So I wonder which Reynolds fork does my 70 or 71 Raleigh Pro have? This is the Carlton built Raleigh Pro with the new-style fully sloping crown. The blades are measure 27x17, so they are more oval than the (old) Continental, but not as wide as the New Continental which wouldn't be released until a few years after this Raleigh. The frame decal says the forks are Reynolds and that seems certain even though the fork decals are Carlton decals.
(Speaking of track forks, some of the Columbus track forks are round all the way up to the crown. But some Columbus track forks may begin as the Columbus road ovals because they are 28x19 oval at the crown and become round a couple inches below the crown.)
Mitch Harris Little Rock Canyon, Utah
On 8/3/05, gpvb1@comcast.net <gpvb1@comcast.net> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Fred Rafael Rednor <fred_rednor@yahoo.com>
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: Re: [CR] (New) Continental Oval vs. Imperial Oval
>
> > When did Reynolds introduce the 29 x 16 fork blade?
> >
> > If this was originally described as 'Continental
> > Oval', surely it is to differentiate from the round
> > or D-shaped blades which were common in Britain.
> >
> David,
> To be honest, by the time I started seriously looking at
> this stuff, all I recall are the 29 x 16mm blades (which I
> think are really elliptical.) Actually, that's not quite true.
> There were the round blades but I remember seeing those on
> bikes at the Kissena Park Velodrome in New York.
> Then again, it was so long ago and I was too young to really
> appreciate what I was seeing, much less commit it to memory...
> Cheers,
> Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)
>
> About 1976 (per e-RICHIE, earlier this morning).
> The NOS tubing that I have, which was purchased directly from Reynolds in
1974, has the early (Imperial) blades....
> Greg Parker
> Dexter, Michigan