| I have a question about rod brakes. Now I've had my DL1 for well over a year now and I figured I knew how the brakes went in terms of the front pads. I have had the front pads running forward from the brake fork. That is to say most of the brake pad is located forward of the brake mechanism. However of late, I've started seeing pictures of bike where the rod brake pads in front run not forward from the brake fork, but protrude rearward so the pad is running back underneath the front wheel's fork. |
Does it matter which way the front brake pads run? If so which way is right? I always assumed the front brake pads should stick out in the front and not be coming back underneath the wheel fork.
|Below is a picture of the front protruding pads. This is the set up I have assumed to be correct, as mentioned above.|
| Don't feel bad - I've been baffled by this myself, and have asked this forum a few times to no avail.|
According to the one rod-brake adjustment page we currently have available from any '60s/'70s Raleigh DL-1 manual, the brake pads are shown to be between the fork. One old, old post on the Oldroads.com forums mentions that it should be so as well, confirming the manual.
Problem is, 99% of DL-1 photos out there show the brakes protruding out front - whether that DL-1 is a horridly beaten example, or a pristene jewel that has never seen a bike shop since it's assembly.
One would ask the question then: If the bike has never been re-adjusted since it was assembled new, wouldn't the brake pads be fitted correctly? It's very tempting to say 'yes'.
However, just like you, I've noticed a couple DL-1 photos recently with the pads between the fork blades. I have every reason to believe they belong there, and not flying out front, where the forces from the friction between the rim and pads put a great deal of stress on both the anti-vibration dampers and the stirrup.
In direct conflict with this theory, I placed the pads on my Rudge DL-1 jutting out foward - I just don't know why - go figure. Looks better that way!
It's too bad that we don't have the rest of the DL-1 manual online...then again, there's a lot of relatively easy-to-get Raleigh information that has yet to be put online.
On a similar subject, have you noticed that hardly anyone on this forum actually posts images of their collections (or anything else, for that matter)? On the Schwinn forum, folks are posting pictures by the minute. I don't know about anyone else, but I enjoy viewing other Raleigh cycles, particularly those that are harder to come by.
Every single picture I see is a learning experience (I've only seriously been in the Raleigh hobby no more then a year. I dabbled in Schwinn balloners before taking up Raleighs), and I never miss out on examining any Raleigh that might present itself at the local bike shops (having actually repaired (and in the process, cosmetically refurbish!) the bike for the shop sometimes, just for the heck of it).
| Well I tried to spin mine around to see what it would be like with rear protruding pads in front and found that no matter what I did, either the pads or the arms ran into the fork and would not fit. I flipped sides on the arms, moved the pads around, but to no success. I've of the opinion that front is correct because a. mine refused to fit entirely when trying the rear method and b. because so many original bicycles feature front facing pads. I figure it'd be easier to draw an illustration incorrectly than to fit hundreds or thousands of bicycles incorrectly. Finally, the Eastmans at yellow jersey, derived from Raleigh designs, also feature front facing pads. I have to admit, finally the front facing just looks better. |
I do have a related question though: when were those arms that hold the pads (and have created the first question) added? I noticed some much older Raleighs (1940s and 50s) with no arms in front and the pads directly bolted to the stirrup. How does this affect braking?
| Well, I haven't tried it myself Mike (and I don't intend to!) - I'm sure there's a way to get them to work rearwards, but it would probably require adjustment of the clamps around the fork legs (not fun).|
I just dug up this 1999 post on Oldroads - it's by the same fellow who wrote the webpage I linked to in one of my previous posts:
"...On later bikes, the front brake pads are offset from the stirrup by a roughly triangular metal plate. This (I've just learned from a photocopy of an old Raleigh trading card) anti-vibration plate was a Raleigh patent, and should be placed so that the pads are behind the stirrup (as has been mentioned here before). The brake pads will actually overlap the fork blades, but the friction of the pad against the rim will actually tend to force it tighter against the rim..."
(copied from http://members.aol.com/videomap/eng.htm )
I recently saw a "fresh out of the basement after 20 years" '78 DL-1 on eBay with the pads facing rearwards, and no contact taking place - obviously, it's possible to place the pads rearwards...somehow.
The arms you mention are called "anti-vibration plates" - these thingamabobs popped up sometime in the '60s, and were supposed to reduce vibration when the brake was applied. I can see where they'd help to reduce such forces when pointing rearwards, but they just amplfy the problem when foward - the way most everone (including us!) have them.
| hmmm I've had some problems with vibration in that front wheel because it's a bit out of true. I wonder if either making them fit rearward or pads directly on the stirrup would help.|
| I think you mean that you've had trouble with the brakes pulsating, not vibrating, against the rim.|
The vibration I'm referring to is the rapid 'buzzing' you sometimes will get when slowing down, usually at slower speeds. You can get this same effect with a caliper brake bike if the caliper fixing bolt is slightly loose.
"Bzrzrzrzrzrzrzrrrr *clang*!" is the usual sound effect to this syndrome - the clang usually from the chain slamming into the guard when finally stopped. I'm sure you know what I mean.
| Well I flipped the brakes around but have noticed an odd tendancy. When applied the brakes are drawn into the center of the rim towards the spokes. However, this is happening to a greater extent at the rear ends of the brake pads (at the ends of the now rear protruding arms). Is this normal and if so how much should they be doing this? My greatest fear is that they'll cave or something and catch the spokes, though I haven't had that happen yet.|
| Oh and one more question what is the effect if I lose the arms entirely and go with a direct connect to the stirrup? I'm guessing before the 60s addition of the arms that DL-1s were just directly connected to the stirrups.|
| Chances are, the toeing-in of the brake pads is due to a bent stirrup (probably from the extra stress encountered with the incorrect foward-facing pad placement). Either that or one of the anti-vibration plates are bent. Examine the geometry of the mechanism for a bent stirrup end - you may have to straighten the ends if they are found to be bent.|
I've considered removing the anti-vibration plates myself, but I'm not sure if the stirrup is different for these models - as I visualize it, the pads would probably be too far away from the centerline, making for very poor, or possibly no contact between the pads and the rim.
| I'm not sure what exactly is causing it. The stirrup is indeed a little bent on both sides, though I'm not sure why (possibly from being hit or the like in the past). I replaced the stirrup with one I bought from VVVintage Vintage last year and it helped some, though I reinstalled the brakes with forward facing arms (backwards was not cooperating again). The pads still twist in at their rear and out at their front a bit, though I've tried to ensure they contact squarely and I even shimmed one so it would remain on the rim even when it twisted some. These both reduced the flex under load and they seem to have made the braking a bit smoother. I did try to go direct from the old stirrup (not the one I just put on) and the pads were indeed too far from the rim center to make solid contact. The only way I found that I would be able to make them reach would be to use something like 3 washers on each side to act as spacers. I'm not sure what effect that would have on the physics. After that failure I put on the new stirrup and put the arms back straight forward with a few small changes to ensure a better contact. I hope this solves it (for awhile at least).|
| Oh and I would like to add a request for the DL1 folks:|
If you have images of your brake stirrup up close they would be a help. I am curious to see if the stirrups changed when Raleigh started adding the anti-vibration plates.
| Is anyone here using a front stirrup bought from VVVintage on this site? If so were you able to go direct without these arms? If you use the arms, which way are you running them?|
| Anyone know the colors available for Raleigh in 1973 through 76. I'm trying to date my two Sprites, one has ivory paint and the other has metalic brown. Both are in the 1973-76 era but I'm looking to get an exact date for each bike.|
| My knowledge on the Sprites is limited, but I might be able to help you here.|
I know for a fact that the last year for Ivory Glaze on the Sports was 1974 - I'm pretty sure Ivory Glaze was not used on any other Raleigh model after '74.
I'd be willing to say with reasonable accuracy that the Ivory Glaze Sprite you have there is either a '73 or '74.
Coffee, however, was one of Raleigh's most popular colors, and spanned the whole time frame of '73-'76 for the Sprite, I believe. Any specific details as to the components on this particular bike?
| My 1975 (I think) catalog from Raleigh of America has Carmine Red, Coffee, and Lemon Yellow for Sprites and equipment included the 3-spoke cottered crank, Pletscher carrier, mattress saddle, "self-adjusting" brakes. Sports came in Bronze Green, Silver, Coffee, Sky Blue, Lemon Yellow.|
| NMA, etc.|
I for one would put a set of northroad bars on this... certainly this bike has been equipped for the long haul.
My question is... is it a trick of the eyes... or is the seat on this thing... IMMENSE?
Larry "Boneman" Bone
| Bike's in nice shape, as if anyone needs another small Raleigh GP. But it might be a good deal for the accessories alone; good Bluemels fenders, front rack, etc. |
| True - too bad though that it has those terrible flat-grey Raleigh-badged Suntour components - I cringe at the sight of them.|
Can't stand that post-'76 double-blue paint scheme - makes it look like a department-store 10 speed.
| My own move would be to get an old style set of drop bars and and pull all the baskets off. I'd leave the paint and the lightweigh mudguards and put in a club bike 3 speed hub and an old school single chain ring without guard. I think you could make that into a decent 3 speed club remake. Not sure what the cost would come to, but the parts should be terribly expensive.|
| errr "shouldn't" not "should"... my bad|
| Welcome to that club, Mike - I recently bought a Raleigh Gran Sport (531 main tubes, stays and forks) and plan to convert it to a S/A FW 4 speed w/bluemels. It is to be repainted dark blue (tell me, who would want to ride on that white/wedgewood blue combo it had originally?).|
| A big question when you're talking about converting the ten speeds to three speeds. Should the frame be cold set to accomodate the different hub width? |
I have a 531 frameset that I would like to turn into a 650B 3 speed.
Regarding the old Grand Prix - That's a 1977 in the picture - That bike rode better than most of the bikes in the era. Sold for $139 new. While some folks have problems with the way the componenmets look, those Suntour VGT and VGT Luxe rear dreailers were awesome. I still buy them whenever I see them so I have replacements for my non-indexed touring bikes.
| For retrofit of SA three speed hub into bike which had deraileur, you can get proper size SA anti-rotation washers. I got some from Sheldon and they fit the slightly wider slots in the dropouts.|
| Obviously.. NMA, etc. Dunno... maybe I'm wrong here... but methinks the starting bid is just a wee bit high? Very nice machine though... from what I can tell.|
Larry "Boneman" Bone
| Well, he won't have the heartbreak of letting it go for too little!|
| With zero feedback as well....|
| Warren- my thoughts exactly. He's WAY over and 0 feedback? A bit shadey if you ask me.|
| Chances are, he's simply a seller uneducated in the item he's selling...|
...call him in half a year and he'll sell it to you for $100! ;-)
| Hi, I recently had a flat on my DL1 and am in the process of patching it. I have applied some "glueless" patches by Bell. Does anyone have experience with these in terms of how long they take to fully dry and how reliable they are? They're somewhat sticker-like things. Any thoughts?|
| Okay for those who have Bell glueless patches that come in the "Primo Patch" Kit, they're a crime against nature. I got the tube up to about 20 lbs and the thing blew off. I also had a bell standard glue and rubber kit with me. I put one of those on, and it seems decent on the install. I'll pump it up tomorrow after I give it a day to dry and see what happens.|
| Hi Mike. fwiw, my experience with Park glueless patches has been good - no drying time, and quite good 'stretch' (an undersized tube expanded to fill a 2.35" mtb tyre quite well without the patch peeling - although they're not as flexible/stretchy as a cure-c-cure or equivalent glue-on patch.|
| David- I will have to look into the parks. I'm not sure whether or not there is a hierarchy of quality in bicycle tube patches. This was the first time I tried glueless. From my experience with regular cure patches a patch kit is more or less a patch kit- glue and rubber. But apparently some of these glueless things might come in varying quality. The Bells were pretty poor, I'll give the Parks a look next time I'm in the store.|
| After tube patch failure, I found a excellent use for the remaining Bell glueless patches - reinforcements for torn plastic shower curtains where you connect to the split rings!|