Roy H. Drinkwater wrote:
> > > Saw this on rec.bicycles.marketplace, I've never seen a derailleur
>> > hanger on track dropouts before. Was this something Holdsworthy commonly
> > > did, or just a one-off?
Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> > Actually, it's not that uncommon on many older British track frames, since
>> it allows the same frame to be used both on the track, and on the road for
>> time trials (or 'tests' as they tend to be called in England).
The same would be true of Campagnolo 1010 horizontal dropouts, equally usable on the road and the track, without the inconvenience of requiring chain derailment for wheel removal.
Jerry Moos wrote:
>I always assumed that the reason one rarely sees road bikes with rear facing
>dropouts was the difficulty of wheel changes, i.e. one must pull the wheel
>forward to remove the chain from the cog, then back to remove the wheel.
"Rear facing dropouts" is an oxymoron. The term "dropout" refers to
the modern, forward-opening style of fork end that allows the wheel
to "drop out" without having to derail the chain first.
>But that of course is no worse than removing a track wheel, so it
>makes sense on
>dual purpose machines. Maybe the greater question is whether rear facing DO's
>(and 1/8" chain and solid axles for that matter) are really
>necessary for track
>bikes.
They are absolutely not "necessary," they are an atavism, hanging on
through the inertia of tradition.
>I think that Sheldon, for one, is skeptical, and thinks there is a big
>"macho factor" in the design of track equipment.
This is true, particularly where sprinters are involved. Track sprinters are the most conservative of cyclists, most resistant to change/improvements in equipment.
Sheldon "Dropouts Are Better For All Applications" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772, 617-244-1040, FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com
Useful articles about bicycles and cycling
http://sheldonbrown.com