Originally Posted by
Andrew F
Picchio, are you 100% on that? I am developing a bit of interest in early frame geometry and have noticed a rather slack geometry that gets tighter as the years progress. Here is a cut from the 1896 Star cataloge and shows both the Path and the Path/Road with the same relaxed frame, looks (less then 68 degree) . The difference is noted that the Path/Road is studier and heavier. Also, wouldn't slack frame have an advantage over tight geometry on an unstable surface such as truff or dirt? Just askin'?
Yes, I'm 100% sure. A "path" is a "track," and a "path racer" is a track bike. "Unstable" surfaces are not the issue when it comes to the design of "path racers." But if you're going to go all the way back to the 19th century, then yes, you're going to find that bike geometry was different generally (and possibly more influenced by the design of the preceding "ordinary.") Slack angles were the order of the day - even on indoor tracks:
http://www.juniorvelo.com/wp-content...e_filtered.jpg
As track bikes became more "upright," road bikes (eventually) did, too - but not to the same extent obviously, leaving models intended for dual use with more relaxed geometry and lower bottom brackets. Yes, the early road bikes benefited from geometry that made them more suited for bad road surfaces, but track bikes shared that geometry, as your example suggests. As noted by The Racing Bicycle:
"Board track and road racing bicycles of the
prewar era have a more relaxed frame geometry as compared to modern race bikes. This made these bikes
less responsive, therefore more challenging to handle in tight quarters, however the long wheelbase
made the road racing bicycles more stable on the mostly unpaved roads they raced on."
Keep in mind that in some forms of track racing (the brutal 6-Day races for example), endurance was as important as sheer speed and agility, and perhaps more so.
I suspect that track bikes evolved more toward upright geometry more for reasons of handling than improved racing surfaces. As to road bikes, Dave Moulton offers as alternative theory to the commonly held "road surface" one here:
http://tinyurl.com/y95tntg
And again, the persistence of slack angles may have had much to do with old design habits:
http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com...-die-hard.html
Whether or not a slack frame has a real advantage on unstable road surfaces is an interesting question - a shorter wheelbase + lower trail geometry is actually more maneuverable when it comes to dodging potholes and other obstacles (which we have plenty of around here), though a longer wheelbase is more stable.
In any case, my earlier post mainly concerned the more familiar post-war period. But again, the distinction between a "path racer" and a "road/path" is that one is designed for track racing and the other is designed for some versatility while still being eligible for use on a dedicated track (track ends).