What size Galaxy

[GeekDadZoid]

I am on the lookout at the moment for a Galaxy (anything but the aluminium one), but I am getting very much confused by the sizing over the years.

I am probably looking for something 90s onwards and I know the ideal way is to try the bike, but not so easy when your looking for a bargain on FB or eBay. Does anyone know where there is a good resource of post 1990 Dawes catalogues or geometry charts?

My Holdsworth is 52cm centre to the top so I guess I will be around that ballpark. But I see lots of 49cm bikes and wonder if they are too small, or just right.

Anyone able to help

 

[vickster]

Bikes might be too vintage but have you tried Geometry Geeks?
https://geometrygeeks.bike/bike-directory/search/?q=galaxy
When you say centre to the top are you measuring the seat tube? Measure the top tube too perhaps

 

[GeekDadZoid]

Bikes might be too vintage but have you tried Geometry Geeks?
https://geometrygeeks.bike/bike-directory/search/?q=galaxy
When you say centre to the top are you measuring the seat tube? Measure the top tube too perhaps

Yes I am measuring the seat tube, top tube makes sense too as I find reach harder to get right than saddle height,.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

How about?

 

[jowwy]

How about?

View attachment 653462

or this one

 

[Cycleops]

What height and inseam are you?

 

[GeekDadZoid]

What height and inseam are you?

I am 5'9 and a little bit with a 29inch inseam

 

[All uphill]

I've just been into "On Your Bike" bicycle charity in Bridgwater and was surprised to see they had 3 steel Galaxies for sale for around £200 each.

I was more tempted by the Raleigh Royal mixte for £120, but resisted.

OP - there are bikes around and well worth giving them a try before buying.

 

[Cycleops]

I’d say 49 would be too small for you. I hate riding a bike that’s too small, you just don’t feel right on it. Wait around for something nearer the 52 mark.

 

[GeekDadZoid]

I’d say 49 would be too small for you. I hate riding a bike that’s too small, you just don’t feel right on it. Wait around for something nearer the 52 mark.

Sounds sensible, I have seen a few in that size. I am not in a great rush.

 

[chris667]

I have owned a few Galaxies and Horizons - for many years they were the standard club bike.

49cm is definitely too small for you. I reckon most people ride bikes that are too small for them. I blame compact geometry.

You're about half an inch shorter than me, and my most used Galaxy was a 54cm (a 1994 model). I probably did more miles on that than on any other bike! I could fit onto a 56 Horizon from the same year, it was actually a bit more comfortable although it felt a bit like riding an elephant.

After they moved production to Poland (late nineties) they started doing all sorts of different things with the geometry. There was definitely a drop in quality too. Look for a British made one if you can.

I miss that Galaxy. I must stop myself going on eBay. People seem not to want them anymore which is a shame because they are pretty much the perfect bike! There are better ones, but it doesn't really matter - a Galaxy is all you need. If I could only have one bike and I had slightly less beer belly it would almost certainly be an early nineties Galaxy or similar.

 

[Cycleops]

Looks like @buzz22 has done just that Chris. Check out his thread here:
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/my-first-touring-bike-new-project.286592/#post-6774013

 

[Gillstay]

Bought a Galaxy for a friend who wanted a bike to last him years. One set of wheels for kids holidays and tow paths and another for faster road work. He has been happy for 18 years now. Cost £300.

 

[GeekDadZoid]

So a thing happened

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/dawes-super-galaxy-2012.286619/

 

[wafter]

This just serves to highlight how ridiculous and unfit for purpose frame sizing convention is.

Seems that most choose to define the frame size by the seatpost length from the crank centre, which varies enormously with frame geometry since "compact" frames with sloping top tubes have significantly shorter setpost tubes despite potentially having similar reach and stack.

By way of example, my Genesis CdF has a "55cm" compact frame, yet gives similar reach and stack (to the bars anyway) to my "59.5cm" Raleigh Routier with traditional geometry. Things get worse in practical terms when you start to look at stem length - seems that while most modern bikes run 100mm stem length as standard, the quill stems on older stuff were often shorter.

I too have been looking at Galaxies and the sizing is particularly bizarre since by the end of production they seemed to have gone to some pretty aggressively sloping top tubes.

If all else fails I find the length of the head tube to be a reasonable visual indicator on some bikes; however differing tube sections can make this harder (some had fatter section, possibly oval down tubes) . Additionally, Dawes seem to like lots of stack (understandably since it's supposed to be a fairly relaxed bike to ride) so on some models I think ran longer-than-expected head tubes with a lot of top tube angle; which makes things even more convoluted and opaque

Reach and stack are the obvious measurements to go with, but good luck trying to communicate how to measure those to the ebay or FB numpty who struggles to even list the marked frame size..