The Raleigh UK TI-Raleigh 40th anniversary frameset has arrived! A few days after placing my order, the courier knocked on the front door and left a large cardboard box. In just a few minutes I had the camera set to record and I started talking.
Before the Raleigh UK Launch Event
Before moving on to the unboxing and review, here is a recap of the last few weeks.
First Contact
Raleigh UK had made a few announcements, something new and special was coming! And then at midday on the 20th July, they announced the 40th anniversary Reynolds 753 TI Raleigh bike to commemorate Joop’s success in the 1980 Tour de France. I sent Raleigh a Facebook message within minutes of watching the short promotional video. Although I cheekily asked for a frame to review, I did also give them a short bio and some links to some TI-Raleigh specific blog posts I’d written that I thought they would find interesting.
There was no reply from Raleigh…
So I did what many others did and signed up for more info and then also the launch event.
I received a Facebook message for Guy Kesteven who told me he was doing an unboxing video of the anniversary bike on behalf of Raleigh. Guy wanted to know if he could use some of my blog info with a credit on his video. I said ok and we exchanged a few messages and information.
After checking my messages again, I still hadn’t heard from Raleigh…
I sent them a further message on 17th August.
A Reply…
Eventually on the 18th someone replied to my message. An apology was given, and they also provided the email address for Raleigh’s Marketing department. So I emailed them. I got a reply. It included this sentence in response to my concerns over details and my question about what they were wanting to create, especially as they were using the word ‘iconic’.
The project was indeed to create a like for like replica of the original TI that Joop used back in 1980 when he won the tour, and you’re absolutely right – detail is key.
Raleigh UK
A bit of an impersonal email, simply signed off as ‘Raleigh’. But it was very clear – this was a project to create something like for like, and more importantly, “detail was key”. And that was the end of that.
Work meant that I actually missed the launch, although I have since seen the launch, you can watch it here… Raleigh UK TI-Raleigh Launch Event. I also caught up with Guy’s unboxing.
New Arrival
The delivery day came. I heard a knock on the door and it was here. Within the external postage box was the ‘TI-Raleigh’ 1980 frameset box together with my certificate of authenticity and frame number, TI40-192.
Unboxing Video
I wanted to produce an unboxing video, and I wanted my reaction to be genuine. I didn’t want to do the video after I’d opened the box as I wouldn’t have had that ‘gut reaction’ that is so important. Here is the video…
About My Review
Before I move on, my review is only a look at the detail of the frameset. I’m not reviewing where it was made, or the suitability of those that constructed this frame. I’m not covering the many questions and comments about a UK builder, or even the question over its intended use, indicated by the small top tube transfer “Not For Competition Use“.
My speciality is the detail, that is the area I’ll cover.
Let’s Start with the Fork
The Crown
This crown was clear to see in the marketing images so I knew what to expect.
One thing I’ll say about this frame is that Raleigh have mixed up lots of details between different design periods and they’ve also mixed up differences between SB numbered and actual Team frames; there isn’t a consistency. The TI replica fork crown is a cross breed of a Cinelli CC, Vagner and Zeus.
The SBDU built with extra detail that often wasn’t seen on Team frames, it simply wasn’t needed. The drilled tang on the inside of the crown against the fork blade was a separate piece. It was or wasn’t used depending on the model of frame. This was an extra addition that the team rarely, if ever, used.
The main thing that you notice about the crown on TI40-192 is that it is flat, and that is something you see in several features of this frame. I would describe the features on this frame as blocky or square. You can see the slight slope on Cees Priem’s fork crown above. That small slope takes away that squareness.
Fork Ends
The fork end follows on with the ‘blocky’ design. You can also see a small bit of lumpy unevenness just under the paint near the end of the blade. That isn’t connected to the blocky fork end, it is poor finishing.
I’ve built a frame before, however, I would never call myself a frame builder. But I’m sure the squareness of the fork end where it meets the blade could have been removed so that the blade flows into the end?
This is my own fork prior to brazing and you can clearly see how the fork end enters the blade in a similar style to the new TI-Raleigh.
The square edge where the fork end enters the blade can be altered with a file so they flow into the blade. The bottom left image shows how my fork ends finally turned out with finishing and paint.
Circular TI Fork Blade Transfer
My TI-Raleigh paint scheme blog post has been around since January 2018. Raleigh got their placement wrong, even though they say this is all about the detail. Their placement is far too low.
I know this is being ‘picky’, but this was such an easy thing to get right, but it is sadly wrong on this replica. SBDU fork blade transfers were much higher. Raleigh’s placement is amateurish.
Moving onto the Frame
Head Badge
This is the figure head, the brand emblem, the feature known across the world as defining a Raleigh bike.
So why doesn’t it fit?
Neither side of the badge touches the head tube. The badge doesn’t have the same curve as the tube. Was this badge designed for a larger tube, something oversize? Have Raleigh tried to retro-fit a badge to this replica?
Frame Ends
The image I posted on Facebook of the frame ends of TI40-192 has the most comments; those comments aren’t complimentary.
I don’t know what is going on here. The only resemblance to the frame ends on a Team frame is that they are not drilled. No definition, blocky, lumpy, poor finishing – a complete mess. I can’t say anything more. I don’t want to say anything more. This is a terrible way to finish this detail. What must the craftsmen who built the original be thinking.
Spot the odd one out above… from left to right, (top SB1995, SB3505, SB3800), (bottom Cees Priem CP.1.79, TI40-192).
It is just a frame end. It just holds the wheel in the frame, but the Campagnolo 1010/B frame end and how the stays are cleanly and simply cut are one of the signature features on an SBDU and a TI-Raleigh. Raleigh have got this so wrong on the replica.
Seat Stay Caps
Just like the Campagnolo 1010/B ends, the oversize seat stay cap is such an identifier of the SBDU/Team TI-Raleigh. It can often be the first frame feature that will help to identify one of these frames. Raleigh UK use the word “Iconic” in their marketing material, and the original caps are Iconic.
The original SBDU/Team seat stay caps are clean and crisp and sharp, well defined, flat, plain but such an outstanding feature. Even when seat stay design changed and Reynolds switched from the larger single taper to the smaller double taper stay, the SBDU still managed to retain all the simple elegance of the seat stay cap in a slightly smaller design.
The TI replica caps barely seem to exist. There is no clear definition. They are rounded, indistinct and blunt, they have lost that “Iconic” status.
Frame Transfers
The selection, design and placement of frame transfers are not restricted by modern standards. They are not restricted by modern materials of parts selection. Doing some research and placing these correctly would have made up for some of the other disappointing features of this replica.
Top Tube, Down Tube and Chain Stay
Wrong size, wrong locations. The letters are too small and the placement of the down tube and chain stay transfers are too low on the tube.
When you stand at the side of a bike you look down onto the bike, you look down onto the tops of the tubes – you don’t look directly at the side of a bike. Therefore, when your eye looks down, you should see the transfers. This example demonstrates my point. This is a comparison of SB3505 against SB4059. When you look down on the tube you see the transfers.
This is TI40-192
When you look down onto the down tube you see paint, you barely see the ‘TI-Raleigh’ name.
Here is a comparison of the chain stay transfers between TI40-192 and SB6827 (an original paint SB frame).
It’s a relatively small detail but the wrong placement stands out. Just moving the transfer up round the stay slightly makes a massive difference but Raleigh UK didn’t do this.
Seat Tube
Wrong size letters, no painted panels, wrong Reynolds 753 transfer placement.
The red circles around the bottle bosses are a sign of a seat tube transfer. Rather than add an additional step, a more simple solution was used on the replica. That was to leave the seat tube ‘red’ and fit a transfer that wraps around the tube, forming the lettering and coloured panels. But could it have been an option to mask and paint the seat tube to create the panels? After all, the frame was masked to create the black head tube. What amount of extra work would it be to create the seat tube panels in the same way. If you look at any cheap repaint, you will see the same red areas around the bottle bosses and the same wrap around transfer.
The RALEIGH block lettering is also several millimetres smaller per letter. This gives the overall impression that the coloured panels are out of proportion with the length of the seat tube.
The Reynolds 753 frame transfer occupies the centre of the space between the lower point of the seat lug and top yellow seat tube band. It is out of place and needs to be much higher. This montage of SBDU painted frames demonstrates THE correct position.
Again, it’s a small detail, but the wrong placement of the replica transfer is obvious. Surely it could have been placed further up towards the seat lug?
Frame Weight
TI40-192 is a frame with Imperial diameter Reynolds 753 tubes. That means it has a 28.6mm seat tube diameter with a 27.2mm seat post. This is equivalent to 1982 – 1989 Reynolds 753R and 1989+ 753 tubing. Here is a selection of weight data from my SBDU frame collection…
An average weight for this size 753R frame would be approx 1750 grams. TI40-192 tips the scales at 2027 grams. This is with all the included fittings removed. That weight puts it close to the bottom of the table, and into the range of an older 531 butted frame of a similar size.
Where is this additional weight hiding? It is between 250-300 grams heavier than expected.
It can only be in the frame fittings. The frame ends, bottom bracket shell and unrefined, thick frame lugs will almost certainly be responsible.
Summary
This is a brand new Reynolds 753 frame – that’s great, and I’m looking forward to building it. And that is where the goodness and similarity ends.
I asked Raleigh UK the direct question…
I’m not sure if the project was to create a close replica or just something that looks red, yellow and black. As the word ‘iconic’ is used then I assume you wanted something that recreates the original – that is a ‘Raleigh 753 Ti-Raleigh’.
My Question
I’ve already quoted the reply, but here it is again…
The project was indeed to create a like for like replica of the original TI that Joop used back in 1980 when he won the tour, and you’re absolutely right – detail is key.
Raleigh UK’s Response
Based on their response, I compared the replica to the original, I think that was a fair comparison. From the reaction my images and video have already had, I can see that the TI-Raleigh fans also expected a like for like frame.
Did I find that the replica was a like for like comparison? Did I find the detail that Raleigh UK said was ‘key’? Sadly I didn’t.
With terrible frame ends, seat caps that don’t do it, a fork crown that doesn’t fit in, poor frame transfers and a frame weight that falls outside of any other 753 frame in my collection, TI40-192 is nothing more than a collection of red, black and yellow heat treated steel tubes.
My feelings are echoed by the comments I am receiving on my YouTube unboxing video.
Raleigh UK could have and should have done better. This isn’t a tribute to the bike or frame that Joop and the team rode to victory in 1980.
Always interested in your posts and I agree it’s the detail that matters!
On an unrelated matter can I ask you whether you have come across polished titanium Raleigh frames? I have one where the tubing is oval and have not been able to establish when it was made. Can you help?
Regards
Barry Beardsell
Hi Barry. I’ve seen a few Titanium Raleigh frames/bikes. A frame number would help to date it. Any images can be sent to neil@ti-raleigh.com
Looks like Raleigh decided to issue a BSO for the 40 anniversary (Bicycle shaped object).
Thanks, Neil, for this profound review. I am really disappointed too and happy that I didn’t finally go for it. If they would have asked you for consultancy (though expectation is that they should know it much better as well) they could have come out with a much better replica.
This project doesn’t show any passion!
Keep up your great work.
Wow…. £1,500 for this product … One thing is sure now : If one considers the price of this frame to be correct and justified, then one should no longer claim that an average price of £3,000 for an original SBDU frame in excellent condition (with original paint and decals) is exaggerated … Many thanks to Raleigh for this very expensive new product … as the original SBDU frames have just become extraordinarily valuable …. I am happy with my bike built up with SB 3701 frame (a real 1980 one) that I bought new in 1981 and that is almost unruned because I stoped biking 2 years after I bought it (before buying it, I usually rode my Worksop “RECORD” that gave me full satisfaction – And I kept it as a second bike for wet weather conditions as I rode my SB under dry weather only) …. The price of £1,500 is also the one I paid when I decided to bike again 5 years ago and bought myself two brand new RALEIGH Militis (with aluminium frames – I do not like carbon ones) equipped with the excellent SRAM Apex 2×10. Both bikes are identical (I call them “The Twins”)… And juging by the pictures of this new Raleigh “Anniversary” product, even the frames of my two “cheap” (or inexpensive) Raleigh Militis are obviously of a far better quality … Sorry to be frank but this product is definetly not a tribute to the names of RALEIGH, T.I. or even Joop Zoetemelk… I can fully understand why this bike wears a “Not for competition” sticker : in my opinion it is rather a toy-bike than a “true” bike…
Hi,
That’s a stunning review of the 40th Anniversary frame set you just received. Unfortunately, “stunning” for all the wrong reason’s, as you noted, (and a couple I noticed before reading your response to inspection).
I was first surprised to see the “lawyer lips” (as we call them in the states) at the fort tips, now requiring the wheel’s QR to be unthreaded, to clear those. It’s a United States required additional BS safety thing. My newest bike being 1983, I’ve never had to “fix those” ( filing those dam lips off ).
As another reader just pointily noted … this 40th edition’s level of build-quality will make all our older SBDU’s worth more.
With you’re passion, experience and knowledge of SBDU’s , I think Raleigh should check with you before building the remaining 58 or so (of the limited 250).
.Phillip
Hi Neil,
Those seat and chain stays are probably some material other than 753. What exactly does it say on that frame sticker? ‘Frame tubes and fork blades’ ie: not including stays…For the full set it should read ‘Fork Blades, Stays & Butted Frame Tubes’.
The rear stays to dropouts, brake bridge and seatstay caps have all been TIG welded (hence the filler buildups and lack of definition that you referred to), so presumably fabricated as a sub-assembly before being attached to the front triangle. A perfectly reasonable fabrication technique in itself, but not on a replica of a silver brazed frame.
753 is not tolerant of the high heat inputs of brazing or welding, hence the requirement for silver brazing and certification of the builders using it. I know…I passed the 753 Master Framebuilder test back in 1992 for this stuff.
Also, I don’t think Reynolds have ever made those formed flat tips, only ever straight cut or domed, unlike Columbus and Tange, which also makes me suspicious of the fork blades being 753.
The overall weight hike could be down to the tubes being drawn to heavier gauges or longer butt lengths to pass the current ISO/EN tests, which are vertical loading and frontal impact, but the tests have nothing to say about rear dropouts…
Correct-looking horizontal forged dropouts and the correct semi-sloping, double tip, no tang fork crown that you showed are still easily available, Raleigh presumably just didn’t see them as a detail worth getting right.
All the best, Dan
Hi Dan
I asked Raleigh UK that specific question about the ends. Their reply was word for word the same as I got from Reynolds. Keith at Reynolds gave this reply… “TIG welding does work with the 753 and 531 tubesets (and of course many other steel alloys including our 725/525 and 853/631) as the heat input is concentrated in a small area around the joint. So that would be acceptable when done by experienced builders capable of welding thin wall tubing”
Hmm…Well, giving them both the benefit of the doubt that the rear end material really is Reynolds 753, two things come to mind:
Firstly, how casual or penny pinching, or both, was the person at Raleigh UK who, against all Reynolds guidelines ever published, signed off a welded 753 rear end on a lugged and hopefully silver brazed 753 front triangle for a flagship anniversary replica project?
Secondly, much of what Reynolds have told both the public and builders, including their 753 certified ones, in press releases, websites and their own technical documents for over the past 45 years regarding the detrimental effect on 753 of brazing above 650C, or any welding at all, must have been considerably exaggerated.
Raleigh UK should have just sourced well-made brazed frames using a light selection of 853 then painted and dressed it correctly. That would have been wholly in keeping with the classic ethos, technology and style, but still up to date.
I’ll leave other comments to private messages for the moment, if you’d like to continue the frame discussion.
Good morning,
I am of the age that means that I love reading about 753 Raleighs.
Just a couple of days ago (Oct 2022) I took delivery of one of these, new and boxed (TI40-198) and in the flesh the front and rear ends only look a bad rather than really bad. 🙂
It came from a proper bike shop who still has at least two more in stock. The fact that 3 were available only a few days ago is surprising given how few were made, even taking into account some of the bad press it got.
However I paid £850 including a fitted Record Headset which compares a lot better with other steel frames.
I am really looking forward to building it up and getting it on the road as it is going to be a heavily used bike not something just a nostalgia piece.
Kind regards
Ian Smith
The rear dropouts look like they were water-jet cut from steel plate, rather than forged, and TIG-welded into the stays. The stay end treatment looks like it was simply pressed rather than filed. The fork ends look to be cast, to form the wheel retention lip. Again, the blade end treatment appears to be pressed and otherwise unfinished. I don’t have a big issue with the fork crown, other than it being cosmetically different from the original. Agree with the transfer placement issue; anybody who has done transfers on a bike frame ought to know to bias the placement to the upper aspect of the tube; this means that an observer in a standing position will get a clear view of the transfer. Raleigh ought to be no stranger to this principle! I don’t have any personal experience working on Raleigh’s 753 Team frames, but the 753 frames we built at Trek used a 27.4mm seat post, not the more common 27.2mm.