Hi.

It's time to reorder our Model G frames and, not surprisingly, I'm pondering lowering the trail.
Doing so seems sensible. Being able to change line in a corner, for example, sure is attractive. As does the lack of TCO.

When I look at photos of old track bikes they all seems to have loads of fork offset. Anyone know why modern track (read sprint) frame geometry is as it is?

Thanks.

Less trail, and higher BB would make your frames more attractive to me.

Your frames are pretty, and I think about the only thing with lugs in the price range, but for my part I'd be more inclined to look at the Model P for a touring style bike than I would the G as a fixed bike, and I'm not looking for a touring bike right now.

"true" sprint frames are event specific; one would hardly use one
in the other velodrome disciplines - pursuit, madison, kilo, etcetera.
i hope this helps.
e-RICHIE©™®

I would love to see your fork done with straight blades but I know that is a matter of asthetics.

here's an oldy but goody, circa 1991:

Nice. but I would hate to have a sidewind hit me on that thing.

don't get mad.
get even!!

How would you categorize frames like the Bianchi Pista?

What type are they?

See, I hear people say that they want a 'true' track bike. But then, as you go deeper, you find that each discipline has its own requirements. So the notion of an general-purpose track bike starts to get a little shakey. Which is not to say that it isn't a good idea. There must be some kind of formula for a bike that works pretty well for lots of the things that are done at tracks; a bike that someone who is new to the sport can take out to a track and join a development program with and use for training.

I think I could come close to what that is. At the very least it is the composite of all the production 'track' bikes that have been sold over the years. I don't think it's too far fetched to think that Gitane, Raleigh, Schwinn, Bianchi, Cannondale, Fuji, KHS and the others had something else in mind when they produce a 'track' bike.

I was thinking that that sort of bike came closer to being a sprint bike, rather than say a persuit bike. Which is all I meant. I didn't mean to suggest that one bike is used for all disciplines. And I didn't mean to misuse the sprint moniker.

I think everyone here would be overjoyed to hear what you have to say about the equipment used in the various events and how they differ from one another.

Isn't that right, folks?

Please, Richard, we're all listening...

I believe people generally mean a multipurpose "6-day" frame that's suited to a variety of events and designed for the relatively pristine environment of the track without being something that is uncomfortable after 5 minutes.

Still, track bikes of yore tended to be more relaxed, and I'm not sure whether it was just not as much information about biomechanics or something else entirely.

I too am curious.

Matthew-
I am not up on the market driven bicycles so "Bianchi Pista" doesn't register with me.
In general terms, and geared to steel as material since I think that is what you use...
sprint frames are used in events that last 2 minutes or so, and the "business" part of
that duration is about 11 seconds. It is also the only discipline in which a rider "might"
ride slowly up the banking. Because of these and other reasons too, the frame needs
to be built higher to clear the banking, and have less trail and a shorter front end so
that every square mm on the track can be negotiated instinctively - with body english.
A sprint frame is also kinda' overbuilt so as to stand up to the stresses from explosive
starts and jumps as well as to withstand the G forces at speed on the turns.
Seperately, pursuit frames are TT frames. They are normally a more road-like position
and the trail is more so that the rider does not have to think about steering, only pounding
in a straight line. There is no turning, only leaning, so the front end doesn't need to be
"as" lively.
Kilo frames are like pursuit frames, but built "stronger" because that event is also short
and explosive.
My examples are general and do not take into account the event-specific positions needed
to excel once the frame is properly designed for the event. I guess the rider/coach then
need to dial it in for the anatomy.
Since this is a singlespeed board, I am guessing that it's not as important to nail all the
dimensions as though one/you were making a "track" frame. In most cases, a road frame
design but with a shorter front and rear wheelbase would be a fine example of what "could"
be enjoyed on the street using a fixed or singlespeed setup.
That's all for now - 'off to drive on the Thanksgiving holiday.
Take care.
e-RICHIE©™®

That explanation was awesome.

-brad

word

Much Thanks!

Questions: Would the desire to bring the front wheel in as much as possible for drafting have anything to do with trading off trail and stability? Do people who ask for "track" geometry just want quicker steering and are using a meaningless term? What is the market of the model G? is it for people who want a new bike that is set up for FG ans SS but also want ride all day geometry?

This is the best thread in very, very long time. very interesting. Thank you all very much!

what interests me most about this thread at the moment is what the answer might be to the question "what's a good all-around track frame that's equally well adapted to all areas of track racing that a beginner could use to get involved?" interesting question, and i'm sure interesting discussion and answers will follow.