1980's bicycle geometry?!?!

[El Chaba]

Originally Posted by gbcoupe

Sorry for the thread jack, was just timely re the older style geo.

The Raleigh has 27" clinchers. New tires will probably be the only thing I'll have to buy to get it going. Otherwise, needs a deep cleaning and regrease.

When finished, I'll likely hand it off to a taller club member that will put it to use. Our club pres spotted it while he was out working, but unable to pick it up. He posted on the chat and everyone was talking about it while I was out riding. I wasn't aware till after I had it home.

I'll post some before and after pics in its own thread later.

Well now that has upped the ante for Talbot County’s roadside finds….

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by Clean39T

Taking this in a bit different direction..

I absolutely love how my BMC SLR01 handles and have been looking at options with similar geo, which basically comes down to road bikes that have higher trail - 63mm in my "XL" sized frame. From what I'm seeing, that trail figure was fairly standard on Italian builds back in the day before the crit-craze pushed a lot of companies to the 73-73.5 deg HTA and shorter wheelbases that are ubiquitous now.

So, do I have options to find a steel frameset that is performance oriented but has that front end geometry? Looks like a Colnago Masterlight or C-series would get me that if I can find the right size.. what else?

For reference:

I don't think a lot of the older bikes that weren't Italian had this much trail, at least for race style bikes. Bob Jackson in the early 70s had 73 degree HTA and 51mm fork rake, so about 50mm trail. The '89 Casati I had for a year had a 73 degree HTA with a very small fork rake of 38mm so trail was just where you like it, 64mm.

It's (I think) uncommon today for a mfgr to keep the same HTA and fork rake across all sizes from 47 to 61, as shown in your geo table. Usually front center on the small frames drives a slacker HTA, and the carbon forks have fewer options for rake adjustment. Best case is two rakes across the line, as HTA changes. The Specialized Diverge uses the same fork rake across the line, and trail goes from 69mm to 57mm.

[Waldo62]

There were the early '80s, when frames had clearances for 28mm tires, and late '80s, when you could barely fit a 25 in there.

[OtayBW]

Originally Posted by gbcoupe

Found this towards the end of my ride today. Out by the road with a free sign.

It's a 70's Raleigh International, several sizes too tall for me. The reach is exactly where I have my bikes set.

This was my first (real) bike. A real beauty. Reynolds 531. I loved that thing....

[warren128]

This is a very interesting and timely thread for me. When I was a teen in 1974, my dad and I went to a local bike shop to buy a Raleigh for me. My dad's already stretched budget could only afford a Super Course. I remember the salesman/owner asked me to try various bikes by straddling the bike, and after looking me over on top of a couple of bikes, pronounced that a 23 1/2" frame was the right size for me. I'm 5' 10". So I loved that bike, and I rode around with very little seatpost showing, and a relatively short stem. It wasn't until years later that I realized that my optimum size is a 56cm square frame.

I recently was hit by N+1 fever, and I impulsively searched for a 80s steel frame/fork to be a stablemate to my 1987 Raleigh 531c. As luck would have it, I found one, a 1980 Carlton, and then shortly after that, I found a 1986 Pro Miyata locally for a great price, all original.

I recently finished a badly needed rebuild of the Carlton, you've seen the thread. But I have not had a chance to spend time with the Pro Miyata yet, but I'm looking forward to ride experiences with these old bikes.

Interestingly, the 1980 Carlton Super Course appeared in the 1980 catalog as 74/74 degrees parallel frame geometry, but in actuality, my frame is 73 seat and 74 degrees head tube angles. I'm sure the Miyata has similarly steep angles.

original_ce120ccb-999a-4094-b864-051d8cf36eac_IMG_20240305_171052676 (1) by warren t., on Flickr

[paredown]

Originally Posted by warren128

This is a very interesting and timely thread for me. When I was a teen in 1974, my dad and I went to a local bike shop to buy a Raleigh for me. My dad's already stretched budget could only afford a Super Course. I remember the salesman/owner asked me to try various bikes by straddling the bike, and after looking me over on top of a couple of bikes, pronounced that a 23 1/2" frame was the right size for me. I'm 5' 10". So I loved that bike, and I rode around with very little seatpost showing, and a relatively short stem. It wasn't until years later that I realized that my optimum size is a 56cm square frame.

I recently was hit by N+1 fever, and I impulsively searched for a 80s steel frame/fork to be a stablemate to my 1987 Raleigh 531c. As luck would have it, I found one, a 1980 Carlton, and then shortly after that, I found a 1986 Pro Miyata locally for a great price, all original.

I recently finished a badly needed rebuild of the Carlton, you've seen the thread. But I have not had a chance to spend time with the Pro Miyata yet, but I'm looking forward to ride experiences with these old bikes.

Interestingly, the 1980 Carlton Super Course appeared in the 1980 catalog as 74/74 degrees parallel frame geometry, but in actuality, my frame is 73 seat and 74 degrees head tube angles. I'm sure the Miyata has similarly steep angles.

original_ce120ccb-999a-4094-b864-051d8cf36eac_IMG_20240305_171052676 (1) by warren t., on Flickr

Nice.

I too started in 1971 on a bike built with a taller seat tube and shorter top tube, which in retrospect was probably one size too large, but i fit pretty well on it because I have long legs/short torso.