Dawes Galaxy Tour

[saudidave]

I've just picked up a pristine example of this model (circa 2002 model). I've paid £350.00. The old boy I bought it from said he had used it for 2 tours of Ireland and it has covered less than 1200 miles. I believe him, if you put it down your lbs they could literally pass it off as new and get away with it.

The older galaxy I've recently restored has a 531 ST sticker, the galaxy tour just says 531 butted tubes. Is the galaxy tour an inferior tubeset?

[thirdcrank]

Over the years Reynolds 531 has come in various tubesets from the once revered "531 throughout" to plain gauge main tubes only. There have been various decals to reflect this. If you google there are various historic articles to explain this but info about recent years seems to be short. FWIW I had a frame built by a well-known local builder in 1998 and they said that 531 stays were very difficult to obtain even then. So mine has a "Reynolds Designer Select" decal with tubing details hand stamped into the BB

Sorry I cannot be more helpful about yuour frame.

[saudidave]

Thank you. I'm asking, I suppose from idle curiosity. The bike rides beautifully and is indistinguishable from new. I doubt that I would be able to distinguish between 531 and 531ST when riding it anyway!

[CREPELLO]

What you have is a frame with 531DB super tourist main tubes and fork blades with cromoly (525/4130) rear stays (not sure if they're butted). It's the same as mine.

I'd be interested to know if you can detect a more lively or springy ride in your older Galaxy (with the thin 531 rear stays) when pushing it on rougher road surfaces, compared to the later frame. I just imagine that those over sized rear stays might add some stiffness (and weight), although they're good for laden touring, I'll vouch for that. Compliance in a frame (or lack of) is a measure that we cyclists often seek out in in frame's ride. Not sure that I've experienced the ultimate compliant ride yet - 'tis the Grail that I seek!'

[saudidave]

What you have is a frame with 531DB super tourist main tubes and fork blades with cromoly (525/4130) rear stays (not sure if they're butted). It's the same as mine.

I'd be interested to know if you can detect a more lively or springy ride in your older Galaxy (with the thin 531 rear stays) when pushing it on rougher road surfaces, compared to the later frame. I just imagine that those over sized rear stays might add some stiffness (and weight), although they're good for laden touring, I'll vouch for that. Compliance in a frame (or lack of) is a measure that we cyclists often seek out in in frame's ride. Not sure that I've experienced the ultimate compliant ride yet - 'tis the Grail that I seek!'

Jerry, thanks for that, I now have the full s.p. I haven't ridden it with any vengeance yet, just a short jaunt around the block. I'll be giving it 40 miles around the Cheshire lanes before the world wakes up tomorrow, so I will let you know the verdict on the ride quality after that..

[saudidave]

I've already sent a PM to Crepello about the comparison in ride between my rebuilt 1994 galaxy and my recently purchased pristine 2002 model, however I found the comparison between the two so significant I thought a post was in order.

For the record, the 1994 has a 21" 531 frame with 531 front forks and rear stays. Th 2002 has 531 main tubes and forks, with considerably beefier rear stays, (cromoly, 525/4130) . I am 5' 9" tall with a 31.5" inside leg so arguably either frame is a suitable size for me.

After I'd ridden home from work on the '94, I decided a spin on the '02 was in order. I had several 5 minute rides swapping from bike to bike

The 94 is much springier for sure, it is a marked difference and I'm not sure which I like best. The '02 is much stiffer and to some degree I prefer that because when tonking along at high cadence, the 94 can become too "bouncy"

The other surprise was that the San Marco Rolls saddle on the '02 is if anything comfier than the B17 on the '94, albeit the latter has only covered 500 miles so far.

I'm ***!!if I know which one to keep now! The 2002 was a bargain and a bit of an impulse purchase - I hadn't set out to look for a new bike, I just stumbled upon it!

DaVE

[saudidave]

TO ALL PERSONS REFERRED TO THIS THREAD FROM AN EBAY AD.

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THE SELLER, "EXPATBORE" IS GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED DECEPTION (PERHAPS MISGUIDEDLY)

THE 2002-2003 MODEL IS NOT UK MADE, AS HE SUGGESTS, BUT WAS MADE IN CHECKOSLOVAKIA. UK PRODUCTION CEASED CIRCA 2000. THEY WERE SO BADLY MADE THAT THEY CEASED MAKING THEM IN CZ AND MOVED PRODUCTION TO THE FAR EAST, CIRCA 2005

IT IS NOT SOUGHT AFTER, QUITE THE REVERSE. IT IS POSSIBLY THE WORST DAWES GALAXY MODEL EVER MADE. THE FRAMES ARE RENOWNED FOR THEIR FAILURES.

CAVEAT EMPTOR / BUYER BEWARE.

[stevietink]

Hi, I`m the guy who bought the Galaxy from the ad. You did me a favour by posting this comment!! I got the bike for £200. The seller wanted a lot more.

I bid on the bike because it IS NOT A 2002 model!! The model of it is a 1998. I pointed this out to the seller but it was too late for him to change the description. You could tell from the photographs that it wasn`t a 2002 model. It stood out a mile. I agree that the 2002 model was the worst one, but this is not that example.

I`ve been using the bike since the day it arrived. Fantastic ride. I cannot believe my luck by getting it for £200. It`s a genuine British made Dawes Galaxy, hand made.

The seller was a genuine guy and he wasn`t out to make anyone look daft. I think that you ruined his chances of getting a good price by not giving him the benefit of the doubt and by posting this. I was willing to part with at least £350 for the bike.

[pete75]

Saudidave.
That seems an odd thing to post on ebay especially by a guy who, in this thread, is saying what a good buy his own 2002 Galaxy was for £350. If the 2002 model is a bad as you describe why did you buy one yourself? Given what similar bikes usually go for on ebay your posting there has effectively robbed some poor guy of a £100+. I do hope you're feeling pleased with yourself.

[stevietink]

I agree with you Pete. The bike could have sold itself if it wasn`t for his comment. The stickers on the bike say "Hand Built In England", the group set is RSX, which wasn`t used after 1999, so no one would put that group set onto a 2002-03 bike, this was another clue to it`s real age. My local bike shop says that Dawes would`nt but "Made in England" stickers on a bike that was made elsewhere. 2002-2003 used Deore, as far as I can tell with my research. I would have given the buyer another £100 on top of the £200 if I hadn`t lost a lot of money on previous bikes that i`ve sold on e-bay!!

I did tell the seller about the bike not being an `02, even if it was, it still didn`t deserve the report, but he couldn`t change the description by then.

[saudidave]

Saudidave.
That seems an odd thing to post on ebay especially by a guy who, in this thread, is saying what a good buy his own 2002 Galaxy was for £350. If the 2002 model is a bad as you describe why did you buy one yourself? Given what similar bikes usually go for on ebay your posting there has effectively robbed some poor guy of a £100+. I do hope you're feeling pleased with yourself.

The seller described the bike as 2002 and said it was sought after, which a 2002 isn't, that is why I posted it. It was described incorrectly and I strongly object to someone using my post to sell incorrectly described goods. What he should have done is relist it, correctly described. I have no feelings about the sellers predicament because he didn't do his research. Tough. I am, however, pleased that some unsuspecting and naive individual didn't buy an incorrectly described bike several years older than its claimed age. Never has caveat emptor been more appropriate than when buying off ebay.

As for my buying a 2002, I did so because it was an absolute gift , an effectively unused, new Galaxy for £350.00, complete with £80.00 worth of accessories that I sold on ebay, thus the true cost to me was was £270.00. It is also a more appropriate frame size for me and has much better brakes.The seller had 50 years cycling experience and appeared to be of sound mind. As for the '94, whilst it was in excellent condition and I consider the frame to be superior to the 02, it was 15years old and it needed new tyres soon at a cost of £40.00. I sold it (correctly described) on ebay for £380.00. If you look at what I bought, what I sold and the money involved, I have an excellent, better fitting bike and I'm £150.00 better off than I would have been if I'd kept the '94. That's why I bought the 2002.

[stevietink]

I still don`t understand your logic on this. If the 2002 frame is as bad as you say it is, why didn`t you sell the frame, and put the money raised towards a frame which suited you?

Also, where did you get the information from about the 2002-03 Galaxy? I`ve trawled the the net and haven`t found anything on the subject. I know that the 2002-03 transition from steel to compact aluminium frames may have had some teething problems but I couldn`t find anything else.

Could you post a picture of the frame just to worn other people who read this thread?

Hope it works out for you..

[saudidave]

I still don`t understand your logic on this. If the 2002 frame is as bad as you say it is, why didn`t you sell the frame, and put the money raised towards a frame which suited you?

Also, where did you get the information from about the 2002-03 Galaxy? I`ve trawled the the net and haven`t found anything on the subject. I know that the 2002-03 transition from steel to compact aluminium frames may have had some teething problems but I couldn`t find anything else.

Could you post a picture of the frame just to worn other people who read this thread?

Hope it works out for you..

I'd love to sell the 02 frame and put the money, plus the £150 profit from my wheeling and dealing towards a better frame to put all the nearly new running gear from the 02 on to. The reality is I work in construction (dead in the water) & thanks to the clueless pinko's running the country, I'm shelling out £7,000 a year in university fees so that my two daughters can get degrees. That is why I haven't sold it, I'm skint!

The 2002 frame doesn't ride that badly, but it isn't as good as the earlier frames, such as my 94. The 94's had 531 rear stays, the 2002's have much bigger gauge cromo ones. The ride isn't that bad, it is a Galaxy after all, but relatively speaking it isn't as good. This era of Galaxy frame is prone to failure due to alleged poor QC. That doesn't mean every single one is a duffer, just more than usual. Mine is in effect new at the moment and sound as the pound once was, so I have no reason to ditch it in the next week for fear of it collapsing on me

I've picked up the information by googling for it, from a variety of sources and from pm's from owners of a similar genre. One regular here has had two fork and now a total frame failure on his 02. The CZ bikes have a reputation for poor quality control

There isn't much point posting a picture of a bike frame on here - you wouldn't glean anything from it. Frame numbers tell you the year.

As for it working out, I have a nearly new, quality bike for buttons and I do 100 miles a week on it. That is good enough for me, for now. The Mercian or the Hewitt frame will have to wait till the funds are improved..

[pete75]

Dave you can justify what you put as much as you like. I still think it was wrong particularly your assumption that the man was out to swindle people. It would have been better to have told the guy that his advert was inaccurate and given him a chance to correct it, in particular that his bike wasn't a 2002 model. As the purchaser says he was a genuine guy so made those mistakes in all innocence. A 1999 bike could well have remained unsold until 2002(an LBS had a 1998 Galaxy unsold until 2 years ago) and, unless pointed out to them, most people would consider a bike bought in 2002 as a 2002 bike. This is especially true of someone who may have bought a bike second hand and been told it was bought new in 2002. Simililarly without detailed knowledge of the model all Galaxies appear to be sought after - the prices they fetch on ebay are way above those of lesser known brands of equal or better quality. For example I bought an MB framed tourer in very good condition for £100 from the bay. Better quality than a Galaxy, Vernon Barker(the B of MB) - an excellent frame builder made the 531ST frame, mostly XT components, Mercian built wheels, Carradice super C panniers etc and mileage so low it still had remains of moulding flash on the original tyres. If it'd been a Galaxy it'd have probably fetched 3 times what I paid so yes it's fair to describe a Galaxy as sought after.

Your own comments contain an untruth, no doubt an innocent mistake, Dawes frames were never built in Czechoslovakia.

[glueman]

I've never quite seen why Galaxys are so sought after. They're okay, do the job, nothing extraordinary. I had a Galaxy tandem from '92 and wouldn't describe it as anything more than adequately built. I'd go for Pete's M&B everytime.

The difficulty is when people talk about a Galaxy they're describing all kinds of bikes, in various materials and build qualities from different countries made for about 35 years. The latest ones look well thought out and the early lightweight versions are okay but there's a lot of average stuff in between IMO.
However our attachment to a particular bike has never had much to do with focus and finesse and everything to do with jack of all trades functionalism and at that Galaxys succeed quite well.