Frame Spacing Question

(Matt Cahill) may have said:

I have an old Raleigh International (circa 1975).

Long time in your possession, or multi-owner, or both?

Quoted message said:

I measured the frame and the hub that has always been on the bike with a caliper and now I'm
confused. The space between the dropouts was 124 mm. The space between the spacers on the hub was
about 122.5 mm. The bike came equipped as a five speed which is normally 120 mm.

Was the bike mis-equipped ?

Probably not, in my opinion.

Quoted message said:

Did the frame dropouts spread over time ?

If I recall correctly, 120mm is indeed the spacing that is "normal" for a 5-speed. I'm not terribly
familiar with Raleigh's models; if it's one of the cheaply mass-produced Raleighs, it may have just
been a bit wide from day one. Or, it's possible that any number of things may have happened to it
along the way between then and now, including falling into the hands of somebody who was fond of
having extra clearance to make it easy to drop the rear wheel in after fixing a flat.

Quoted message said:

Is there always such a difference between the hub and the frame ?

1 to 2mm of extra space is common in my experience, but sometimes it's closer, and sometimes you
have to spread the stays just a touch to drop the wheel in. I treat "plus or minus 3 mm" as being
not worth worrying about unless I'm using a skewer. Since the hub that was present measures 122.5,
the 124 spacing is not, in my opinion, out of bounds. (I will also note that I have heard a number
of people say that Raleigh was infamous for odd sizing in certain places, and my few experiences
with the make encountered some of them.)

Quoted message said:

What size should I consider this ? (It could easily expand to 125
mm.)

I'd treat it as a dandy candidate for dropping a 6-speed hub into, but I wouldn't hesitate to leave
a 5 in there as long as it was not mounted with a skewer, and I wouldn't even worry about the skewer
if the stays are flexible enough. A lot of older inexpensive bikes have, shall we say, not
particularly high lateral rigidity in that area.

Sheldon Brown gives hints about how to correct the spread if you're adventurous...

sheldonbrown.comframe spacing.htmlOpen ↗

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

Werehatrack said:

On 7 Oct 2003 18:56:43 -0700, [email hidden] (Matt Cahill) may have said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have an old Raleigh International (circa 1975). I measured the frame and the hub that has always
been on the bike with a caliper and now I'm confused. The space between the dropouts was 124 mm.
The space between the spacers on the hub was about 122.5 mm. The bike came equipped as a five
speed which is normally 120 mm.

If I recall correctly, 120mm is indeed the spacing that is "normal" for a 5-speed. I'm not
terribly familiar with Raleigh's models; if it's one of the cheaply mass-produced Raleighs, it may
have just been a bit wide from day one.

The International was quite high in Raleigh's lineup with double-butted 531 tubing and mainly Campy
Nuovo Record components. Perhaps it was designed so that either the 5- or 6-speed wheels of that
period could be used.

Werehatrack said:

(Matt Cahill) may have said:

I have an old Raleigh International (circa 1975).

Long time in your possession, or multi-owner, or both?

FYI: In it's day the International was far from a cheap bike 🙂

I would expect that the frame was correctly spaced when made - not that other factors may have crept
in - even before being sold the first time.

Peter said:

The International was quite high in Raleigh's lineup with double-butted 531 tubing and mainly
Campy Nuovo Record components. Perhaps it was designed so that either the 5- or 6-speed wheels of
that period could be used.

This is probably correct, since by '75 there were a lot of 6-speed freewheels around. Some were
narrow-spaced enough to fit in 120mm, but bikes were beginning to come with wider spacing.

Or, it could just be that someone put a wider hub on there for a while, and the frame was re-spaced
through use. It was not uncommon to add spacers and washers to deal with problems like insufficient
chain-dropout clearance in the smallest cog, or derailleurs rubbing on spokes at the other end.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can _`\(,_ | only be cured by
something racy and Italian. Bianchis and (_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis
and Ferraris. -- Glenn Davies

Quoted message said:

Did the frame dropouts spread over time ?

unlikely

Quoted message said:

Is there always such a difference between the hub and the frame ?

not always, but sometimes. it's common in "transitional" frames, i.e. an old miyata i had was spaced
128 - transitional between 126 & 130. likewise, the current surley crosscheck is spaced 132.5
transitional between 130 & 135. it's not a big deal.

last thing. don't bother trying to permanently set the frame to a new spread. i've seen people mess
that up with all the bend in just one stay so the frame no longer tracks straight. just use your hub
to clamp it to the width you want to run and leave it at that. it's well within the elastic limits
of the frame.

jb

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Did the frame dropouts spread over time ?

unlikely

Quoted message said:

Is there always such a difference between the hub and the frame ?

not always, but sometimes. it's common in "transitional" frames, i.e. an old miyata i had was
spaced 128 - transitional between 126 & 130. likewise, the current surley crosscheck is spaced
132.5 transitional between 130 & 135. it's not a big deal.

last thing. don't bother trying to permanently set the frame to a new spread. i've seen people mess
that up with all the bend in just one stay so the frame no longer tracks straight. just use your
hub to clamp it to the width you want to run and leave it at that. it's well within the elastic
limits of the frame.

Nothing says that both stays flex the same amount. If you force the wheel in, the frame may be just
as mis-aligned as if you had cold-set one stay.

Not that it's a big deal but the solution you suggest is not necessarily an improvement. Rear
triangle off by a millimeter will not cause noticable tracking problems unless you can feel a pea
under 20 mattresses. Many (most?) cheap factory-built frames are off by that much anyway.

--Paul

Quoted message said:

Nothing says that both stays flex the same amount.

that's absolutely correct in principle, but unlikely in this case. the flex is determined by the
material used. most "off the peg" frames like the one described by the o.p. use chain & seat stays
which are the same L to R, therefore the the elastic flex on each side will be the same.

some high end custom frames use a lighter gauge stay on the left as it has less work to do, and if
you have one of these frames, then yes, you do need to take this into account.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nothing says that both stays flex the same amount.

jim beam said:

that's absolutely correct in principle, but unlikely in this case. the flex is determined by the
material used. most "off the peg" frames like the one described by the o.p. use chain & seat stays
which are the same L to R, therefore the the elastic flex on each side will be the same.

In theory, maybe.

Paul, and others who've actually wrestled a few bicycle frames, know that many have a significant
dimple on the outside of the right chainstay.

Quoted message said:

some high end custom frames use a lighter gauge stay on the left as it has less work to do, and if
you have one of these frames, then yes, you do need to take this into account.

News to me. Can you name one such frame? Why would it "do less work"?

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thank you all. I just love this group ! You can ask a question and really get some intelligent
responses.

If you've ever visited rec.bicycles.racing you know that is not always the case in other groups.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some high end custom frames use a lighter gauge stay on the left as it has less work to do, and
if you have one of these frames, then yes, you do need to take this into account.

News to me. Can you name one such frame? Why would it "do less work"?

some of the original rivendell's used to make a big deal about it. got a catalog somewhere. and one
of our local bay area builders, mikkelsen also offers it as an option.

wouldn't bother with it myself. they say the r/h stay does more work because it gets "more" of the
load from the drive.

jb