push a sale?
Likes For repechage:
#31
WingsToWheels
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: France
Posts: 231
Bikes: Italian, French, British
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
41 Posts
anyway, I read many positive comments here from those who had/have one, despite the many stories of not always perfect builds from Raleigh. Personally, I’m looking at this Professional to try its ride feeling and see how different it would be vs my (French) Team Record, but if tubing and geometry were the same and the only differences were the lugwork or other small details, I would have no interest in owning both. Hence my questions about potential differences in tube gauges. Apparently not an easy information to retrieve…
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3464 Post(s)
Liked 2,829 Times
in
1,995 Posts
The differences in tubing are not that great.
the variables in actual construction will I think have more to do with it.
the variables in actual construction will I think have more to do with it.
Likes For repechage:
#33
WingsToWheels
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: France
Posts: 231
Bikes: Italian, French, British
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
41 Posts
- - - - - - -
Tubes: in the US there’s no way to spot any difference on catalogs between the Pro and the CompGS tube gauges and I couldn’t find any witnessing on this point. What is sure is that the Reynolds decal is the standard 531 green for both. As by that time the red 531SL had been around for a few years and would have been identified if used, it is most likely that both models used the Standard butted 531, with maybe (a big “maybe”) the Pro getting a slightly lighter gauge mix. Differences in weight would anyway likely be small, as suggested above. In the meantime in France the Reynolds distribution seemed a little different: very early (at least 1970) a distinction was already made between three different gauges, the first (called 7/10e “léger” or light) resembling to the standard butted 531 and the second (5/10e “extra-léger” or extra-light) very similar to the 531SL that only officially appeared in 1976. Here in the late 70s, Raleigh sold the Team Pro and the Team Record as 5/10e with the standard green 531 decal, one being extra-light and the other just light. That is weird! A real 5/10e equivalent to the 531SL should have had the red decal, well available in ‘78 and ‘79, so why the green one? Could one explanation be a marketing half-lie, i.e. we know that even for the standard 7/10e the seat tube thin gauge was 0.5mm, so why not referring just to that one? Another might be a marketing error: they were indeed standard 531 but wrongly described as 5/10e. That would be consistent with the US models. And the reference to extra-light just a hint to some lighter gauge mix which could still not be labeled red SL. As in the US, the difference would in any case be rather small. Conclusion: tubing difference should not be significative.
Geometry: for the US models I spotted a reference to geometry in the ‘78 catalog. On a 21 1/2" frame, the Pro had a wheelbase of 39 1/4", a 73° head-tube angle and a 75° seat-tube angle, while the CompGS had a wheelbase of 39 3/8", a 74° head-tube angle and a 74° seat-tube angle. Basically the same wheelbase and probably a slightly shorter top-tube and/or chainstays for the Pro to make it a little more reactive. As per the French Team Pro and Record the two frames in question are not the same size to be compared and I don’t have all the specs. The Pro has a 50.5cm ST c-c and 54cm TT c-c, while the Record has a 52.5cm ST c-c and 56cm TT c-c, with a 100cm wheelbase similar to the US models. These are not exactly compact geometries as those some US riders described, but it’s hard to say. Add to this the "toe clip overlap" issue mentioned above, and it becomes impossible to give an advice. I would therefore stick to the US models. Conclusion: slight differences in geometry that could make the Pro a little more reactive and racing oriented.
Lugs: clearly there are differences. Compared to the second ranked models, both the US and French Pro have nicer, lighter cutout lugs, added reinforcements like on the rear brake bridge, and a cutout BB with brazed-on cable guides. Fork crowns however should be the same. Attached are some pics for illustration on the two French models. I cannot judge what would be the final effect on ride feeling. Conclusion: better lugwork on the Pro, improved performances likely but tbc…
Frame building: considering that we’re only talking about Worksop production, one might expect it to be a non-issue. Indeed, in the US catalogs there are no hints to potential differences between the Pro and the CompGS. However, in France the Team Pro model was positioned as a hand-built, taylor made bike also available in 753 tubes, whose delivery depended on the “atelier Course”. I don’t know about their production organisation, but it’s like there was a higher care (dedicated team?) for the Pro models leading to higher quality builds, e.g. on geometry checks or brazing precision, in contrast to a more chain production quality for the other models. Conclusion: potentially a better building quality for the Pro.
That’s all folks, everything I found on these high end Raleigh models on both sides of the pond. It would be great if someone with direct experience could provide further comments and corrections to this research. I hope this modest contribution (compared to all the knowledge provided here) might be of some use.
Many thanks!!!
Pics: Team Pro vs Team Record
Team Pro (left) vs Team Record (right): Reinforced bridge
Team Pro (left) vs Team Record (right): Different ST lugs but same full Reynolds 531 butted tubes green decal
Team Pro (top) vs Team Record (bottom): nicer and lighter lugs
Team Pro (left) vs Team Record (right): Oversized caps?
Team Pro (left) vs Team Record (right): Cutout BB and braze-on cable guides
Team Pro (left) vs Team Record (right): Shorter Campagnolo dropouts without eyelet
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,305
Mentioned: 130 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3464 Post(s)
Liked 2,829 Times
in
1,995 Posts
I misunderstood. I read it as trying to compare metric and imperial dimension Reynolds tubing for the same given model. A team pro.
you are comparing a wide swath of frames and geometries, Build care.
Buy more and evaluate them.
be sure to note actual geometries vs catalog.
you are comparing a wide swath of frames and geometries, Build care.
Buy more and evaluate them.
be sure to note actual geometries vs catalog.
#35
WingsToWheels
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: France
Posts: 231
Bikes: Italian, French, British
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
41 Posts
Not a large swat, just two models, the first and second in line. As this comparison can be done in two different markets, given the roughly equivalent specs, I looked at both sides of the pond for more hints.
Thanks for your help.
#36
WingsToWheels
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: France
Posts: 231
Bikes: Italian, French, British
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
41 Posts
Hi all,
An update to this post with more info: the Team Pro frame eventually arrived (I couldn’t resist) and I can now complete the side by side comparison with the Team Record on top of what already posted. This analysis should likely also apply to the Professional MK V / Competition GS comparison for the US market. Below are some conclusions, a side by side comparison table, and finally some pictures.
GEOMETRY: These two Team frames are only one size different, geometry looks very similar and not really as tight as one would expect. The Pro in particular has a TT/ST ratio quite high, probably because of the toe overlap issue mentioned earlier in the thread. The Record has a slightly lower seat tube angle, just as per the numbers in the US catalogs. However, I come up with the same tube angles for both, unlike the catalogs where they slightly differ. Wheelbase and chainstays are the same. Conclusion —> minimal more agressive geometry for the Pro.
TUBES: Both frames have imperial tubing and same main tubes and chainstays outside diameter. Seatpost diameter is 27.2 in both cases, suggesting same Reynolds 531 tube gauges. However, fork blades and seatsyats differ. The Pro has larger round seatstays, starting at 16mm under the seat lug tapering more markedly down towards the dropouts, and also has stiffeners at the brake bridge. Its whole upper rear therefore seems to be built for more responsiveness. Forks differences are visible at first sight: the Record has narrow Continental Oval blades, while the Pro has the larger New Continental Oval. That translates into a lighter fork (more later) and, per Reynolds wording, “with a long gradual change of gauge, for lightness and […] necessary resilience at the rake while maintaining its strength at the crown”. Conclusion —> stronger upper rear and lighter fork for a racier Pro frame build.
WEIGHT: Surprisingly, the two frames show exactly the same weight at 1935 gr. Surprisingly because I expected the Pro to use lighter tube gauges and because it is one size smaller. But as it seems that main tubes likely have the same gauges, the Pro smaller size weight gain must be counterbalanced by the sum of braze-ons and larger seatstays. The two forks have different tubing and unsurprisingly different weight, with the shorter Pro fork at 630 gr. and the longer Record at 700 gr.
That makes an overall weight of 2564 gr. for the Pro and 2635 gr. for the Record, not the lightest but not bad at all. Conclusion —> only small gain in weight for the Pro due to the fork.
I won’t go through all other frame details differences, most of them have been posted earlier. Hoping that these research will be of use to those interested, as always your comments, corrections and suggestions are welcome.
As a concluding remark, I would say that both frames are nice, sporty, lightweight road machines. I didn’t expect less from the Pro, but was surprised to see how the Record specs (and likely the US equivalent Competition GS?) are so close. Yes, there are differences, but don’t know if I could be able to spot any in a Magnificent7-like blind riding test. Guess there’s only one way to know, but that will be another story someday…
Pro on the left: braze-ons, oversized seat lugs, no dropout eyelet, no shifters notch (why???)
Same fork crown, but the Pro uses New Continental Oval blades.
An update to this post with more info: the Team Pro frame eventually arrived (I couldn’t resist) and I can now complete the side by side comparison with the Team Record on top of what already posted. This analysis should likely also apply to the Professional MK V / Competition GS comparison for the US market. Below are some conclusions, a side by side comparison table, and finally some pictures.
GEOMETRY: These two Team frames are only one size different, geometry looks very similar and not really as tight as one would expect. The Pro in particular has a TT/ST ratio quite high, probably because of the toe overlap issue mentioned earlier in the thread. The Record has a slightly lower seat tube angle, just as per the numbers in the US catalogs. However, I come up with the same tube angles for both, unlike the catalogs where they slightly differ. Wheelbase and chainstays are the same. Conclusion —> minimal more agressive geometry for the Pro.
TUBES: Both frames have imperial tubing and same main tubes and chainstays outside diameter. Seatpost diameter is 27.2 in both cases, suggesting same Reynolds 531 tube gauges. However, fork blades and seatsyats differ. The Pro has larger round seatstays, starting at 16mm under the seat lug tapering more markedly down towards the dropouts, and also has stiffeners at the brake bridge. Its whole upper rear therefore seems to be built for more responsiveness. Forks differences are visible at first sight: the Record has narrow Continental Oval blades, while the Pro has the larger New Continental Oval. That translates into a lighter fork (more later) and, per Reynolds wording, “with a long gradual change of gauge, for lightness and […] necessary resilience at the rake while maintaining its strength at the crown”. Conclusion —> stronger upper rear and lighter fork for a racier Pro frame build.
WEIGHT: Surprisingly, the two frames show exactly the same weight at 1935 gr. Surprisingly because I expected the Pro to use lighter tube gauges and because it is one size smaller. But as it seems that main tubes likely have the same gauges, the Pro smaller size weight gain must be counterbalanced by the sum of braze-ons and larger seatstays. The two forks have different tubing and unsurprisingly different weight, with the shorter Pro fork at 630 gr. and the longer Record at 700 gr.
That makes an overall weight of 2564 gr. for the Pro and 2635 gr. for the Record, not the lightest but not bad at all. Conclusion —> only small gain in weight for the Pro due to the fork.
I won’t go through all other frame details differences, most of them have been posted earlier. Hoping that these research will be of use to those interested, as always your comments, corrections and suggestions are welcome.
As a concluding remark, I would say that both frames are nice, sporty, lightweight road machines. I didn’t expect less from the Pro, but was surprised to see how the Record specs (and likely the US equivalent Competition GS?) are so close. Yes, there are differences, but don’t know if I could be able to spot any in a Magnificent7-like blind riding test. Guess there’s only one way to know, but that will be another story someday…
Pro on the left: braze-ons, oversized seat lugs, no dropout eyelet, no shifters notch (why???)
Same fork crown, but the Pro uses New Continental Oval blades.