One other thing worth mentioning is that I think there sometimes is confusion about British frames because they were often built for use with multi-speed hubs. So even a multi-speed road bicycle might have had rear facing fork ends.
British experts, is that a good guess?
Once again... cheers,
Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)
> I think there is still a bit of confusion about the term
> "path racer". If you search the archives I'm sure you'll
> messages from Hilary Stone and/or Mick Butler and/or Bob Reid
> (and who knows who else) explaining that "path racer" is an
> obsolete British term for "track racing bicycle".
> If I recall the story correctly, there was such a thing as
> "road-path" bicycle which was something you could race on
> either the track or road with a suitable change of rear
> (and removal/re-installation) of the brakes.
> But the discussion of top tube lengths that are typicle of
> British bicycles - that's a different story... :-D
> Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)
> --- galen pewtherer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > ategoryZ22679QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
> > it's listed as a track frame, and the measurements seem to
> > bear that
> > out (st is 24.5" and tt is 22") but it's drilled for front
> > and rear
> > brakes.
> > (i wondered initially if it was a path racer, but from
> > posts to
> > the list i've gathered that path racers tend to have tt's
> > that are
> > longer than the st. i'd be interested in hearing any
> > about
> > the reason for that, if anyone cares to weigh in).
> > from what little i know of british this was normal for the
> > time, is
> > that correct?
> > usual disclaimers apply: no relation to seller, i was out
> > town that
> > weekend, it must have been that other fellow who looks like
> > me, etc.
> > galen pewtherer
> > san francisco, ca