Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - Track vs Road Fixie

Which do you all prefer? I've got a converted road bike that I've had for a few years now and I love it. I've always been curious about track bikes but I was too broke get one. Now that I am somewhat gainfully employed I'm considering getting one. A lot of you guys seem like die-hard track bike riders so I'm wondering what you think sets them apart.

track. defined has having upright geometry, no braze ons, no brakes, track ends (NOT horizontal dropouts or vertical dropouts), and either deep pista drops or sawed-offs.

zzzzzzzzoooooooooooooooooom!

I like anything with steep angles, no braze-ons, and fork ends...

Both have their place in the pantheon of great bikes. Road fixed bikes are a little easier riding and a little slower handling. You can mount fenders and racks and brakes and other things on them if that is your desire.
Track bikes are a more intense riding experience. They are often a stiffer ride with little provision for the above accessories to be fitted. They are a little more purist oriented than road fixes but you can make a great bike out of some of the better road bikes. They both have their place and I have and enjoy both for different reasons. Beware of people that will tell you that there is only one way to go when it comes to a bike discipline.

Track bikes _feel_ a lot different than road bikes, and they're fun to ride for just that reason, a nice change of pace. They're more intense, turn sharper, less stable, stiffer. I love to ride mine.

There are some downsides though. Long rides are extremely fatiguing because of the vibration and extreme position. Even with shorts and 25mm tires, after 20 miles on my track bike my ass feels like I rode 80 miles on my road bike. They also descend poorly, of course with a fixie you won't be descending too fast anyway, but for SS its something to be aware of.

Also, be aware that most entry level track bikes (Fuji, Bianchi, Surly, Specialized) have pretty neutral geometry and are more road friendly than higher end frames.

Track frames have higher bottom bracket shells, too. Something to consider when purchasing. You may need a slightly smaller track frame than a road frame.

I have a Vitus 979 track frame for my fixer. It's kind of an oddball, I'm told, as it's drilled for brakes front and rear, and has an English thread BB shell. I can only ride it for about 90 minutes at a time, for the exact reasons peligro stated. It's no all day bike, to be sure. But it is so lively and fun to ride that it makes up for any other shortcomings. I'm happy with it for what I use it for, short rides around town. It would be hell on a longer ride.

I like track bikes. I like the feeling and the handling and to tell you the truth, if it's properly fitted, I feel more comfortable on the upright angles.

I'm not really convinced. I'm not trying to start an argument but it seems to me that a lot of people ride track bikes just because they are naturally fixed. Maybe I need to ride one to see for myself but it seems that road bikes are also built for speed but more so to have a somewhat comfortable to ride. Track bikes only seem to be built for short rides with the greatest speed possible. I live in Boston but I still find myself riding 20-30 miles a day and my ass hurts enough with my road fixie.

Which do you all prefer? I've got a converted road bike that I've had for a few years now and I love it. I've always been curious about track bikes but I was too broke get one. Now that I am somewhat gainfully employed I'm considering getting one. A lot of you guys seem like die-hard track bike riders so I'm wondering what you think sets them apart.

sharper steering
tighter/more compact ride
higher up over the bike

Which do you all prefer? I've got a converted road bike that I've had for a few years now and I love it. I've always been curious about track bikes but I was too broke get one. Now that I am somewhat gainfully employed I'm considering getting one. A lot of you guys seem like die-hard track bike riders so I'm wondering what you think sets them apart.

What ultimately matters is what's right for you and the type of riding you intend to do.

If you have a low center-of-gravity you're probably good-to-go on just about anything, but if you have a long torso for your height (as I do) then you might want to consider a more road-like geometry (unless you only ride short distances).

I'm just not comfortable on a bike with more than 72 degrees of seat tube angle for any great distance, so bikes like the Bianchi Pista or Soma Rush, with their 75 degree angles, are nonstarters for me. I also need a longer top tube than most. With the right stem and long seat rails however, I can 'fake' a useable geometry on a Surly Steamroller or Fuji Track, both of which have 73 degree seat tubes.

I recently test drove a Bianchi Pista and It felt awful in a steep-ish climb. I think it was the shorter top tube and the steeper angles that made it feel cramped to me. But much of that might be my body geometry so your experience might be quite different.

Even with their slackened geometry, the Steamroller and Fuji Track both have a shortener wheelbase, less fork rake and a steeper head tube than a normal road bike so they will all exhibit quicker steering.

If you have the opportunity to test ride different bikes over a reasonable distance, I think the right geometry will make itself known to you.

Jim

Look out your window. Do you live in a velodrome? No? Then track geometry is probably not the the optimal setup for riding fixed gear in an urban environment.

Just thought i'd throw that one out there, you know, just to bait the Luddites amongst us. :D

Real track bikes feel a bit twitchy to me. Then again, I ride the frankenbike.

Look out your window. Do you live in a velodrome? No? Then track geometry is probably not the the optimal setup for riding fixed gear in an urban environment.

Just thought i'd throw that one out there, you know, just to bait the Luddites amongst us. :D

A Luddites response:
Actually, track bike geometry lends itself to urban fixed gear riding in the same way that track riding requires quick handling and short bursts of speed to compete successfully. I think that the only shortcoming (if there is one) is that it is not as comfortable on longer rides. That stated, I just got back from a 70 mile ride on my Cinelli Olympic and loved it. It is what you get use to, and what you like, that is important. Not what somebody says is "Correct".

fixedgearhead

A Luddites response:
Actually, track bike geometry lends itself to urban fixed gear riding in the same way that track riding requires quick handling and short bursts of speed to compete successfully. I think that the only shortcoming (if there is one) is that it is not as comfortable on longer rides. That stated, I just got back from a 70 mile ride on my Cinelli Olympic and loved it. It is what you get use to, and what you like, that is important. Not what somebody says is "Correct".

fixedgearhead

The only aspect of track bike that you cannot correct is the steep head tube angle. Steep seat tube is not an issue since one can move the saddle backward on its rails. Higher BB is also not an issue since one can raise the stem (or add spacers if you have a threadless headset). One could even get a road fork to correct the small offset of track forks. All these you would do assuming you don't like the ride of a track bike. From my experience track bikes are just fine riding in the city. I have not done long rides (say over 50 miles) but I don't see why that would be a problem. After a while you get used to twitchy handling and start making corrections appropriately. That said, if you are not riding in the velodrome then you are better off with head tube angle of less than (or equal to) 74 degrees.

The only aspect of track bike that you cannot correct is the steep head tube angle. Steep seat tube is not an issue since one can move the saddle backward on its rails. Higher BB is also not an issue since one can raise the stem (or add spacers if you have a threadless headset). One could even get a road fork to correct the small offset of track forks. All these you would do assuming you don't like the ride of a track bike. From my experience track bikes are just fine riding in the city. I have not done long rides (say over 50 miles) but I don't see why that would be a problem. After a while you get used to twitchy handling and start making corrections appropriately. That said, if you are not riding in the velodrome then you are better off with head tube angle of less than (or equal to) 74 degrees.

Thats the wonderful thing about freedom. You pays your money and makes your choice.

fixedgearhead

...Steep seat tube is not an issue since one can move the saddle backward on its rails.....


Yes but for small adjustments only. For a 59cm seatube, it woud take more than 4cm of setback to turn a 76 degree tube into a 72 degree tube. While this could be done with a seat with long rails and a setback seatpost, the resulting weight shift to the rear wheel might be undesireable.




....Higher BB is also not an issue since one can raise the stem (or add spacers if you have a threadless headset)....


True enough, but bottom bracket height (at least for me) can also affect the way the bike feels in a climb. Grant Peterson of Rivendell wrote about the 'stilting effect' of a high bb and I suspect it's related to that. He points out that a rider can 'get used to' pretty much anything but if I'm building or buying a bike for me, the last thing I want to do is have to adapt to it.



...One could even get a road fork to correct the small offset of track forks....


Has anyone tried this? My understanding is that, due to the steep head tube of a track frame, the added rake of a road fork would greatly diminsh or eliminate the trail resulting in a bike that would be very difficult to control at all but the lowest speeds. If anyone can add to/correct this thinking I'd like to hear it.



...From my experience track bikes are just fine riding in the city. I have not done long rides (say over 50 miles) but I don't see why that would be a problem.....


I know for me it would be a problem to ride a track frame for 50 miles. My hands would be numb and my wrists would be very sore long before that distance. It'd be just too much weight on my hands.

Ultimately, I think the adjustments available on a bike are an effective way to 'dial in' the fit but not a practical way to make one type of bike into another without serious compromises. Having wrote all of this, I don't want to give the impression that I think it's wrong for people to ride a track bike on the street. Clearly, fixedgearhead and others are very happy with that setup. I also don't believe it's merely a 'right tool for the right job' thing. I think it really comes down to the individual, their body, the terrain type and distances they ride, and for many, the aesthetic that'll determine the best geometry.

Interesting topic.

Jim

Clearly, fixedgearhead and others are very happy with that setup. I also don't believe it's merely a 'right tool for the right job' thing. I think it really comes down to the individual, their body, the terrain type and distances they ride, and for many, the aesthetic that'll determine the best geometry.

Interesting topic.

Jim[/QUOTE]

I think you are right about esthetics playing a large part. Is it ever not so in anything that you are passionate about. The bottom bracket height issue is due to the intended purpose of riding the bike on a steeply angled track and eliminating pedal strike due to the extreme angle of the track in relation to the pedal. The "Plus" of riding a track bike on the road is that pedal strike is eliminated if you are running 165 cranks. The bike would slide out from under you on a non crowned road corner before you would strike a pedal. At least that is my experience. I have 2 bikes by the same mfg, Cinelli, one a road conversion which has a road height b/b and an Olympic track with high b/b. Both are 55-cm sized. The measurements aside from stand over height are almost identical. Though the fork angle is different between the two. I can honestly say that they ride similarly with the exception of the stand over height. All of the fitments are the same. 100 mm stem extension. Brooks saddle, Campy ti seat post. 165 mm cranks of the same mfg. The track bike is stiffer due to the head tube angle for sure, and tube selection, and the road bike has S&S couplings, though they don't contribute anything except disassembly ability. There is no flex due to their installation. The tube material is different so that will effect ride characteristics, also. Grant Peterson, while a nice guy that I know from having lived in Walnut Creek and meeting him personally, and buying things at his place of business, brings to the equation his own quirky prejudices. One of which is low B/B. Most of his bikes are Touring or General riding bikes. There, the low b/b can have some advantages. That does not translate to a track situation as the above mentioned requirements are in play. I guess what I am trying to say is that don't take the "Official Word" on the subject to be the gospel truth. Experiment for yourself. I have and ride many bikes of both persuasions and they all please me for the purpose that I have them set up to accomplish. There is a lot of "Urban Myth" associated with bicycles and you will have to see for yourself what works for you. Your riding style or purpose may differ from mine and therefor the bike would have to be different. Hooray for diversity.


fixedgearhead

If I have been riding a bike with track geometry and switch to a normal roadie frame, I notice a large change in the ride. Riding the road frame feels like I am pimping around, long wheel base, almost like a cruiser. The track frames feels more uptight (not in a bad way mind you) almost encouraging me to ride faster. Needless to say I tend to ride a fixie conversion when I go out on the town, although this also might have something to do with my propensity to crash after a few beers, track bikes are expensive....

I think you are right about esthetics playing a large part. Is it ever not so in anything that you are passionate about.
.....and lots of other interesting points....


Just wanted to say that I agree with everything you wrote.

Jim

when i ride my road bike, i frequently feel as though the frame is broken around the bottom bracket. everything feels solid, it just feels "saggy." not flexy, or anything else that would go along with a broken tube...just, lower...

i never get that with my track bikes.

Well, I just finished watching the Madison at the Worlds, and I tell you what, the bikes in that are different to the sprint bikes. WAY DIFFERENT. The geometry is more road orientated, less steep, and slightly longer.

I agree with high BBs on urban fixies for two reasons. First, you can't coast around corners, so you want to eliminate pedal strike. Second, higher BBs mean you have to make larger body movements to make a bike go from leant over to upright. I have a personal preference towards that because I'm a big guy and small body movements are unnatural for me and always end up equating to 'twitchy'.

As it stands, I have my own ideas of what equates to a bike being an 'Urban Fixie' that does NOT equate to a track sprint or TT bike. If you ride that type of bike in the city and you like it, that's great, but there is no way it can be optimal - and this would be exacerbated the longer you were in the saddle.

There is also this thing that I call "Feeling Fast". Bikes that are short, upright, and have a front wheel weight bias simply 'feel' fast because they demand more rider attention to keep on the short and narrow, and require smaller body movements to change the dynamics of the bike. This has no relevance AT ALL to a bike actually being fast - it just 'feels faster'. The classic example of this is full suspension vs hardtail mtbs. Every test ever conducted in race situations had riders saying that the hardtail 'felt' faster, but the opposite was in fact true - the FS bikes all showed quicker lap times. Why is this? Well, it's simple - hardtails rattle your eyeballs out, make you search for the smoothest line, and demand more attention. In this case, 'frantic' = 'feels faster'. It's the same with off the shelf track bikes being ridden on the road. IMHO.

First, you can't coast around corners, so you want to eliminate pedal strike. Second, higher BBs mean you have to make larger body movements to make a bike go from leant over to upright. I have a personal preference towards that because I'm a big guy and small body movements are unnatural for me and always end up equating to 'twitchy'.
I'm going to have to agree with old Thylacine on this one, even though I am not a 'big guy' (6'0" 165lbs.), and I'm used to 'small body movements' (from motorcycle racing). I still get relatively frequent pedal strike even on my bike. I ride an '04 Bianchi Pista, which has a higher bottom bracket and steep geos. I think that full on track bike geometry is the only way to go, even for an urban fixie.
Not only does the higher BB constantly save your ass, but the quicker, more responsive geometry makes it much easier for me feel comfortable enough to find that 'zen' (for lack of a better phrase) in traffic. With or without brakes, I feel far more confident knowing that I'm directly connected to my steering. True, it hurts coming down a massive grade with no brakes on mile 120+ of a ride, but it's a worthy compromise.

I agree with high BBs on urban fixies for two reasons. First, you can't coast around corners, so you want to eliminate pedal strike. Second, higher BBs mean you have to make larger body movements to make a bike go from leant over to upright. I have a personal preference towards that because I'm a big guy and small body movements are unnatural for me and always end up equating to 'twitchy'. ....

While I prefer a lower BB, I should have qualified my opinions in my last post with the fact that I only ride singlespeed. Of course a fixie rider would want a higher BB.

Jim