70's & 80's Geometries: Raliegh, Fuji, Peugot, and others?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by pinnah, Apr 21, 2006.

  1. pinnah

    pinnah Guest

    Hey folks,

    I've become interested in 70's and 80's production bikes. While I can
    find some sources for catalogs and such, I'm having a hard time
    finding information on frame geometries.

    Could anybody point me to resources where older 70s and 80s vintage
    frame specs might be found?

    Or could people volunteer info they've found?

    I'm particularly interested in the documenting the frame angles, fork
    rakes and chainstay lengths of sport touring bikes of that era
    compared to production race bikes.




    -- Dave
    ==============================================
    "It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
    without the proper equipment."
    Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
    ==============================================
     
    Tags:


  2. In article <[email protected]>,
    pinnah <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Hey folks,
    >
    > I've become interested in 70's and 80's production bikes. While I can
    > find some sources for catalogs and such, I'm having a hard time
    > finding information on frame geometries.
    >
    > Could anybody point me to resources where older 70s and 80s vintage
    > frame specs might be found?
    >
    > Or could people volunteer info they've found?
    >
    > I'm particularly interested in the documenting the frame angles, fork
    > rakes and chainstay lengths of sport touring bikes of that era
    > compared to production race bikes.


    What do you plan to do with this information?

    --
    Michael Press
     
  3. hi pinnah.

    i would say that the book, "The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles" by
    Jan Heine. I have a copy of this book and you'll find it an excellent
    resource. Interestingly, Jan is also the editor for the vintage bicycle
    quartely magazine, published four times a year.

    This link will tell u more about the book, and how to subscribe to the
    magazine. Link : http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/goldenage.html

    Also, in the month of june, if you're ready to do some travelling to
    North Carolina, then you can attend the classic and handmade bicycle
    show, and be part of some seminars.

    The link is : http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Cirque.htm


    hope this helps,

    ron
     
  4. pinnah

    pinnah Guest

    Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
    >What do you plan to do with this information?



    Incorporate it in my spreadsheet of bike geometries here:
    http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/bikes/bikes.html




    -- Dave
    ==============================================
    "It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
    without the proper equipment."
    Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
    ==============================================
     
  5. pinnah

    pinnah Guest

    "bicycle_disciple" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >i would say that the book, "The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles" by
    >Jan Heine. I have a copy of this book and you'll find it an excellent
    >resource. Interestingly, Jan is also the editor for the vintage bicycle
    >quartely magazine, published four times a year.



    Ron,

    I've corresponded with Jan a few times on the i-Bob list and he's been
    very helpful.

    My understanding is that is his book focuses on the early handmade
    french bikes of the 50s and 60s.

    I'm more interested in production bikes that hit the US in the 70s and
    80s.

    Some background... I've read about a zillion discussions about why
    long trail (short rake) designs are supposed to be more stable but
    have recently gone back to a '79 Trek Sport Touring bike. I can't
    believe how much further I can ride with less effort and how much more
    stable that bike is over bumpy rough roads. I'm glad to see the
    Specialized Roubaix (among others) moving to slacker HAs and more rake
    but I get the sense we are just rediscovering what once was common.

    More generally, I'm interested in the classic sport tourer and am
    wondering now how widespread it was in the 70s and 80s. My
    recollection is that most of the bikes I sold back then were 73 degree
    parallel designs with 5.5 cm of rake and about 43 cm stays. But its
    pretty hard to find anything more than the angles documented and
    often, not even that.




    -- Dave
    ==============================================
    "It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
    without the proper equipment."
    Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
    ==============================================
     
  6. well pinnah...

    go to sheldon brown, see if he has any thoughts on this subject... :) i
    couldnt help u any better..

    -ron

    pinnah wrote:
    > "bicycle_disciple" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >i would say that the book, "The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles" by
    > >Jan Heine. I have a copy of this book and you'll find it an excellent
    > >resource. Interestingly, Jan is also the editor for the vintage bicycle
    > >quartely magazine, published four times a year.

    >
    >
    > Ron,
    >
    > I've corresponded with Jan a few times on the i-Bob list and he's been
    > very helpful.
    >
    > My understanding is that is his book focuses on the early handmade
    > french bikes of the 50s and 60s.
    >
    > I'm more interested in production bikes that hit the US in the 70s and
    > 80s.
    >
    > Some background... I've read about a zillion discussions about why
    > long trail (short rake) designs are supposed to be more stable but
    > have recently gone back to a '79 Trek Sport Touring bike. I can't
    > believe how much further I can ride with less effort and how much more
    > stable that bike is over bumpy rough roads. I'm glad to see the
    > Specialized Roubaix (among others) moving to slacker HAs and more rake
    > but I get the sense we are just rediscovering what once was common.
    >
    > More generally, I'm interested in the classic sport tourer and am
    > wondering now how widespread it was in the 70s and 80s. My
    > recollection is that most of the bikes I sold back then were 73 degree
    > parallel designs with 5.5 cm of rake and about 43 cm stays. But its
    > pretty hard to find anything more than the angles documented and
    > often, not even that.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > -- Dave
    > ==============================================
    > "It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
    > without the proper equipment."
    > Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
    > ==============================================
     
  7. In article <[email protected]>,
    pinnah <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "bicycle_disciple" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >i would say that the book, "The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles" by
    > >Jan Heine. I have a copy of this book and you'll find it an excellent
    > >resource. Interestingly, Jan is also the editor for the vintage bicycle
    > >quartely magazine, published four times a year.

    >
    >
    > Ron,
    >
    > I've corresponded with Jan a few times on the i-Bob list and he's been
    > very helpful.
    >
    > My understanding is that is his book focuses on the early handmade
    > french bikes of the 50s and 60s.
    >
    > I'm more interested in production bikes that hit the US in the 70s and
    > 80s.
    >
    > Some background... I've read about a zillion discussions about why
    > long trail (short rake) designs are supposed to be more stable but
    > have recently gone back to a '79 Trek Sport Touring bike. I can't
    > believe how much further I can ride with less effort and how much more
    > stable that bike is over bumpy rough roads. I'm glad to see the
    > Specialized Roubaix (among others) moving to slacker HAs and more rake
    > but I get the sense we are just rediscovering what once was common.
    >
    > More generally, I'm interested in the classic sport tourer and am
    > wondering now how widespread it was in the 70s and 80s. My
    > recollection is that most of the bikes I sold back then were 73 degree
    > parallel designs with 5.5 cm of rake and about 43 cm stays. But its
    > pretty hard to find anything more than the angles documented and
    > often, not even that.


    Around here we say fork offset, not rake.

    Stable can have different meanings. One of my bicycles is
    very quick to turn and requires more skill than average to
    ride no hands; yet it tracks like a laser on descents.

    --
    Michael Press
     
  8. On 21 Apr 2006 20:04:47 -0700, "bicycle_disciple"
    <1.cra[email protected]> wrote:

    >hi pinnah.
    >
    >i would say that the book, "The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles" by
    >Jan Heine. I have a copy of this book and you'll find it an excellent
    >resource.


    Does it have information on "70's and 80's production bikes" which is
    what pinnah asked about? From the title, it sounds like it's about
    fancy handbuilt bikes, not the same thing.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
  9. Road Man

    Road Man Guest

    The book primarily addresses constructeur (custom, very high-end)
    French bikes of the '30s through '50s. It discusses a classic make
    produced in the '90s. I don't recall it spending much space at all
    about geometry details. Some generalities, few details. Pinnah wants
    to make quantitative comparisons.

    Ken

    "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:004k42pbf3k4s8o1rjfc7o124kq38s5i[email protected]
    > On 21 Apr 2006 20:04:47 -0700, "bicycle_disciple"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>hi pinnah.
    >>
    >>i would say that the book, "The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles" by
    >>Jan Heine. I have a copy of this book and you'll find it an
    >>excellent
    >>resource.

    >
    > Does it have information on "70's and 80's production bikes" which
    > is
    > what pinnah asked about? From the title, it sounds like it's about
    > fancy handbuilt bikes, not the same thing.
    >
    > JT
    >
    > ****************************
    > Remove "remove" to reply
    > Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    > ****************************
     
  10. pinnah wrote:
    > Some background... I've read about a zillion discussions about why
    > long trail (short rake) designs are supposed to be more stable but
    > have recently gone back to a '79 Trek Sport Touring bike. I can't
    > believe how much further I can ride with less effort and how much more
    > stable that bike is over bumpy rough roads. I'm glad to see the
    > Specialized Roubaix (among others) moving to slacker HAs and more rake
    > but I get the sense we are just rediscovering what once was common.
    >
    > More generally, I'm interested in the classic sport tourer and am
    > wondering now how widespread it was in the 70s and 80s. My
    > recollection is that most of the bikes I sold back then were 73 degree
    > parallel designs with 5.5 cm of rake and about 43 cm stays. But its
    > pretty hard to find anything more than the angles documented and
    > often, not even that.


    Have you been to http://www.vintage-trek.com/ ?
     
  11. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    pinnah <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "bicycle_disciple" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >i would say that the book, "The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles" by
    > >Jan Heine. I have a copy of this book and you'll find it an
    > >excellent resource. Interestingly, Jan is also the editor for the
    > >vintage bicycle quartely magazine, published four times a year.

    >
    > I've corresponded with Jan a few times on the i-Bob list and he's
    > been very helpful.
    >
    > My understanding is that is his book focuses on the early handmade
    > french bikes of the 50s and 60s.


    Much wider range than that- from the teens to the present day, but
    focusing on custom built bikes for randonneuring and the like.

    > I'm more interested in production bikes that hit the US in the 70s
    > and 80s.


    Try Classic Rendezvous.
     
  12. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:28:20 -0400, pinnah wrote:

    > I'm more interested in production bikes that hit the US in the 70s and
    > 80s.
    >
    > Some background... I've read about a zillion discussions about why long
    > trail (short rake) designs are supposed to be more stable but have
    > recently gone back to a '79 Trek Sport Touring bike. I can't believe
    > how much further I can ride with less effort and how much more stable
    > that bike is over bumpy rough roads. I'm glad to see the Specialized
    > Roubaix (among others) moving to slacker HAs and more rake


    BTW, more rake = less trail = less stable. Less rake = more trail = more
    stable. What's important is having the right amount of trail for a given
    head angle and intended use.

    > but I get the sense we are just rediscovering what once was common.


    This is probably true. There's been a retro trend by fancy brands like
    Rivendell and Waterford, with more affordable brands like Surly and Soma
    following. But perhaps "retro" is the wrong way of looking at it. These
    are just normal bikes. What we've really had is an extreme race bike fad
    for the last 10-15 years, to the exclusion of all else.

    > More generally, I'm interested in the classic sport tourer and am
    > wondering now how widespread it was in the 70s and 80s. My recollection
    > is that most of the bikes I sold back then were 73 degree parallel
    > designs with 5.5 cm of rake and about 43 cm stays. But its pretty hard
    > to find anything more than the angles documented and often, not even
    > that.


    Actually this was standard for race bikes through the 70s and 80s. And
    it's not too different from what we have today. You'll hardly feel a
    degree difference in frame angles, or a cm or two in chainstay length.

    A few years ago I had an early 80s Bottecchia race bike with about those
    dimensions. It was a very sweet handling bike. So there's one data point
    for you.

    Sport tourers were often a little slacker, but they ran the gamut. "Sport
    tourer" referred to any bike that wasn't really a touring bike, but wasn't
    being marketed as a race bike either. Of course if you wanted a race bike
    they wanted you to buy their top of the line, so they called those "race
    bikes" and the cheaper ones "sport tourers." The differences in geometry
    were as much to differentiate the more expensive models from the cheaper
    ones as to provide some on-road advantage.

    Taking this one step further, race bikes got more extreme over time, for
    no good reason other than marketing. Super short chainstays became the
    trademark of a "real race bike," to the extent that Cannondale even had
    cantilevered dropouts to make their seatstays more vertical and their
    chainstays look shorter. The same happened with head angles, with steeper
    being considered racier. Of course anyone who really races knows that if
    anything, you want a more stable bike when you're being bumped and swept
    over potholes by the peloton.

    Matt O.
     
  13. i ride a rererebuilt '87 raleigh lugged steel - am advised geometry is
    parallel to the lightspeed tuscany?
    i slowed handling down with a longer trail fork as it was too
    nervous-tiring over transistion surfaces -eg asphaltsandasphalt google
    search - frank berto - frank specs 3 frame categories from the '80's -
    the one I ride is generally a "sport-touring" frame
    i guess that all frame in that category have similar geometries
     
  14. pinnah

    pinnah Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    >Have you been to http://www.vintage-trek.com/ ?


    Yes. It's a fantastic resource. I even have pics of my 79 510 posted
    there. Unfortunately, this is the only resource I can find for bikes
    in that era that have frame geometries listed. Sheldon's
    Retro-Raliegh site has old Raliegh catalogs, but the don't have specs
    published. Classic Rendezvous has a Fuji catalog, but they don't give
    info other than the frame angles.



    -- Dave
    ==============================================
    "It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
    without the proper equipment."
    Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
    ==============================================
     
  15. pinnah

    pinnah Guest

    Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
    >BTW, more rake = less trail = less stable. Less rake = more trail = more
    >stable. What's important is having the right amount of trail for a given
    >head angle and intended use.


    Nod. I really depends on what you mean by stable, too.

    My experience is that low trails bikes track better on rough road
    surfaces. For slow solo riding (compared to fast pack riding), I find
    I can ride much further, faster and more comfortably on low trail
    bikes. More of my thoughts on this are here:
    http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/bikes/bike-geometries.html#SPORT

    Jan Heine, editor of VBQ, describes his thoughts on the "flop factor"
    here:
    http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=internet-bob.10512.1460.eml

    >> More generally, I'm interested in the classic sport tourer and am
    >> wondering now how widespread it was in the 70s and 80s. My recollection
    >> is that most of the bikes I sold back then were 73 degree parallel
    >> designs with 5.5 cm of rake and about 43 cm stays. But its pretty hard
    >> to find anything more than the angles documented and often, not even
    >> that.

    >
    >Actually this was standard for race bikes through the 70s and 80s. And
    >it's not too different from what we have today. You'll hardly feel a
    >degree difference in frame angles, or a cm or two in chainstay length.


    Hrmm.. Heres the link to a '75 Fuji catalog.
    http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Japan/Fuji75specs.htm

    Note that the race models of the Professional and Newest both had
    steep angles but the sport tourer America didn't.

    And here's a link to a '78 Trek catalog showing the use of a 4.5 cm
    rake fork on their "race" bike.
    http://vintage-trek.com/images/trek/Trek2pg3.gif


    >Taking this one step further, race bikes got more extreme over time, for
    >no good reason other than marketing. Super short chainstays became the
    >trademark of a "real race bike," to the extent that Cannondale even had
    >cantilevered dropouts to make their seatstays more vertical and their
    >chainstays look shorter. The same happened with head angles, with steeper
    >being considered racier. Of course anyone who really races knows that if
    >anything, you want a more stable bike when you're being bumped and swept
    >over potholes by the peloton.


    I don't disagree but it seems that a lot of folks see it differently.
    The Specialized Roubaix is getting close to that classic, lower trail
    front end geometry but generally 4.5 and 4.2 cm forks are pretty much
    standard these days.

    I agree, btw, that CS length can't really be felt. This is more a
    pannier clearance & versatility issue for me.



    -- Dave
    ==============================================
    "It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
    without the proper equipment."
    Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
    ==============================================
     
  16. pinnah wrote:
    > Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >BTW, more rake = less trail = less stable. Less rake = more trail = more
    > >stable. What's important is having the right amount of trail for a given
    > >head angle and intended use.

    >
    > Nod. I really depends on what you mean by stable, too.
    >
    > My experience is that low trails bikes track better on rough road
    > surfaces. For slow solo riding (compared to fast pack riding), I find
    > I can ride much further, faster and more comfortably on low trail
    > bikes. More of my thoughts on this are here:
    > http://home.comcast.net/~pinnah/DirtbagPinner/bikes/bike-geometries.html#SPORT
    >
    > Jan Heine, editor of VBQ, describes his thoughts on the "flop factor"
    > here:
    > http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=internet-bob.10512.1460.eml



    You might find this, from Tom Kellogg, interesting:

    http://www.spectrum-cycles.com/612.htm
     
  17. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:28:20 -0400, pinnah wrote:
    >
    > > I'm more interested in production bikes that hit the US in the 70s
    > > and 80s.
    > >
    > > Some background... I've read about a zillion discussions about why
    > > long trail (short rake) designs are supposed to be more stable but
    > > have recently gone back to a '79 Trek Sport Touring bike. I can't
    > > believe how much further I can ride with less effort and how much
    > > more stable that bike is over bumpy rough roads. I'm glad to see
    > > the Specialized Roubaix (among others) moving to slacker HAs and
    > > more rake

    >
    > BTW, more rake = less trail = less stable. Less rake = more trail =
    > more stable. What's important is having the right amount of trail
    > for a given head angle and intended use.


    It's not as simple as that, _Bicycling Science_ 2nd Ed. notwithstanding.
    Basically they had Jones's URB experiments to base their chapter on and
    this has dominated the conceptualizations of trail. At least it has
    dominated *my* understanding of handling. The 3rd edition revises the
    ideas on trail and handling significantly, and other recent publications
    comparing different steering geometries makes it clear that "more trail
    = more stability" is just not automatically the case.

    The old French randonneuses often had very low trail figures, a few as
    low as 11 mm, while remaining quite ridable. The lower trail bikes were
    found to be more rather than less stable,allowing riders to go right
    down the fog line in the dark for hours at a time. 40-45 mm trail was
    not at all unusual with those bikes compared to the 60 mm which is
    considered "standard" nowadays. The randonneuses tended to have steep
    head angles (73-74 degrees) and a large fork offset (50-60 mm).
     
  18. pinnah

    pinnah Guest

    "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >You might find this, from Tom Kellogg, interesting:
    >
    >http://www.spectrum-cycles.com/612.htm



    Bookmarked and saved to disk. Given that 99% of my riding is solo
    riding (and thus low speed), his description of the handling
    characteristics of a low trail bike reads like a big ol' feature list.
    It also corresponds exactly with my experience with low trail bikes.
    Nice to know that I'm totally insanse.

    Still would love to find refs to 70s and 80s vintages geometries to
    trace the decline of the low trail design.

    Thanks for the great link.


    -- Dave
    ==============================================
    "It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
    without the proper equipment."
    Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
    ==============================================
     
  19. sodaquad

    sodaquad Guest

    > More generally, I'm interested in the classic sport tourer and am
    > wondering now how widespread it was in the 70s and 80s. My
    > recollection is that most of the bikes I sold back then were 73 degree
    > parallel designs with 5.5 cm of rake and about 43 cm stays. But its
    > pretty hard to find anything more than the angles documented and
    > often, not even that.



    To put the frame geometries you have in perspective, I've just taken
    some measurements for you from what is a pure touring bike, a Dawes
    Galaxy, probably from the early 1980s (dating clues: oval headbadge,
    cantilever bosses, cable stops on down tube).

    Sadly, because it is something I have rebuilt from an old frame - that
    came without a fork - the fork rake figure is not the original, it's
    something else ( a Thorn Ventura in fact, but looks similar to the
    original). Here is what it looks like:

    Reynolds 531ST, DB main tubes

    head angle 71deg
    seat angle 71deg
    seat tube 22 inch
    top tube 24 inch
    chainstay 19.5 inches
    wheelbase 45 inch approx
    BB drop 2 inches approx

    fork rake 65mm (not the original)
    I measure the trail as about 50mm.

    Compared to the figures you have, which look quite 'racy', this is an
    extremely long bike with very laid back angles - note the 50cm
    chainstay! The BB drop is very small too.

    This may not be a typical Galaxy, according to the 1984 catalogue the
    Galaxy has 72 deg angles and doesn't look as long as mine.
     
  20. The interesting thing about 1970's Carlton Raleighs, or so I've heard,
    is that they were just about all of them parallel 73 degree-angled
    bikes (according to my bocama lugs stamped '73'), and the top tube
    length was more or less constant - no matter what the size. This
    allowed them to use the same miters on top tubes, perhaps saving some
    $$$ in production cost. Just the stems got longer. I personally love
    the aesthetic of these bikes, especially the 23.5" and 24.5" models.

    - Don Gillies
    San Diego, CA
     
Loading...
Loading...