Pretty much typifies the few examples I have seen in person, touched and ridden.

Its basically a SS/FG bike meant to be ridden on rough paths... its NOT a conventional track bike, if by that you mean a bike that sees only the inside of a velodrome. The path racer is a bike built for real-world riding!

Picchio Special is correct in is definition.
We have had this discussion about 4 times in the past 20 months. I still enjoy the debate.
What must be remembered is that it is an historical term and needs to be interpreted in context - a number of posters say "My interpretation of Path/racer is.." or "I think it's this.." . It doesn't matter what someone 'thinks', it is what it is. This is, of course, being pedantic, but we might as well be acccurate.

Many of us strip down pedestrian roadsters and do'em as as immitation Pathracers. That's fine, so long as no-one tries to pass it off as the real deal.

This is incorrect, as I've been saying. The term "path" is another way of saying "track" - it has nothing to do with "rough paths." If you can provide some evidence to the contrary, rather than simply making statements, then maybe we could all learn something. Otherwise, all I can do is keep correcting this type of misinformation so that misleading impressions don't continue to pervade the discussion. And I am wide open to being proven wrong - but proof requires evidence, and so far I've seen none.

A "path/road" or "road/path" is never a converted roadster. It's a specific, purpose-built type of frame-bike. The vast majority have rearward-facing rear fork ends to allow them to be admitted to track racing events. They also have lower bottom brackets, more relaxed geometry and some braze-ons for mudguards, and are drilled for a front brake.

Again, since no one seemed to get it the first time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SIL-029-017-10b.jpg

Maybe someone could actually paste that here for me, since folks seem averse to links.

And you're expecting an Interweb argument to be supported by facts?! Heresy!

Neal

Piccio Special - I think the point is that while Path=Track, there was a period of development were several serfaces existed. During that period, the Track bike for Velodromes began to develop as we see it today. Prior to that, Path=Track bikes were at first modified production Saftey Bicycles. By the end of the 19th century, there appear Path=track bikes as poduction models, these still had the same high BB's and 28" tubular Pneumatic tires as the Saftey. As the sport developed the geometry changed, the bike got lighter and the tire thinner.

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.

So, what was the catylast for Path to be replaced or prefered over the word Track when referencing these machines?

It's a term from an earlier era that simply died out of natural causes - if nothing else, the use of the "path" to mean "track" has the potential to cause confusion - as it's been doing in these forums.

Or it's contemporary usage is to describe the earlier era Track Bikes without confusion. I would venture, that if you did a word/picture match; Path Racer would be associated with slack frames and larger tires while Track with tighter frames and thinner tires. This is the C&V forum afterall, nothing dies here, only cleaned up, repaired and put to use....now where did I leave that spanner?


Now, having participated in the Hijacking of this thread, my deepest apologies to the OP!

Except that it's contemporary usage is usually not to describe earlier track bikes, but instead to describe hybrid models, usually from the 1930's to 1950's, that are more properly dubbed "road/track" or road/path." That's the reason for the association of "path racer" with slack frames and larger tires.

Like this?
[Q
[/QUOTE]

I don't understand your point. That's a track bike, not a hybrid. Says "For track use only" right on it. Happens to have fatter tires and slacker angles. The Paris "Path" model from the 50's I referenced earlier is also a dedicated track bike. It does not have fatter tires and slacker angles. In Norris Lockely's CR post, he mentions that some UK makers described their dedicated track bikes as "path" models and others as "track" models - the machines referred to are not different with respect to angles or tire width. So the term "path" persisted to mean a "pure" track bike. There were also "road/path" frames, referring to the fact that they had characteristics of both types of bikes. Both terms are needed - the term "road" is there to account for the slacker angles, lower bottom bracket, etc. The term "path" isn't sufficient to denote those elements, because "path" means "track." The "road/path" is what most people mean when they use the term "path racer." In other words, the contemporary usage is incorrect as far as the historical models it refers to - which is why Hilary made the post he did: "A path racer is a track bike, nothing different."

I'm going to completely (and yet respectfully) disagree. When someone says "I'm doing kind of a path racer type build" nobody assumes that they found some frame from 1903 that they want to build up with wooden rims.

As has been mentioned, the term "path racer" was not often used, was pretty much never used in the eras some people think it was, and was fairly nebulous in definition when it was used in the literature. There's no way anyone's path racer build from this forum is even remotely related to any of the historical path racers people have been posting.

In other words, it doesn't mean what it used to mean (not that we could even agree on that to begin with).
Rather, the term in contemporary usage is simply shorthand for "simple drivetrain, ultra-retro look."


ETA: As has also been implied, none of us know sh*t about what we're talking about. We can search flickr for old ads all we want, but none of us have the proper education or have done the proper research to know how the term was actually used. Advertising copy is not exactly the best way to judge an era.
Can we all just forget this ridiculously stupid discussion/debate/argument and enjoy some cool looking retro-styled bikes? I don't give two halves of a rat's butt about what you call them.

Wow!
above post is a tad Jeckyll-and-Hyde!
what does ETA mean?
a fairly hostile response in the end

In fact, Picchio does know what he's talking 'bout.

I think terms should be used correctly, but call me a pedant.
I like Vintage cars, but the term as originally coined means cars of good quality made from WW1 to 1931 (Depression). So it bugs me in a minor way when people call, say, a 60s Mustang 'vintage' , cos it aint. But in the end I don't lose sleep over it.

Not to breakup the encounter session, but I continue to be intriqued by "conceptual" pathracers I see being built and displayed by members of this forum. These are beautiful builds that give me a sort of, oh, I don't know . . . , T.H. Lawrence sort of feel. Again, the same feel as very early motorcycles and conceptual motor scooter builds. https://spookytoothcycles.com/compone...&category_id=6

And I don't think I will be hurting anyone's feelings if I say that Steppinthefunk's creation is the standard by which all others are judged, as well as being one of the most visually appealing bikes I have ever seen.

With that, my question. By background, I have been riding narrow tired road bikes for 35 years. Even though I'm not fast, I feel fast. So, where would I ride a path racer? Trails? MUD's?

It was the path racer concept that I had in mind when I built up the newish Bianchi Volpe cyclocross frame, below, into a single speed with widish tires. And it is great on MUD's, bad pavement, and canal trails.

I'm with jets! I love historical accuracy, but the OP's quiry has been hijacked.
I tried building up my India Hercules, SS-FW, really slack frame, 26A wheels, with drop bars, and neither I or my 15 yr old could ride it.
Just too weird.

Yes, this is my concern.

Maybe the crappy stripped down 3 speed with the bars flipped updside down version can be called a "nuovo path racer". But I actually think co-opting another historical term, "scorcher" is a better and more relevant moniker. This also conjures up the romantic image up tearing up hard-pack gravel trails, laughing wildly like Snidely Whiplash, and scaring the petticoats off gentle women out for a Sunday buggy ride.

To the OP: I've found that a stripped down 60's Raleigh Sports outfitted with 700c rims and 28mm tires, in a size larger enough that you can have the stem buried with flipped bars and about a inch or two of post under your B-15 makes a very suitable mount for this kind of work. You have to mess around with filing the drop-outs a bit to use good road hubs and re-spacing the front and rear drops. These frames can benefit greatly from a proper alignment as well. I'll post some pics of mine later.

Beautiful Bike. I seriously dig it.

And I'm sure the image involves a good many pub stops. Yes, please get those photos up.

So the black Herc has such a slack frame, with a 100mm stem and drop bars, and a narrow seat (not the config. seen here) was so squirrely as to be un-rideable, will the Red Herc be any better?

Nuevo club bike perhaps ?

It is beautiful but lacks the vintage touches that are characteristic of these modern path / road bikes.