VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   wright saddle posted by: mike on 2/24/2006 at 7:22:02 PM
Does anyone have info or opinions about Wright saddles, made in Birmingham?
I've got one on it's way, for $10 Cdn., and it looks to be quite old - brown leather, brass rivets, etc.
thanks
by: 161.184.46.13


   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS: wright saddle posted by Warren on 2/24/2006 at 9:41:42 PM
They're considered to be second tier compared to Brooks but some of them are quite well made and are comfortable. The quality of the leather is less consistent and I've seen a few that were quite distorted after time. I have a 60's Wrights Swallow that is very nice. I think you paid the right price.
by: 70.51.137.235

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   wright saddle posted by David on 2/28/2006 at 2:07:33 PM
I thought Wright's quality was the same as Brooks. I believe that Brooks bought them out at some point.
by: 65.78.2.207

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS: wright saddle posted by Warren on 2/28/2006 at 8:00:07 PM
Brooks did eventually own them but they did not make them equal. High end bikes were almost always equipped with Brooks and lesser models sometimes got Wrights or Lycetts or Middlemores etc. They had models that resembled each other but the quality control for Brooks saddles far exceeded Wrights. This is borne out in the marketplace...an NOS Brooks racing saddle from the 50's or 60's can make tenfold the price of a similar Wrights. The only other saddles that are comparable seem to be the older Ideale 80's, 90's, Rebours etc. In NOS or great condition, they will even top the Brooks. That may be because of the reverence the Japanese have for french bikes and parts. They can drive the prices out of sight.

by: 70.51.139.40

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   wright saddle posted by Kurt K. on 2/28/2006 at 8:53:20 PM
I own one Wrights, a W3N, and it's one of the worst looking saddles I've ever run into.

Mine is dry as hell, with thin, poor-quality leather. Both edges have lifted in a disgusting fashion, especially that of the left side. Yech is the only word to describe it.

I'm still kicking myself for getting suckered into a trade of two Look pedals, one Suntour freewheel remover and a pair of tubes for this thing. I was told it was a Brooks.

Bah!

-Kurt

by: 64.12.116.10

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS: wright saddle posted by saddle on 6/25/2008 at 2:07:44 PM
I recently purchased a Wrights saddle which I love the appearance but have been on it for two weeks now and I feel the rivetts on the rear. I want to keep the saddle but am dissappointed in the feel. The height and seat angle are adjusted correctly but maybe I need to tighten up the leather adjustment.
by: 69.137.227.59






AGE / VALUE:   Chrome Paramount PDG? posted by: mc on 2/24/2006 at 6:09:30 AM
I recently picked up a chrome Paramount PDG, serial # F802521. I was unaware that Waterford offered a chrome version beyond 1972, and there is no mention of it on their website. The chrome plate, star Paramount head badge, period-correct D/A components and PDG-style decals appear to be original. If someone just stuck these on an odd chromed frame, they did a darn good job. I am stumped...
by: 24.27.100.170


   RE:AGE / VALUE: Chrome Paramount PDG? posted by jack on 2/26/2006 at 10:47:15 PM
Hmmm, determining if its genuine is tough w/o more info. Are the lugs correct? Serial# indicates 1980, are decals in same condition as rest of bike and are they correct? Waterford is pretty good at responding, I'd ask them if they made any chrome-plated models.
by: 207.200.116.135

   RE:AGE / VALUE:   Chrome Paramount PDG? posted by Dick in FL on 2/27/2006 at 4:37:57 AM
When Reynolds started supplying heat-treated tubing (late 70's ??), they tightened the limits on brazing temps and forbid chrome-plating.
by: 172.147.138.82






VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   27 inch tubulars? posted by: Dick in L.A. on 2/24/2006 at 2:40:45 AM
Check out these wheels and tubular tires. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7220547833&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1
I think I recall 27" tubulars, but I'm just not sure. Are they still made? Quite rare I would think.
Dick in L.A.
by: 69.230.41.219


      27 inch tubulars posted by John E on 2/24/2006 at 3:18:44 PM
Thanks for the post, Dick. I have been repairing, building, and riding bicycles since I was 12 (1962), but I have never heard of 27" (as opposed to 700C) tubulars. However, those sure look like tubulars, and they certainly are marked 27"(!). It's a mystery to me ...
by: 66.185.168.82

   Sheldon's take posted by John E on 2/24/2006 at 3:23:08 PM
As usual, Sheldon Brown has relevant information:

"In clincher tires, there is a real difference between "700c" and "27 inch" sizes, but for tubulars this is a false distinction. Whenever you see mention of "27 inch tubulars" the writer is actually referring to standard full-sized tubulars, as used on most racing bikes."


by: 66.185.168.82

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   27 inch tubulars? posted by Dick in L.A. on 2/26/2006 at 8:30:17 PM
I agree with everything Sheldon Brown says. However, how do we reconcile the lable on the tire that says 27"?
Dick in L.A.
by: 69.230.41.219

   RE:RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS: 27 inch tubulars? posted by Warren on 2/27/2006 at 3:01:15 PM
We must infer that the use of the 27" designation, even when used by manufacturers, for tubulars, means 700c, . There are many other examples of this vagueness. For instance, Dunlop produced four 28 inch tyres that fit different bead sizes. (622/630/635/647)

However, I've seen this thread hashed out before on the CR list and some prominent bike authorities do insist that there were examples of a true 27 inch (630mm) size. Sheldon opposed this in the discussion and I'm not sure that it was resolved one way or another. I suspect he is right.
by: 70.51.151.101

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   27 inch tubulars? posted by JoeB-Z on 2/27/2006 at 7:16:23 PM
And the answer is, all the designations are correct. The current tubular rim is the same diameter as a racing rim from 1900 for a tubular or sew up tire. Originally the tires were larger and had a designation of 28", for a 28" outer tire diameter. Over time the tires got smaller, so you saw some designations of 27". Similarly, once they are about the same outer diameter of a 700C clincher, they started getting called 700C. It is the same old rim size for wood rims from 189? to the 1960s and aluminium rims from the 1930s to the present. Consequently today's tires fit fine on ancient racing rims and the only thing that has changed is the designation.
by: 207.99.9.50

   :   27 inch tubulars? posted by John E on 2/28/2006 at 3:23:12 PM
Thanks, JoeB-Z. Your post is completely consistent with my understanding of historical tire sizing for 622mm rims. Perhaps a "27-inch" tubular is fatter than a 700C. (700C is a really archaic notation for today's 23mm 700C tires, which have a rim diameter of 622mm and an outer diameter of '670mm. However, 700C tubulars with a 32mm rim-to-tread height would have an outer effective rolling diameter of about 27".)
by: 66.185.168.82

   RE::   27 inch tubulars? posted by Bryan on 3/1/2006 at 11:05:53 PM
In 700C wheels, what exactly does "700C" refer to? 700 centimeters of some sort?
by: 146.145.49.238

   700C posted by John E on 3/2/2006 at 3:20:18 PM
Yes, Bryan, the origin of "700" was an outer tire diameter of 700mm (700cm would be kinda big :) ) = 27.6". The rim diameter was 622mm. As tires got skinnier and sidewalls got lower, preserving roughly a 100% aspect ratio (in contrast to 65-series or 50-series car tires), the outer tire diameter shrank, so that the rim diameter could remain constant, at 622mm. A 700C tire is skinnier and smaller in outer diameter than a 700A tire, but both fit on 622mm diameter rims, although a 700A tire would generally be put on a wider rim than a 700C.
by: 66.185.168.82

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   27 inch tubulars? posted by David on 3/2/2006 at 4:23:04 PM
I haven't heard of 700A, but 700B, C, and D tires are all quite different sizes and won't fit on the same rims at all. (Same with the 650 sizes) But I've learned here that tubulars, regardless of how fat they are, all fit the same rims.
by: 65.78.2.207

   700C posted by John E on 3/3/2006 at 3:12:07 PM
Thanks for the correction, David. I was wrong about 700B and 700D. Evidently there were originally several different rim diameters which could accommodate various incompatible 700mm tires; if one wanted a wider, taller profile tire, one would use a smaller-diameter rim, but the outer tire diameter and therefore the rolling circumference remained roughly constant. When narrower, lower-profile tires were introduced, they were most commonly designed for the 700C size rims, and we end up today with 700C racing tires with outer diameters of less than 700mm.
by: 66.185.168.82






VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Rear Cable Adjuster for Raleigh Revisted posted by: Dick in L.A. on 2/23/2006 at 2:29:21 AM
Back in January I posted a request for a source for rear brake cable adjusters for old Raleigh VLW's. This is the tiny little knurled adjuster with jam nut that fits through the rear brake cable stop bridging the seat stays just below the seat post clamp. The best response I recieved was from Don Gillies in San Diego, CA. He suggested using the cable adjusters from Simplex shifters (and asked that I let him know if I find a source for originals). I checked it out with Simplex shifter out of my junk box and shure enough, it fits. However, the Simplex parts are zinc plated steel vs. the original bronze screw with steel jam nut. But they work and only the most anal examination would spot the discrepancy.
OK, for us anal restorers I've found what I believe to be an original replacement. (this story is longer than I'd planned). While I was desperately searching for a missing component for a Huret Jubillee rear deraileur I was restoring, I pulled an old Huret Alvit deraileur out of the junk box. I found the part I was looking for, a jam nut for the Jubillee that fits on the pivot bolt that mounts the deraileur to the dropout. Then I noticed the deraileur cable adjusting screw with jam nut. Bronze with steel jam nut (verified with a magnet). So there it is. Don't throw away those crappy old Huret Alvit's. There's neat stuff in there. Besides the pivot bolt jam nut and the cable adjuster screw & nut, I found that the outer pulley wheel plate is identical to the Jubilee's and the inner plate is the same except for the spring stop pins. I think the inner plate can be drilled and fitted with Jubilee stop pin if you are trying to replace a damaged Jubilee plate. And finally, the Alvit pulleys are red. How cool will those look on my Jubilee?
Dick in L.A.


by: 69.232.41.161


    Rear Cable Adjuster for Raleigh Revisted posted by John E on 2/23/2006 at 2:59:42 PM
Great tip, Dick. I NEVER throw away any mechanical or electronic component without first salvaging all of its nuts, bolts and small fittings. This policy has rewarded me numerous times.
by: 66.185.168.82

   RE:VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHTS:   Rear Cable Adjuster for Raleigh Revisted posted by Dick in L.A. on 2/24/2006 at 2:39:41 AM
I might also add that I learned long ago that those cute little black (or grey if they've been out in the sun for too long) plastic wing-nuts on the Simplex shifters along with their fitted chrome hex-head bolts will swap out with the tensioning screws onto the famous SunTour rachetting shifters (Power Shifters). I know that SunTour eventually went to the folding wire type of tensioning screws, but I prefer the Simplex wing-nuts. And they will do until you find the SunTour wire types. It sure beats carrying a screw driver around with you.
by: 69.230.41.219






FOR SALE:   1971 Raleigh International for sale, 52cm posted by: Peter Naiman on 2/22/2006 at 9:40:19 PM
This ad was posted to the CR List. I'm not related to the owner Lennie, but thought someone might be interested. Below is the ad and Len's email address.

Peter Naiman
Wisconsin
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

"lennys_email@juno.com" wrote:
Greetings All,
I’m selling my 1971 (F-serial number) Raleigh International to finance
a new Mariposa.
It’s 20 ½ inch (52cm) center to top, in the original chartreuse gree
n, made by Carlton in Worksop. Its in superb condition, with the appear
ance and function of an almost-new bike. It’s a mixture of original pa
rts (Campagnolo headset, bb, derailleurs, seatpost, and hubs, Atom freew
heel, NOS parts (Campagnolo 1037 pedals, strada 167.5 cranks, 42/49 NR c
hainrings, lined housing, long dropout screws, brake levers and toeclips
, Modolo Anatomic hoods, Rigida AL1320 rims, Robergel stainless double b
utted spokes, Mafac Racer calipers and hangers, Alfredo Binda straps, Ve
lox plugs, TA handlebar bottle cage, Silca Imperio pump), and new period
-style parts (Brooks B-17 Ti saddle, Nitto Noodle bar and Technomic stem
, Campagnolo braided stainless cables, shellaqued cloth tape, Continenta
l duraskin 630x32mm tires and Kenda superlight tubes). I bought the fram
e and many parts from Cyclart, who also built the wheels. The bike was b
uilt by me in 2004 following complete disassembly, cleaning, and lubrica
tion of all parts but for the freewheel. Pictures and price upon reques
t.
Best regards,
Len Grossman, South Orange, NJ


by: 69.76.64.66


   RE:FOR SALE:   1971 Raleigh International for sale, 52cm posted by John E on 3/2/2006 at 3:26:34 PM
Wow, Peter, with 3 posts, we must be dealing with a very motivated seller! ;) It sounds like a great ride for someone a bit shorter than myself (my road bike frame size is definitely 55cm C-T). I haven't seen a 49-42 chainring combo since the step-through version of the Nishiki Competition, but with a 13-26 freewheel, it provides a very useful overall range of 44 to 102 gear-inches.

I wonder whether the frame has the original finish or is a CyclArt repaint. If it is the latter, I am sure it looks great.
by: 66.185.168.82