Hell yes.

According to Hilary Stone's definition, you are describing a road/path, road/track or path/road bike, not a path racer. A path racer is a track bike, nothing else.

[QUOTE=Andrew F;11086252]Hmmmmmmm.....

Yet when most people refer to "path racers," they're usually referring to the 1930's through the 1950's, as Hilary notes. During that period, I don't believe that "path racer" was a widely used term for a path or track model bike or frame. If the term was used commonly well before that period, then it apparently fell out of usage, unless you have catalog (or other) evidence from the 30's-50's that indicates otherwise. When you reference materials from the period 1896-1906, you're operating outside the usual vintage lightweight chronological window. It's also possible the a few major manufacturers used "path racer" as a sales term of the moment that didn't ultimately endure. If "path racer" was a common term in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, then all well and good - I stand corrected. But that's simply not the era under discussion the vast majority of the time when it comes to vintage bikes, and it's not the way the term is being used when it crops up consistently on these forums. Very few people are trying to restore or emulate bikes from the first decade of the last century (though there are certainly exceptions).

Correct, sir. (Though to be fair, I proposed that definition before Hilary arrived.)

This is my attempt at creating my own version of a path racer. Started with a bare Sports frame, had it powder coated semi-gloss black and added parts from another Sports.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/...2d1db6e4_b.jpg

Same bike with fenders and chain guard added.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2428/...9f733a2f9b.jpg

[QUOTE=Andrew F;11086252]Hmmmmmmm.....

As an addendum, I suspect that "path" as a synonym for "track" - consequently the term "path racer" - is a remnant of Victorian English that simply fell out of common usage following the First World War.

See, I learn something new everyday. I didn't know Vintage lightweights generaly excluded pre '30's era machines. When I hear "PathRacer" I think late 19th early 20th century, and Track post '20's.

The Path Racer make-ups from Raliegh Sports and the like, to me resemble in form more the "Club" type bicycles.

Before I post this I would like to clear the air as no hostility or rivalries should form from this thread. It is not my intention to push peoples buttons or "troll" these great resources .

http://i48.tinypic.com/34ysmj7.jpg
This is from 1955 and elsewhere in their advertising they used the term "path racer" when braking down the model line.

I would not call parallel 73degree head and seat tubes relaxed, so at least in the mid 50s "path racers" were still an apt name for track bikes.

The discussion of vintage lightweights rarely ventures into the pre-WWI period. Both "path" and "track" were terms used to describe track bikes post-1920's. As Hilary notes, a "path racer" is a "track bike." As noted previously, your attempts to distinguish the "path racer" based on the intended surface was misguided. As also noted previously, track bikes in the pre-war era commonly had relaxed angles of the kind associated post-WWII primarily with road bikes. When people refer to "path racers" as a category, they are, in the vast majority of cases, not referring to bikes from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As you noted, even in 1896, the "path" and "path/road" models were distinct, even though the geometries were similar, as would be expected for the time period. The later "Club" models would have been something different, as designs evolved, and would have had road dropouts rather than track ends. Also, in referencing the 1896 Star catalog, you initially referred only to "path" and "path/road" models, but are now suggesting that there is a "path racer" listed. I suspect that these representations of nomenclature are not both accurate, as they don't jibe. Anything I'm leaving out?

I've been following this thread with great interest, as it was fully my intent to build a 'path racer' when I copied that '48 BSA into the Raleigh even though I knew my use of the term was wrong. Which, for me, is an odd occurrence as I'm normally very anal in getting my history right. And I think a lot of the problem is because of the desirability of the term.

Think about it. 'Path racer'.

Only the English would have the ability to come up with such a poetic description of a type of bicycle, to be used instead of 'track bike' - a term that has all the lilt and beauty of 'spanner'. The very term 'path racer' is enough to give one a visualization of a peloton of hobbits pounding through The Glen on their daily workout. A very fitting poetic, archaic name to a style of bicycle that is (or is stretched to meet) beautifully archaic. Something that you could never ride in spandex and lycra.

And no matter how well informed I become through this thread (and it's been the best education I've received in C&V in a couple of years), I'm still going to find the accurate description of my Raleigh as a 'path/road' bike a very poor substitute for a 'path racer'.

Yes, the Stars I was refering to are two seperate machines, (1) the Path Racer and (2) the Road/Path Racer which was described as a more robust version of the Path Racer.

You seem a bit passionate about this, I'm just simply curious so I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers.

Fair enough. I knew the Stars were different - It's just that the bike you are now referring to as a "path racer" you previously referred to simply as "path." Again, the fact that they are two different models should I think be a big clue. I will also note that your earlier pic, presumably of the "path racer," does not appear to resemble the later"Club" models (except in terms of the slack geometry) in the sense that it doesn't have a front brake or mudguards (or hub gear). That should also perhaps be a clue as to it's versatility vs. its intent as a dedicated track design.
You're definitely providing some new data points and some fresh research - especially regarding the use of the term "path racer," and I apologize if I come off as discouraging those efforts. As of yet, I haven't seen anything that makes me think that a "path racer" is not a track bike, but if you have catalog pics that show a "path racer" with genuine versatility - i.e. fenders and brake rather than merely slack geometry - then we'll all need to do a rethink. I'm honestly open to being proven wrong, if it adds to the knowledge base. And it's not that I have anything against cycling of the period you are researching, either -I'm currently reading "The Lost Cyclist" by David Herlihy, and it's a great read. The "safety" bicycle was definitely still in its relative infancy in the late 20th century.

Indeed, maybe we should end this with a ride in August. Lancaster is not too far from Center Jersey and I'd love to ride a bit of the Pa country side?

I hosted a ride in August two summers ago. I wish I had time to organize and plan one this year - but I'm usually up for an informal one, and the countryside is great, if you get out of the city far enough. Our "path racers" are black and gray and horse-drawn.

I thought they went bankrupt.