Dawes Galaxy -v- Raleigh Randonneur

[horizon]

The 2003/04 Galaxies were all traditional 531 non-compact style frames. I sold my 57cm Super Galaxy for a 59cm Horizon (same frame type) and was very pleased with the result (apart from the components!). I think the size of the bike does make a difference - a smaller frame of the same material must be stiffer, the wheelbase shorter etc. I really wonder what would happen if you swapped the frame? And then again the tyres. But if there really is an X factor, then you must stick with the Raleigh.

[noel.shearer@uuplc.co.uk]

Really looking forward to this mini trip this weekend - it will be my first tour of any kind, other than the odd day tour, since doing the C2C in 2004. For those interested, I am planning to do the Parkgate to Malpas section of the Cheshire Cycleway, then returning by the same route.

I had a trial run last night (loaded with 2 rear panniers and tent on rack - total weight 11.5kg) and noticed a pronounced lightness of the front end. It was quite easy to introduce a slight shimmy, which then settled down very quicly I have to say. Fast downhill didn't seem to make it worse - better if anything. I recall seeing a thread sometime ago about the Randonneur's tendency to do this? I'm hoping that a bit of weight up front (water and lightly loaded bar bag) may stabilise things a little.

I will report back how it all felt after 100 loaded miles this weekend!

Noel

[leftpoole]

Someone asked................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John - I'd be very interested to know what in particular you preferred about the Raleigh against the Dawes.


My reponse...........
The Randonneur was 708 tube. If this made a difference I do not know or recall. The major reason was that Raleigh had a shorter top tube. The bike felt better on the road. The Raleigh probably was just the same but it felt nicer to ride in my own opinion I would rate the Raleigh a better buy than the Dawes.
But all this is irrelevant now as neither companies make a decent tourer any more.
John.

[Paul Smith SRCC]

Most the UK Special Product Raleigh Randonneur frames were Reynolds 531st through out, the ‘ST’ stood for Super Touriste, Reynolds also had a 531 c (competition) model, the 'ST' version having a heavier guage downtube to stop speed wobble under load, ST tubing looked the same as the 'C' version, although ST fork blades were flatter, slimmer in profile. Reynolds 531 has now been replaced with 631

Reynolds 708 was supossed to be touring specific tubeset and more rigid than 531, working from memory alone if Raleigh Special products did use this tube it would have been one the very late models, if I recall some were a different colour, metalic blue rings a bell.... all a bit hazy now though so don't quote me on that

If the model you have seen is 708 is may well not be a Special Products UK built bike, a google seach I did yesterday when trying to find a picture came up with this, although RSP did in their final years make a blue version

Paul_Smith
Touring Tips

I've been foollowing this thread with interest.I always admired the Raleigh Randoneur particularly the small attention to detail like the spoke holders on the chainstay etc.
Paul I don't know if you can help with this but there were some Randoneurs made from Renolds 708 tubing can you tell us anything about it in comparison to 531st?

PS got to say i've been tempted by Randoneurs on Ebay before now.

[leftpoole]

The Randonneur I had was 708 and Special Products division. The frame arrived with SP stickers on it plus a certificate signed by the builder!
All in all it was a great bike. Year was a1998 and I still have the receipt.
John.

[Paul Smith SRCC]

1998 you would have got one of the last ones; a real shame they are no more, to repeat an earlier post it was a pleasure to sell a market leading British made product from what was a company that aslo offered a first class service

Paul_Smith
Touring Tips

The Randonneur I had was 708 and Special Products division. The frame arrived with SP stickers on it plus a certificate signed by the builder!
All in all it was a great bike. Year was a1998 and I still have the receipt.
John.

[reohn2]

Paul
Thanks for the reply on the 708 tubing question.

I've had a 1997 Dawes Horizon (though I do refer to it as Galaxy simply because its the same frame(531st throughout and 531st forks)but with with a cheaper groupset(mainly Alivio)after three years use as I bought it I upgraded wheels (XT Sputniks)rear mech XT front mech Ultegra Ultegra STI's.I bought the bike in Jan'98 for £380 (the list was £500)and I couldn't walk past it.
The bike is very comfortable,very predictable,and for stability unbeatable.To illustrate how stable, I was, after touring in the Lakes coming down a long sweeping dual carriageway(A590) down to Levens from Grange.Looking at the speedo i was clocking 53mph and bravely or stupidly depending on perspective thought I would try without hands,not a flicker, as steady as a rock, and with panniers and a tent across the top of the rack so I was fully laden.
If I had to complain I'd say it is a little heavy but after all it is a tourer,so needs a bit of beef to keep everthing as it should be when loaded,but when unloaded is just as comfortable.
One more thing up until recently i always rode the bike with 32mm tyres(I prefere the width for touring) either Vredestein Perfects or Schwalbe Marathons, when fully loaded i have no more than 75psi in them.Last tyre change I had a pair of 28mm Marathons hanging up off another bike and with 80psi it is not as comfy as the 32's.

[andrew_s]

I've (still) got one of the last 531ST Randonneur model, from 1989 or thereabouts. It's dark grey with a white head tube, 126mm OLN 6-speed freewheel. The 708 Randonneurs that came a couple or 3 years after were a metallic mid blue.

I'd previously had a Dawes Galaxy, but found the Randonneur much more pleasant to ride unladen or lightly laden (hostelling). I think it just seemed more lively and less stodgy. When heavily laden there was little difference that I can remember. I used it for 3 years of SRs before I got thoughts of PBP and got a more audax-specific bike (a pre-Thorn).

For the rear brake cable stop, I tapped the hole in the bridge and used the adjuster from an old rear mech.
Stock setup was just a cable stop with no adjuster.

I never found the spoke carrier on the chainstay very useful. It was much easier to carry spare spokes elsewhere because it was so awkward getting the spokes off if you ever needed them. You couldn't get a nipple key onto the nipples, and you needed a long and thin-bladed screwdriver to use the slot in the nipple head. Maybe a 2.5mm spanner out of an electricians set would have worked.

I did notice a bit of very mild frame shimmy at about 18-23mph if I let go of the bars and sat back in the saddle. It stopped as soon as I leant on the bars again.

[noel.shearer@uuplc.co.uk]

I said I'd feedback from the camping trip.

I had full camping gear, including gaz stove etc, but not loads of food, as it was just for the one night. All packed into 2 rear panniers with the tent across the rack plus bits and pieces in a bar bag - total weight of luggage was around 12kg, which doesn't seem too much comparing to some other recent posts.

Immediately noticeable was quite a severe shimmy from the front wheel when I set off. I got used to this reasonably quickly and found that momentarily releasing all pressure on the bars stopped it dead. Equally, applying pressure through just one side of the bars could unbalance things again.

The journey was a real pleasure though, once I'd adapted to this, and the bike flew on what was a fairly flat route till the last 10 miles. I need a lower climbing gear for the hills (already in hand) - the front end shimmy was almost uncontrollable when I tried honking up any hills. Total distance was 42m each way.

All kit performed well except my knees! Right knee really quite sore for the next couple of days after the return ride - I think I probably did a bit too much too soon, after having been off the bike for about 2 months with a back problem. Good news was that the back was super comfortable though.

When I got back, I dumped the tent (3kg) and went round the block again. Shimmy all but gone. Seems the solution is to spread the load more back > front but unfortunately, my front racks off the Galaxy won't fit the Randonneur.

The conclusion of the weekend I think is that I will keep the Galaxy for loaded touring/camping and persevere in tweaking the position etc to get it more comfortable. The Randonneur's forte appears to be light touring/Audax to me, so I think I will invest in a new set of wheels (poss with dynohub?) from Spa Cycles, some smaller mudguards and second attachment for my bar bag, and fit some spare bar end shifters I have - then the Randonneur will be nicely set up for me as my everyday/Audax bike.

Thanks for everyone's contribution to this thread - it has really helped me along the path to a conclusion!!

Noel

[georgew]

The Randonneur should handle heavier loads than the above quite comfortably. As to the shimmy, try moving your panniers forward as far as they can go without touching your heels. An inch forward can make all the difference. Again, re-pack your panniers with the heaviest items at the bottom and see if this makes a difference.

[glueman]

The grey, 531ST, late 80's randonneur is indeed an excellent bike. I have one in my shed and it's ridden at least as much as my custom bikes. It came fully fettled with bottle cages, front and rear carriers, a Brooks Pro in brown (large rivets) to match the suede effect handlebars and quality equipment throughout, with the exception of the then fashionable biopace and even that was an upmarket version (if still naff to ride).

I did manage to get a shimmy out of it when carrying camping gear but that was loaded to the gunwales and it didn't stop me touring the UK, Ireland and the continent on it. I paid £450 for mine from a discount shop and the factory re-sprayed it free of charge when commuting rust threatened to overwhelm the frame. It continues to handle faultlessly. I thought it was a cracking bike at the time in spite of not having a cult name and continue to do so.

[stickymickey]

I bought a new 2005 Galaxy with a Reynolds 631 frame & didn't like the ride at all. I replaced it last year with a 2000 Raleigh Randonneur with a Reynolds 708 frame, Magura rim brakes, Brooks Professional saddle etc. & love it to bits. It is 'as new' and had only done 200 miles when I bought it.
The ride & handling are superb & I'm planning to do LEJOG on it in the near future.

[Paul Smith SRCC]

I actually spotted a Raleigh Royal (which used a similar frame) yesterday on my day off and had a look at the rear brake cable stop (I was visiting my old coleagues at Pearson Cycles), it was a mid eighties model and they had a plain whole in the bridge with a threaded adjuster with nut at the bottom to adjust, I had a quick twiddle and sure enough it was forzen solid, no wonder they changed it to a simple stop later on.

"For the rear brake cable stop, I tapped the hole in the bridge and used the adjuster from an old rear mech" that is a good idea, make sure you keep it lubricated well of course.

Paul_Smith
Touring Tips

I've (still) got one of the last 531ST Randonneur model, from 1989 or thereabouts. It's dark grey with a white head tube, 126mm OLN 6-speed freewheel. The 708 Randonneurs that came a couple or 3 years after were a metallic mid blue.

I'd previously had a Dawes Galaxy, but found the Randonneur much more pleasant to ride unladen or lightly laden (hostelling). I think it just seemed more lively and less stodgy. When heavily laden there was little difference that I can remember. I used it for 3 years of SRs before I got thoughts of PBP and got a more audax-specific bike (a pre-Thorn).

For the rear brake cable stop, I tapped the hole in the bridge and used the adjuster from an old rear mech.
Stock setup was just a cable stop with no adjuster.

I never found the spoke carrier on the chainstay very useful. It was much easier to carry spare spokes elsewhere because it was so awkward getting the spokes off if you ever needed them. You couldn't get a nipple key onto the nipples, and you needed a long and thin-bladed screwdriver to use the slot in the nipple head. Maybe a 2.5mm spanner out of an electricians set would have worked.

I did notice a bit of very mild frame shimmy at about 18-23mph if I let go of the bars and sat back in the saddle. It stopped as soon as I leant on the bars again.

[james01]

...but all the contact points are in pretty much the same position as my Galaxy (after the fitting with Paul). In theory then, the riding position is the same.

But the Raleigh is a dream to ride compared to the Galaxy...

...this is yet another example of the "black art" of frame choice ! Sometimes an ancient second-hand frame can be just right for you, and all attempts to replicate it in a modern upmarket bike are doomed to failure, despite exact copying of contact points. Can anyone explain this?
Incidentally, I too have an old 531ST Randonneur which is still my machine of choice for serious distance riding.

[glueman]

On the subject of relative comfort, it seems fair to say that tourists have gone from the racer's left-over drawer to the mountain biker's spares box. While many of the the developments are perfect for the self sufficient cyclist, frames have been beefed up too far for some tastes (mine included) in a bid to diminish shimmy resulting in a somewhat dead bike.
While the all rounder bike remains a noble aim it's hard to square expedition cycle camping over mixed roads with a Sunday club bike leading some of us to go down the 2-tourer route, not without regrets. There are other factors, a certain thickness of tubing to resist casual dents, belt and braces wheels and multiple brazings that make the sports tourer and the load lugger different beasts imo.

On the subject of Raleigh I think the Classic was their first attempt at a proper touring bike (was it burgundy?) and may have been the embryonic Randonneur frame. I never had one but people spoke well of them.