What size Galaxy

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Yes, the late ones are definitely not as good as the earlier ones.
I remember there was one year (2005, maybe?) where they released a Super Galaxy that was very aggressive/twitchy compared to the "standard" Galaxy. I used to buy new bikes back then had a ride and hated it.

It was neither one thing nor another, really. Too chunky to be an Audax bike, too twitchy to be a tourer.
 
OP
OP
GeekDadZoid

GeekDadZoid

Über Member
This just serves to highlight how ridiculous and unfit for purpose frame sizing convention is.

Seems that most choose to define the frame size by the seatpost length from the crank centre, which varies enormously with frame geometry since "compact" frames with sloping top tubes have significantly shorter setpost tubes despite potentially having similar reach and stack.

By way of example, my Genesis CdF has a "55cm" compact frame, yet gives similar reach and stack (to the bars anyway) to my "59.5cm" Raleigh Routier with traditional geometry. Things get worse in practical terms when you start to look at stem length - seems that while most modern bikes run 100mm stem length as standard, the quill stems on older stuff were often shorter.

I too have been looking at Galaxies and the sizing is particularly bizarre since by the end of production they seemed to have gone to some pretty aggressively sloping top tubes.

If all else fails I find the length of the head tube to be a reasonable visual indicator on some bikes; however differing tube sections can make this harder (some had fatter section, possibly oval down tubes) . Additionally, Dawes seem to like lots of stack (understandably since it's supposed to be a fairly relaxed bike to ride) so on some models I think ran longer-than-expected head tubes with a lot of top tube angle; which makes things even more convoluted and opaque :rolleyes:

Reach and stack are the obvious measurements to go with, but good luck trying to communicate how to measure those to the ebay or FB numpty who struggles to even list the marked frame size..

That's the exact problem I was having, luckily this one still had its frame size sticker and was only 2 miles away so I could go a try it. Based on my 40km test ride yesterday its the perfect size.
 

wafter

I like steel bikes and I cannot lie..
Location
Oxford
Yes, the late ones are definitely not as good as the earlier ones.
I remember there was one year (2005, maybe?) where they released a Super Galaxy that was very aggressive/twitchy compared to the "standard" Galaxy. I used to buy new bikes back then had a ride and hated it.

It was neither one thing nor another, really. Too chunky to be an Audax bike, too twitchy to be a tourer.

Indeed - in principal I'd much rather have an old, proper, lugged British-made one - although given the spec I want (8sp or greater gearing, bar-end shifters or STI's) I don't think this is likely to be possible.

Currently seems the optimum spec (for me) is around 2010 - Tigged frame with horizontal top tube, 9sp, bar end shifters.. I saw one of this spec go on ebay recently for less than £200 although it was miles away and probably too big for me (however again complicated by the bloody odd sizing!).

Much after this era it seemed they really started to go downhill with less conventional frame geometry, lower-spec tubes (seemed to be 531 forever, then 631, possibly 653 and 853, then down to 520) and ever-cheaper components.

Of course it's difficult to find any reliable sources for geometry figures as the company's changed both their products and their owners so often it's all been lost in the mists of time.. yet another once-proud British brand devalued and eventually gutted :sad:

End of the day I'm only looking for a cheap workhorse; although obviously I don't want it to fall to bits or ride like a pig!


That's the exact problem I was having, luckily this one still had its frame size sticker and was only 2 miles away so I could go a try it. Based on my 40km test ride yesterday its the perfect size.

Grand - a test ride is definitely the way to go if possible (tbh I'd be tempted to take a tape measure with me to assess exactly the reach and stack to compare with my existing gear / favoured values) although sadly I'm yet to find anything even vaguely appropriate locally..
 

simongt

Guru
Location
Norwich
I bought '92 super Galaxy last year and the frame from BB to the top of the seat tube is 57cm., with my inseam to floor being 81cm. and the bike fits perfectly. :okay:
Just to give you an idea. :smile:
 
Indeed - in principal I'd much rather have an old, proper, lugged British-made one - although given the spec I want (8sp or greater gearing, bar-end shifters or STI's) I don't think this is likely to be possible.

My British Galaxies (94) and Horizon (94) both had barend shifters. It's not a problem to put a 135mm wheel in a bike like that with massive long chainstays, although it's also trivial to get a framebuilder to widen it if you like.

Personally, I'm not sure more expensive tubes are better for touring bikes. I see a lot of 853 bikes with dents in the frames - not nearly so often with thicker walled 531 or 520. It strikes me the weight is not really significant when you're taking things on panniers.

I think my 2010 Ridgeback Voyage is a great bike. Very confidence inspiring. I wish I hadn't sold that one either.
 

froze

Über Member
I used to own one of these, exactly same car. Is that a big enough Galaxie?
1658792288628.png
 

wafter

I like steel bikes and I cannot lie..
Location
Oxford
My British Galaxies (94) and Horizon (94) both had barend shifters. It's not a problem to put a 135mm wheel in a bike like that with massive long chainstays, although it's also trivial to get a framebuilder to widen it if you like.

Personally, I'm not sure more expensive tubes are better for touring bikes. I see a lot of 853 bikes with dents in the frames - not nearly so often with thicker walled 531 or 520. It strikes me the weight is not really significant when you're taking things on panniers.

I think my 2010 Ridgeback Voyage is a great bike. Very confidence inspiring. I wish I hadn't sold that one either.

Thanks - are your examples higher-end models (Super / Ultra Galaxies)? It seems that the boggo models didn't get the upgrade to bar-end shifters until later, although researching specs by year isn't easy given how long they've been about!

I think the frame only needs to go out to 130mm for current-spec road gear and that the previous standard for 6/7sp freewheels was 126mm so pretty trivial as you say, however I really want this as a budget-friendly turn-key distance utility bike, so don't really want the hassle and cost of upgrading an older bike with a new full groupset.. as much as I'd be happy to do so otherwise.

I'm still undecided on the tubes too; rightly or wrongly I tend to avoid 520, however it seems that this is a more modern equivalent to 531 - albeit bettered by higher-end offerings while 531 was generally considered to be the daddy back in the day. My only frame of reference is my Raleigh Routier (old, entry-level 13-23 gaspipe) which is perhaps a bit harsh to ride and my 725 Genesis Croix de Fer which is much nicer, but probably not as comfortable as my placcy Boardman Team Carbon.

The heat-treated variants (653?, 725 and 853) should be intrinsically stronger so have thinner walls for a given strength requirement in bending, although I'm not sure how they'd hold up to lateral loading / dent-susceptability. Again, I'm aware of the need to not overthink this too much as I'm only looking for a decent utility bike (and have already made the mistake twice in buying bikes that turned out to be too nice to leave locked up).

Thanks for the recommendation - I'm not dead-set on a Galaxy and have been looking at others - names that keep coming up being Ridgeback, Spa, Thorn, Claude-Butler and of course Raleigh.
 
OP
OP
GeekDadZoid

GeekDadZoid

Über Member
Thanks - are your examples higher-end models (Super / Ultra Galaxies)? It seems that the boggo models didn't get the upgrade to bar-end shifters until later, although researching specs by year isn't easy given how long they've been about!

I think the frame only needs to go out to 130mm for current-spec road gear and that the previous standard for 6/7sp freewheels was 126mm so pretty trivial as you say, however I really want this as a budget-friendly turn-key distance utility bike, so don't really want the hassle and cost of upgrading an older bike with a new full groupset.. as much as I'd be happy to do so otherwise.

I'm still undecided on the tubes too; rightly or wrongly I tend to avoid 520, however it seems that this is a more modern equivalent to 531 - albeit bettered by higher-end offerings while 531 was generally considered to be the daddy back in the day. My only frame of reference is my Raleigh Routier (old, entry-level 13-23 gaspipe) which is perhaps a bit harsh to ride and my 725 Genesis Croix de Fer which is much nicer, but probably not as comfortable as my placcy Boardman Team Carbon.

The heat-treated variants (653?, 725 and 853) should be intrinsically stronger so have thinner walls for a given strength requirement in bending, although I'm not sure how they'd hold up to lateral loading / dent-susceptability. Again, I'm aware of the need to not overthink this too much as I'm only looking for a decent utility bike (and have already made the mistake twice in buying bikes that turned out to be too nice to leave locked up).

Thanks for the recommendation - I'm not dead-set on a Galaxy and have been looking at others - names that keep coming up being Ridgeback, Spa, Thorn, Claude-Butler and of course Raleigh.

There is a King of Merica on the CTC forum £400 seems a good price as they usually get listed for more.

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=152325
 
Thanks - are your examples higher-end models (Super / Ultra Galaxies)? It seems that the boggo models didn't get the upgrade to bar-end shifters until later, although researching specs by year isn't easy given how long they've been about!
You are in danger of overthinking this, I feel.

There's very little difference, functionally, between a Horizon, a Galaxy and a Super Galaxy.

Horizons were 501 for a while, then they became 531ST - for a few years they were all identical frames with different parts.

As to groupsets, again functionally there isn't much in it. Avoid expensive parts - an XT derailleur shows something cost money. It's one of the most noticeable markers of a bike someone spent a lot of money on at some point. High end stuff doesn't work better either - much of it is better sealed but so long as you grease everything when you need it you'll have a lot of trouble free service from low end parts.

I reckon nutted axles are a good choice too. They make a bike much less attractive to thieves. Shame Shimano has dropped them.

And you're right, by the way - thinner walled tubes dent more easily. That is the reason so many high end touring bikes use supposedly "ordinary" tubes.
 

wafter

I like steel bikes and I cannot lie..
Location
Oxford
You are in danger of overthinking this, I feel.

There's very little difference, functionally, between a Horizon, a Galaxy and a Super Galaxy.

Horizons were 501 for a while, then they became 531ST - for a few years they were all identical frames with different parts.

As to groupsets, again functionally there isn't much in it. Avoid expensive parts - an XT derailleur shows something cost money. It's one of the most noticeable markers of a bike someone spent a lot of money on at some point. High end stuff doesn't work better either - much of it is better sealed but so long as you grease everything when you need it you'll have a lot of trouble free service from low end parts.

I reckon nutted axles are a good choice too. They make a bike much less attractive to thieves. Shame Shimano has dropped them.

And you're right, by the way - thinner walled tubes dent more easily. That is the reason so many high end touring bikes use supposedly "ordinary" tubes.

Oh, no doubt - over-thinking is something I excel at :laugh:

As for frames I think I'd be happy with 531 or better; if an example in a more exotic flavour came up at a good price I'd certainly not turn my nose up at it, however it's not a necessity and I appreciate your point about dents.

Thanks for the thought about components - you make a good argument which is a shame as I like nice gear! Again it wouldn't be a deal breaker but it really seems that Dawes cheapened the bikes towards the end of their run and I'd rather not have totally entry level parts as IMO they don't perform as nicely as the better stuff. I guess I could always polish off the XT branding :tongue:

Good point about nutted axles too; however I not keen from a puncture repair perspective.

I appreciate the sad fact that scumbags will rob anything so it pays to make it look as unattractive as possible.

On another note, how do you find the sizing on the horizontal top-tubed frames? I've seen quite a few that seem to have disproportionately long top tube / apparently excessive reach for something that's supposed to be a relaxed ride. I've noticed a few on gumtree listed at 52cm ST / 56cm TT and another with a 64cm ST and 58cm TT.. that's a TT that's around 8% shorter than the ST on the small bike, and 9% longer on the large bike :wacko:

All this appears to be a moot point currently in any case as all the sensibly priced offerings seem to be hundreds of miles away...
 
As for frames I think I'd be happy with 531 or better; if an example in a more exotic flavour came up at a good price I'd certainly not turn my nose up at it, however it's not a necessity and I appreciate your point about dents.

Ah, but 531 (manganese-moly) probably isn't as strong as 520 (chrome-moly), as the "lower" specced tube is most likely welded instead of brazed.

There was a test done (which I can't find now) where teams of professional cyclists were given otherwise identical bikes made of 531, 653 and 501. They universally chose 501 as the most comfortable. That's what you want in a touring bike.

Higher numbers != better for the purpose intended.

Thanks for the thought about components - you make a good argument which is a shame as I like nice gear! Again it wouldn't be a deal breaker but it really seems that Dawes cheapened the bikes towards the end of their run and I'd rather not have totally entry level parts as IMO they don't perform as nicely as the better stuff. I guess I could always polish off the XT branding :tongue:
I don't believe that's true. What more money buys you is more polish, lower weight and better seals, often at the expense of durability. This wasn't true in the past - XT was meant to be the very best that Shimano could build. I think they lost their way a few years ago when they started making the bearings smaller. That's a poor choice for a touring bike.

In fact, you could argue that for a bike like this a lot of low end stuff is better than high end because it's much more tolerant of poor setup.

With regards to sizing - there were so many made I'm not sure I can give you a sensible answer other than I never bought one I didn't like.
 

froze

Über Member
Ah, but 531 (manganese-moly) probably isn't as strong as 520 (chrome-moly), as the "lower" specced tube is most likely welded instead of brazed.

There was a test done (which I can't find now) where teams of professional cyclists were given otherwise identical bikes made of 531, 653 and 501. They universally chose 501 as the most comfortable. That's what you want in a touring bike.

Higher numbers != better for the purpose intended.


I don't believe that's true. What more money buys you is more polish, lower weight and better seals, often at the expense of durability. This wasn't true in the past - XT was meant to be the very best that Shimano could build. I think they lost their way a few years ago when they started making the bearings smaller. That's a poor choice for a touring bike.

In fact, you could argue that for a bike like this a lot of low end stuff is better than high end because it's much more tolerant of poor setup.

With regards to sizing - there were so many made I'm not sure I can give you a sensible answer other than I never bought one I didn't like.

I gotta tell you all something, but Chris667 is ABSOLUTLEY CORRECT! At least to a point. You don't want the absolute cheapest components, but you also don't want the higher end stuff either, low mid to mid-range stuff for a touring bike is where you want to be, and believe or not, even for a non-touring bike of any discipline mid-range is where you should be unless you're racing it. Mid-range stuff is built to be durable, which is why they're a bit heavier. This is especially true in today's world, now back 30 years ago, the higher end stuff was built to be more durable, built to last longer, etc, but in today's world that's not the case, they build the high-end stuff to be light and, in that process, they don't last as long. Quite frankly I think the mid-level stuff has great seals, so I don't even think seals are an issue. Also 30 plus years ago the higher end touring stuff was designed to handle more gear ranges which is why good touring bikes always had higher end components, this isn't the case today, when even lowend components can handle wide gear ranges.

9 years ago I bought a Lynskey Titanium bike, I wanted the comfort (I'm in my upper 60's so comfort became important) of the TI frame which is a real thing because my friend has a TI bike and I rode his bike a lot to get a feel for it before I bought mine. If I could afford a TI bike I could afford to get one with all the high-end components, even a high-end TI frame...but I didn't fall for that nonsense, nor wasted money to do that. The other thing I didn't waste money on was wheels, the place where I got the bike from (Adrenalin Bikes) the guy asked me what kind of riding will I be doing, just riding on rough streets because where I live the freeze and thaw cycle messes up roads bad, he advise to go with Shimano RS100 wheels, they're cheap but are built to hold up to abuse, and so far I have not had to even true those wheels.

I got the lowest end bike Lynskey sold back then which came with 105 components, that stuff has performed flawlessly. Speed up ahead to 3 years ago I bought a touring bike, again I could have spent thousands on a touring bike, but instead I spent $1,400 for a Masi Giramondo 700c, this bike has low mid level stuff, the derailleur is Shimano Deore, nothing fancy, just plain Deore with no letters after it, but it works great; it even has Microshift bar end shifters which are probably as cheap as you can get, but all they have to do is pull cable. Again, with this bike, cheap wheels, because they're built heavy and stout to handle heavy loads. I don't have a lot of miles on this bike yet, but I haven't had any issues, nor expect any.

The other advantage to buying low to mid-level components for touring is if you should crash and break something, or something just fails, and you need to buy a replacement part while on a tour, it will be a lot cheaper to fix. Also, there are a lot of fancy bling stuff for touring bikes if you need a part, you will have to order it from the bling company that made it and wait for it to get to you, whereas low to mid-level stuff is stocked by all bicycle shops. A lot a bicycle shops may not have a high-end Shimano or SRAM, especially outside major cities, they may have to order that too, so you'll have to wait.
 

wafter

I like steel bikes and I cannot lie..
Location
Oxford
Thanks both!

On the subject of the 531 v. 520, I'm not sure what the effect of brazing temps is on the 531, although I believe that it was superceded by 520 because this is more weldable - not sure if this is a strength or quality thing as IIRC neither are heat-treated.

Broadly speaking I agree with you both about components - I'm not familiar with MTB components but can appreciate the arguments tabled when looking at road groupsets. It seems that the venerable 105, situated in the middle of the range offers tangible functional benefits over those below (more gears, more refined operation which I can confirm as I have both Tiagra 4700 and 105 R7000 to compare) while going higher only really saves mass and yes; this does sometimes come at the detriment of longevity..
 
Top Bottom