Vintage Raleigh frame geometry info please!

[wafter]

No.43 in the occasional series "Bike Fit Anxiety and Self-Doubt"..

We all know that bike fit and frame sizing can be a bit of a mystery / black art, with most manufacturers looking to boil down this complex and subjective subject to one single measurement - on older bikes usually the length of the seatpost tube.

Referencing a page from the 1987 Raleigh Lightweights catalogue (below) it appears that the three smallest of their four frame sizes would "fit" my inside leg of around 33-34"..

... one would assume that with this wide coverage of leg lengths, the frame size should be decided on the torso length / reach of the rider.. with, for a given leg length shorter riders / those with T-rex arms opting for the smaller frame sizes.

My 1987 Router (budget gaspipe shopping hack) has a seattube of 23.5" / 595mm centre-top, a top tube of 22.5" / 570mm centre-centre and a headtube length of 7.0" / 176mm. I'm currently looking at a 1983 Rapide, which the seller has told me has a 23.5" ST and 22.5" TT - so I presume the HT is largely the same size as the Routier too - despite their significantly different target markets.

I get on OK with the Routier but can't help but think that given my shape (shortish with long legs) I might be better off with the shorter reach of a smaller frame with the 22.5" ST.. is anyone with a 22.5" Raleigh of similar age / geometry able to tell me what the TT length is C-C please, as well as the head tube length (I'm guessing around 6")?

While this post is totally selfish it might be of use to others in future of we could build up a rough idea of the actual measurements of Raleigh frames....

Cheers

 

[Sharky]

Another old measure/rule of thumb, used to be height in inches divided by 3 to give the frame size. Centre BB to top seat tube.
A useless measure nowadays, but might help to narrow down your choice for an old traditional frame.

 

[wafter]

Another old measure/rule of thumb, used to be height in inches divided by 3 to give the frame size. Centre BB to top seat tube.
A useless measure nowadays, but might help to narrow down your choice for an old traditional frame.

Thanks

Tbh every time I consider a new bike I end up agonising over fit as there's so much subjective (and often contradictory info) floating around on the net. I think it would help if I could find some decent information on "standard" body proportions, however this seems scant too.

I've got to the point where my bikes are setup so they're as comfortable as I can make them but I don't know if they could be better. On both my road and gravel bikes I've ended up going with shorter stems (-10mm on the former, -20mm on the latter) which has made them more comfy.. however I get a degree of knee-bar interferance on the gravel bike.

I guess that can't be helped though as it'd be the case regardless of frame size if the reach to the bars was the same.. arguably worse on a small frame as the bars would be lower too. Therein lies another potential issues; a smaller frame gives less reach but also less stack too.

 

[mjr]

is anyone with a 22.5" Raleigh of similar age / geometry able to tell me what the TT length is C-C please, as well as the head tube length (I'm guessing around 6")?

1984 Raleigh Royal, ST 22.5": TT c-c 22.5", HT c-c 5.5" end-end looks like 7.5" but it's currently hanging in the rafters and I am waving the rule up at it!

Hope that helps.

 

[wafter]

1984 Raleigh Royal, ST 22.5": TT c-c 22.5", HT c-c 5.5" end-end looks like 7.5" but it's currently hanging in the rafters and I am waving the rule up at it!

Hope that helps.

Thanks - that's interesting as it seems that even though yours is a size smaller on paper (1" less on the seat tube - I assume that's centre-top..?) the TT length appears to be the same.. suggesting that perhaps the reach is comparable across these two sizes but the stack increases with the larger size... good news from my perspective

 

[mjr]

Thanks - that's interesting as it seems that even though yours is a size smaller on paper (1" less on the seat tube - I assume that's centre-top..?)

Sorry, should have posted: that was centre of BB axle to level with centre of top tube, as near as I could see up there with the left crank in the way.

 

[wafter]

Sorry, should have posted: that was centre of BB axle to level with centre of top tube, as near as I could see up there with the left crank in the way.

Ahh, OK - ta. Looks like it's the same frame size as mine then

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I come at sizing questions from a slightly different standpoint. The first thing I would ask is how high do you want your handlebars? I've got long legs and the issue I find with small frames, is generally you run out of adjustment on the stem before a comfortable bar height is reached. If you like riding around head down arse up, that might not be a problem, but I like a comfort "touring" set-up with the bars pretty much level with the saddle. I can't get this having a small frame combined with long legs unless the handlebar stem has an unusually large amount of adjustment - and generally drop bar stems don't.
Reach does of course vary with frame size, but TT length does not increase as much as seat tube length. From memory, my 23 1/2" Raleigh Royal 531 touring frame has a 22 1/2" TT length. My 22 1/2" Raleigh Gemini 531 hybrid frame has a 22" TT. OK, that's a flat bar hybrid, but it's also a horizontal top tube touring geometry frame that happens to have flat bars. If I had drops on the 22 1/2" frame I would likely find the bar height too low, but the reach would be fine.
On my 23 1/2" Royal, I found the reach a bit too much with the original stem fitted (IIRC it was 100 mm) Swapping it for one 20mm shorter out of my spares pile improved things noticeably.