Originally Posted by
Velognome
You are accurate in your Path=Track definition, but word use does change from generation to generation. Most people, call us ignant if you like, apply Path to the earliest Track bikes ( which raced on gravel, dirt grass and concrete as the ad says) and Track to the later that raced in Velodromes.
There were in fact lots of wood tracks in the late 1800's and early 1900's, both indoors and out, following their introduction in the 1890's. This the same period in which the safety bicycle came to dominate. At the same time, grass and concrete tracks remained very common - Chris Boardman apparently raced on grass tracks quite a bit. Supporting the idea that "path" and "track" coexisted as terms for the same type of bike for a very long time (rather than one simply succeeding the other) is this CR list post from the extremely knowledgeable Norris Lockley:
"In effect the two terms described the same type and style of bike frame, but
is interseting to note that Harry Rensch the maker of Paris bikes in Stoke
Newington, London described his frames as *Path* models, while Bob Jackson,
up in industrial Leeds described his as *Track *ones. Somewhere in the
middle of the country Mercian used the term* Track. *There again, Condor and
Hetchin in London preferred the word *Path*, and Hill Special in the murky
nothern textile town of Padiham also, very surprisingly called his frames*Path
*ones.Meanwhile David Rattray up in Scotland called his Flying Scot
models*Path
*ones, Buckley Bros in London preferred *Path* too, but Pennine in Bradford,
LH Brookes in Manchester, both up north, used* Track*, as did Bates of
London and Les Ephgrave, also in London."This post from Hilary Stone in an early BF thread likewise suggests that the two terms were used side by side into the 1950's:
"Path racers are track bikes, nothing else... Road/path bikes or road/track or Path/road bikes were used in the UK by many clubman for general riding combined with time trialling or racing on the local track. The height of their popularity was in the 1930s, 40 and 50s when virtually every short distance (25 and 50 miles - 10 miles was not generally considered a serious distance back then) time triallist used a fixed gear."
Then there are catalogs: The "Lightweight Cycle Catalogues Volume I" printed by the John Pinkerton Memorial Publishing Fund, offers up the 1950's " 'Paris' Path Model ... design to meet the needs of the real trackman."
If you want to make the case for your version of the development of the path/track nomenclature, and the uses of "path" and "track" to refer to different surfaces, then by all means do so. Thus far, we seem to have one advert and a pretty good sized cache of contrary evidence. I'm not saying there wasn't some development of the terms - that's inevitable. But I think you're trying to over-make the distinction in order to argue that "path" and "track" bikes/frames aren't merely two names for the same thing.