Dawes Galaxy Classic 531 2016

[531colin]

I don't know why its quite so difficult to find Reynolds' tube list on the internet, but i finally ran their 2017 tube list to earth here....http://www.torchandfile.com/assets/images/2017%20JAN%20PARTS%20LIST.pdf...thanks to a website called "torch and file".
Only three 531 tubes listed, Brucey will be pleased to see they are inch and inch and eighth diameter.
I have filed a copy of the 2016 list, and 531 tubes are the same

[Gattonero]

I wonder how much longer we will be seeing Reynolds 531 stickers used to sell us bike frames. It must surely just be people who are middle aged or older who are still impressed by that. I remember in the 1970s regarding "531" on a tube being a bit like a hallmark, a magic symbol of quality. And in relation to wages at the time it was expensive. Similarly, a Dawes Galaxy was the default choice of tourer, constructed in Britain from nice stuff. These days a Galaxy will not be British and will not be the best you can get for that money. And 531 is not going to be better than any other good quality steel. But the twin labels of Galaxy and 531 transport us back to a time when they symbolised quality. In truth I see it as a marketing con. If I were looking for a frame that ticked the boxes that a Galaxy ticked in its heyday I would have to spend real money on something really special from Mercian, Ellis Briggs, etc. Something that would hurt my wallet in the way that a Galaxy would have done in the 70s.

I agree.
Metallurgy has long improved, not only as far as the base material, but as the final product in terms of tubing drawn and heat-treatment.
Also joining methods have evolved, even lugs have changed enormously from 3 decades ago. In fact, new materials can offer a better ride quality even while using traditional joining methods, like lugged construction. Someone went to make O/S and sloping lugs, to add more flexibilty to modern designs for today's needs.
Move on from nostalgia.

[Brucey]

the bike isn't so very much different from older Dawes Galaxies in that it has a quill stem and a 1" steerer (I think). I can't say what the bike rides like (I have not ridden one) but if the idea is to emulate an older bike then there are many other ways of acheiving this, including buying an old Dawes Galaxy (or perhaps something better made, like a Raleigh) and renovating it.

One thing that they seem a bit cagey about is exactly what tubes are used where; it isn't clear to me that they use 531 tubing throughout; if they did, they would presumably say so.

cheers

Interested as to why you think a Raleigh is better made?

was not is....

I have not had the opportunity to see a current Dawes cut up but I have seen various 80s and 90s dawes frames cut up and I would say that 'there was room for improvement' in the way they were put together. By contrast a Raleigh Randonneur from the same time would (if it fits you, the frame geometry is a bit weird) be better put together.

cheers

[markjohnobrien]

the bike isn't so very much different from older Dawes Galaxies in that it has a quill stem and a 1" steerer (I think). I can't say what the bike rides like (I have not ridden one) but if the idea is to emulate an older bike then there are many other ways of acheiving this, including buying an old Dawes Galaxy (or perhaps something better made, like a Raleigh) and renovating it.

One thing that they seem a bit cagey about is exactly what tubes are used where; it isn't clear to me that they use 531 tubing throughout; if they did, they would presumably say so.

cheers

Interested as to why you think a Raleigh is better made?

was not is....

I have not had the opportunity to see a current Dawes cut up but I have seen various 80s and 90s dawes frames cut up and I would say that 'there was room for improvement' in the way they were put together. By contrast a Raleigh Randonneur from the same time would (if it fits you, the frame geometry is a bit weird) be better put together.

cheers

Of course it refers to the nottingham made frames.

So, to drill down, would it be on aspects of:

Frame preparation; tolerances; alignment; rustproofing; and the quality of the frame building and/or paint ?

I have read that the Raleigh lightweight division (which became Raleigh special products) and built the Randonneurs, had frame builders of such renown that they built Bernard Hinaults frames (raced under different colours of course) when he won his 5 tours... And Fignons frames in 89 when he was beaten by Greg Lemond were made by Raleigh.

Interested if my guesses on the built frames correlate with your observations.

[Brucey]

The Raleigh story is a bit confusing because their best (professional quality) frames came from the SBDU in Ilkeston until about 1987. These frames were as good as you could get anywhere, and the bulk of the production there went to various professional riders and teams. It was one of the very first frame-building shops to get 753 approval.

At the same time there was a 'lightweight unit' operating in Raleigh Nottingham that did off-the-peg frames in 531 etc but that wasn't 753-approved. These are nice enough frames but not in the same league as SBDU ones, not by a long chalk. After 1987 the SBDU closed and production was relocated to what had been the lightweight unit in Nottingham. The combined entity was then known as RSP, and made off-the-peg quality bikes like the randonneur as well as professional quality frames.

Whether RSP frames were more like LU ones or SBDU ones probably varied with the type of frame in question; it seems that up to ~SB 8300 would have come from the SBDU but there are (IIRC) SBxxxx serial numbers (on professional quality framesets) much higher than that, up to at least 12000 I think, with ~SB 8300 onwards being built in Nottingham, presumably by the same builders. It is unclear (to me) if all the team issue frames built at the SBDU (and later in Nottingham) actually had SBxxxx frame numbers or not; there would have been a few hundred team frames made each year which would have left few frame numbers 'left over' for private sales; then again SBDU production was only about 600 frames a year, it took about 13 years to get up to 8300; five builders each making a few frames a week I think. Later on (in the 1990s), RSP framesets were identified using a letter code prefix (changed annually) and there were thousands each year, by this time many of them TIG welded too. Anyway they were all pretty good frames, even if it is debatable how many of the RSP ones could really be compared with SBDU ones.

By contrast the fit of the parts used in Dawes frames around that time was pretty sloppy and the tubes weren't even mitred correctly in many cases, leaving the lug to do the work. Not at all in the same league! I think that even in the 1970s the quality of construction of Dawes frames was still OK but by the 1980s it had definitely nose-dived somewhat.

FWIW I have owned Dawes frames from the 1970s and 1980s and I also have an SBDU frame from the 1970s. I don't own any off-the peg Raleigh lightweights from the 1980s period because (as mentioned previously) they have weird geometry that doesn't suit me.

cheers

[peetee]

I have seen various 80s and 90s dawes frames cut up and I would say that 'there was room for improvement' in the way they were put together.

How true is this statement? Well, I love British frames, I have about a dozen, but I will never buy a Dawes. Back in the 80's My brother had a Dawes Imperial - the top racing model at the time. It had been built slightly out of true so he claimed a replacement as per their guarantee. It took over a year to arrive and after riding it for a week he thought something felt strange so asked me to inspect the front of the bike. Without any real effort the fork blade parted company with the crown. It had not been brazed at all and was held in place with a tight fit and a bit of chrome.

[531colin]

Frames built by nameless bored operatives on piecework in stinking factories tend to be variable in build quality

[jimlews]

Brucy,
Could you elaborate on the "weird geometry" of (some?) Raleigh frames.
I should declare an interest; I own a 531st Randonneur that is a delight to ride loaded or unloaded. But put a bar bag on it and an oscillation propagates through the frame making it impossible to ride.

[Brucey]

Brucy,
Could you elaborate on the "weird geometry" of (some?) Raleigh frames.
I should declare an interest; I own a 531st Randonneur that is a delight to ride loaded or unloaded. But put a bar bag on it and an oscillation propagates through the frame making it impossible to ride.

well, I wouldn't use a bar bag then....

The weird geometry is such that (IIRC) although the top tube lengths appear to progress 'normally' through the frame sizes, it isn't really enough of a change and the seat angle changes too. The result is that the actual forward reach (i.e. horizontally from a centreline dropped through the BB to the top of the headset) changes by less than 1/2" between the 21" size and the 25" size, or something like that. Crazy...the tall frames are too short and the short frames are too long. I think maybe they did it to keep the bigger frames stiff enough and the smaller frames so that there wasn't bad toe overlap. The ~23" sizes seem reasonably well proportioned but most of the others are far from ideal IMHO.

BTW the 531ST tubeset changed over the time it was made; AFAICT the very first ones were the lightest, then in the second (most commonplace) version the tubes were made thicker-walled but still standard diameters. The final versions had an oversized top tube and some other tweaks. The second version is OK in medium sizes with a load on, but builds into a rather whippy frame (in a loaded context) in the larger sizes.

If the bike shimmys with a bar-bag on, it might be the stiffness of the frame that supports the bar bag that is the culprit. Any lack of stiffness in the rear rack won't help either (it is just another excuse for the tail to wag the dog as it were...). If you can suppress the shimmy by holding the bar bag in your hands whilst your weight is borne through your wrists onto the handlebar, that would be a clue that the bar bag support/bar bag itself perhaps isn't stiff enough.

cheers

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I can tell you a story
Bought a Raleigh Randonneur 708 in 96.

Probably the frame is to big for me, my fault for taking the only one in the shop 61 cm.
A 58 cm might of been ok but I will never know.
Gearing would put a track rider to shame you could barely get of the middle clanger.
Brakes were dangerous, levers were mismatched with the cantis.
Handlebars were too narrow for a large frame that would suit a plus six footer, so constantly hitting bar ends with knees.
Pedals were also too small for a man.

A fault in the manufacture meant that one of the rear rack lugs had been moved during cooling.
And just last year after owning it 20 years I noticed that the frame is probably twisted.

531colin has suggested the geometry particularly the steering make it twitchy.

All I can say is that even with luggage it feels like a crit bike, but that was as designed so it would not feel like a rhinoceros with panniers.

Currently training to ride a sportive but reluctant to change the 35 mm touring tyres as I want it to remain a touring bike
Still left the mudguards (plastic mtb like) and the rear rack on Sure I will get some laughs.

[jimlews]

Hi Brucey.

Thanks for the reply. Comprehensive as usual.

I only used the bar bag on that bike once; that was quite enough. I suspect the Rixel & caul click fix system is the source of the problem. This is riveted to the rear face of the bag which is stiffened with correx corrugated plastic. This correx is not rigid enough and flexes, setting up the standing oscillation that is the cause of the problem. I fitted same bag to a Thorn XTC (in my opinion a somewhat overbuilt machine) - same problem but less evident due to damping from the oversize frame tubing.

I also have an old '81 Galexy. The visible lugwork is not as lovely as the Raleigh and the frame geometry is very weird - slack seat tube angle and steeper head tube angle with a long TT. Toe clip clearance is marginal. I have to set the saddle at the front of its adjustment and use a short handlebar stem. Having done that it is pretty comfortable.

[peetee]

I have a 708 cyclocross frame made by Raleigh and, curiously for a brazed frame, branded as a Dyna-Tech. It has very similar dimensions to a touring bike. I have not loaded it up but I am particularly demanding of my frames when it comes to hills and I like a frameset that gives what I ask of it and doesn't waste a watt of my energy when out of the saddle and 'giving it some'. I am very impressed with the response of the mainframe to lateral loading in comparison to many other Reynolds framed bike I have owned. I put this down to the oversized top tube which is 28.6 rather than 25.4. I have seen other 708 frames with the regular top tube diameter.

[Brucey]

....I also have an old '81 Galexy...... the frame geometry is very weird - slack seat tube angle and steeper head tube angle with a long TT. Toe clip clearance is marginal. I have to set the saddle at the front of its adjustment and use a short handlebar stem. Having done that it is pretty comfortable.

this kind of geometry makes a lot of sense if you intend to fit a Brooks saddle, especially if it then ends up being hammock-shaped. Other saddles are basically designed to be fitted to frames with steeper seat angles, but a Brooks is not. I have several bikes (with pretty average seat angles by modern standards) that I can't use a leather saddle on at all, or only if I use a very unusual seat pin, with far more layback than normal.

cheers

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
My 708 randonneur came with a std b17 brooks, its not an ideal long distance I.M.O.
I am average if skinny so not a lot of excess between thighs and the brooks cuts into the thighs after 100 miles.
My current selle royal gel is as far forward as it will go, 60 mm or so behind BB, I suppose that a taller person +6' would be ok, I not sure long saddle setback is that intuitive anyway.
All maintubes are 28+ mm, no complaint at stiffness, the forks I believe do the comfort.

My old bikes in my youth were all made of plasticine, not till the koga did the BB stop swaying, though that is another argument on power delivery.
The faster you ride the Raleigh (708 rand) the better it always feels.

[markjohnobrien]

Brucy,
Could you elaborate on the "weird geometry" of (some?) Raleigh frames.
I should declare an interest; I own a 531st Randonneur that is a delight to ride loaded or unloaded. But put a bar bag on it and an oscillation propagates through the frame making it impossible to ride.

It sounds like your bar bag as you mention in a later post that's it's not very rigid and flexes. What's the make?

I have used an Ortlieb bar bag with Rixen and Kaul for years on a Reynolds 708 Randonneur and never a problem although, of course, it's a different tubing. It's the earlier non oversized top tube.