bazil4696

Nice to see another "local" enthusiast! That bike is gorgeous!

browngw 

Thanks @bazil4696 . Hope to see you at a local vintage meet someday. As well as the Robin Hood, I have a 1979 DL1.

BigChief 

Beautiful roadster. I'm going to mention something and I'll tell you why. I spent 15 years with the front brake of my DL-1 pads/arms mounted backwards. That's the way it came and I never knew different until it was pointed out to me here on this thread. The pads are supposed to be mounted behind the stirrup like this. They do work better this way.
brake001.JPG

BigChief 

I'm going to go out on a limb and propose a theory. I see the pads mounted in front of the stirrups all the time. I have 2 DL-1s and they both came that way. It may be possible that they were deliberately mounted trailing instead of leading for the American market because they are somewhat less effective that way. Since Americans are used to operating the rear brake with their right hands perhaps Raleigh felt it best to weaken the brake since the rod brakes are British fashion. ie Right/front left/ rear. The factory catalogs show them mounted leading. Thid fellow is probably smiling because he knows his Roadster's brakes are mounted correctly.

agmetal

It's interesting reading your guys' descriptions of the positioning of the brake pads...on my '37 Tourist, there's no option for this.

SirMike1983 

The arms were added to the DL-1 brakes starting in the 1950s to try to smooth the braking action. They were supposed to be mounted rearward so the pads sit back under the fork blades, but you see them either way. Design drawings of them from the '50s describe them as an anti-vibration invention mounted back under the fork blades. They were patented in 1954. The idea was that setting a point of support offset from the stirrup would reduce the natural bowing of the stirrup forward under braking load.

In the US, I've seen them forward more than back. I found mine worked substantially better and smoother mounted forward, so I left them that way after trial and error. I tried it both ways, and went with them forward, even if the design shows them backwards.

BigChief 

That's interesting. I experimented with them quite a bit and found the opposite. They seemed to be strongest when the arms were eliminated, but then you can see why Raleigh developed the offset arms. It is much smoother and less grabby with the arms. I also spent time learning the set up. That made an improvement also. I found 3 things. Since the pads move in as they move up, you want them to both land where they are supposed to on the rim and evenly. In and out is adjusted by moving the anchor up or down on the fork leg. Since there is no adjustment up or down, I held a strip of emery cloth against the rim, added slight pressure with the lever and rolled the wheel to draw the emery cloth across the higher pad until they landed evenly on the rim. The third thing is that since there's not much travel and a lot of flex in the levers, you want to adjust the linkage so the pads are as close to the rims as possible.

BigChief 

@agmetal Thanks for posting the picture of the early brake. I always wondered why there were return springs up on the handlebars. It seemed redundant since the stirrups act as return springs. It seems they left the ,necessary on the earlier system, handlebar springs for good measure even after the changed the design. This is a great thread. I learn things here all the time.

gster

Another Toronto Kijiji posting. A vintage Robin Hood 3 speed, year unknown but I suspect early 1960's. This one's located at College and Bathurst and reasonably priced at $139.00.

BigChief 

That's a nice one. Mid 50s from the brazed on pulley lug. Great color. I'd get rid of that Wald chainguard and try to paint up a proper one.

agmetal

There's also a return spring on the pad holder/guide

BigChief 

Ah, I see how it works. I guess the system does need springs at each end. Thanks again for the pictures. I never had the chance to see such an old roadster in person. Now I understand how the older style rod brakes work.
Just came in from a short ride on mine. Perfect weather for riding today. Might get a longer ride in this afternoon.

browngw 

Appreciate the advice @BigChief but I am pretty sure knowing the history of my bike, that it came from England to Canada just the way it is now unless Pieriks Cycle (still in business) Hamilton Ontario assembled it incorrectly. I contacted the bike shop and sent them a picture but all the staff familiar with early Raleighs are gone.
The right lever operates the rear brake as most other Canadian bikes.
If I could find a place buy new pads I might swap it around to try. I made the front pads out of a piece of industrial red rubber I had. Wish I had more.

BigChief 

Right \ rear? That's interesting. Both my 72 and 73 brake right/front English style. I guess the pencil pushers in government forced Raleigh to change them at some point. As I recall, it was sometime in the 70s when our DOT demanded all motorcycles shift on the left. I could never get used to the shifter poking out of the primary case. Never bought a left shift bike. Had a great ride today. Love this cooler air. Love riding my old roadster on these back country roads.

ascherer 

I've been running Col de la Vies. They're downright posh and are holding up well to NYC streets. They are rather wide, the front wheel especially needs to be fiddled with to avoid rubbing the fender but once it's aligned, all is well.

SirMike1983 

I have them on a '74 Sports-- awesome tires.

SirMike1983 

It's very likely it came that way from the shop. I've seen them installed both ways, and either way seems to reduce the bowing from brake force. In theory having them backwards should work better, but forwards worked better on my 1970s-era DL-1. I just went with what worked. Either way, they do seem to help with the braking in front.

SirMike1983 

Raleigh 5 speed Sprite-- this is the version of the Sprite that is a Raleigh Sports with the S5 5 speed Sturmey hub. It also has the dual "muscle car" type Sturmey sticks. It's pretty lively and is a versatile rider.

ascherer 

Right you are - and I just noticed your post about same. I really enjoy reading your blog, @SirMike1983.

DQRider 

Ah, thanks for drawing our attention to that. I've read a few of the latest entries, and have bookmarked it for further reading once winter descends on us again. Excellent blog, SirMike1983.

BigChief 

What happened with me was I had a 73 DL-1 for a long time, but it never got much mileage. Fun bike in a way but if I really wanted a nice ride, I'd hop on a Sports. After I got my rescue case 72, I decided I really enjoy this bike and actually wanted to use the bike as a daily rider, so I addressed the two issues I had with it. One was easy, I swapped the 16T cog for a 22T. I was determined to get the best performance I could from these brakes. They were terrible. The good news was that, with careful setup, I could get at least reasonable braking. These roadsters are great bikes and I just would like to pass along what I've learned so others can enjoy them as much as I do now without white knuckle moments at every steep downhill.

smontanaro 

Thanks for the feedback on the Col de la Vie's. I picked up a pair yesterday my LBS I ordered for me.

@SirMike1983 can you post a link to your blog?

gster

p1090039.jpg

p1090040.jpgI have the burgandy version and added the throttle shifters..

gster

P1180906.jpg

P1180907.jpgGreen Machines X 4
Modified 1972 Eatons Glider w/ Duomatic Kick-Back hub
1971 Hercules 3 Speed
1976 Canadian built Raleigh Superbe
1972 British built Superbe

dweenk 

Enjoyable hobby. BTW, if that's all you've got you need more.