Re: [CR]Classifying lightweight road bike frames Racing/Touring is enough

(Example: Production Builders:Peugeot:PX-10LE)

From: <Hughethornton@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 14:23:13 EST
Subject: Re: [CR]Classifying lightweight road bike frames Racing/Touring is enough
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


Within the Classicrendezvous timeline, I would have thought that the classification of frames was fairly straightforward - there was just not the range of specialized machines that there is today and many were multi-purpose, even if acquired more for one type of usage than another.

The easiest classification is track (or path) - designed for racing wheels, fixed gear, no brakes, no fenders, rear-facing dropout slots.

Next easiest is road-track (or road-path) - same as above except for provision for a brake or two, possibly fender clearance.

For most of the timeline, road racing frames were road racing frames, regardless of type of racing. The best indicators are quality and weight of tubing and absence of braze-ons for anything not connected with racing, the exception being fender attachments through to the 1970s or thereabouts. A good indication of a racing frame is how the manufacturer advertised it and what equipment it was fitted with, certainly with respect to Continental European bikes, less so with British bikes that would be very competent racers but were sold with clunky 27 inch wheels and even those hideous lamp bracket braze-ons. The Brits had this idea that sew-ups were very special and had to be bought separately and carried on brackets fixed by the front axle nuts.

In my simplistic view, anything that does not fit into the above categories is a bike, pure and simple. Sport, Sport Touring, All-rounder, Hybrid are modern marketing terms to try to classify and differentiate bikes. In the real world they are totally meaningless. A bike is for riding and, until recently, was either for racing, for a combination of racing and not racing, or for not racing at all, in which case it might have been used for anything from club riding to general transport to touring.

I would steer clear of trying to classify by wheelbase, clearances and angles. Newer road racing bikes have much steeper angles, shorter wheelbases and tighter clearances than older track bikes. Even generalizing for any particular era will be incorrect -- there are too many exceptions.

How you use these frames now should be how you want to use them, regardless of what they might have been intended for originally, although a round-the-world tour on a 1940s racing bike might be a bit rash.

Hugh Thornton Cheshire, England

In a message dated 08/11/2006 23:52:07 GMT Standard Time, dhack@sbcglobal.net writes:

Okay - I know I am re-inventing the wheel, but I'm hoping the resulting discussion will be productive by increasing the accuracy of what we call different types of road frames. No flaming required, this is the beginning of a discussion.

Some old racing frames look more like newer sport touring frame, which makes classification difficult. I am thinking in terms of how I would use these older frames now, for my current riding on better pavement than they were designed for. I'm also more interested in the more utilitarian road frames than the specialized racing frames.

Track racing frames (steep, high, short, horizontal rear facing dropouts) Time trial frames (?) Cyclo-cross frames (?)

Criterium racing frames (75 plus head angle, high bottom bracket, very short wheelbase <98) bare clearance for sewups.

Road Racing frames (73 or 74 head angles, moderate height bottom bracket, 99-100cm) sewups/700c <25mm)

Sport frames (usually called sport touring) (73 head angle, moderate height bb, 101-102cm) clearance for at least 700x28mm tires not designed for loads in racks good frame for club riding or centuries

All rounder (usually called sport touring) ( 72 or 73 head angle, moderate height bb, 102-104cm, clearance for fenders with 45-55mm brake reach, longer chainstays, clearance for 700x32mm or 27x1 1/4)

I have seen Randonneur frames described, but I am unfamiliar with them.

Loaded touring frames (72 head angles, lower BB, 104-107cm, very long chainstays, clearance for fenders, cantilever or disc brakes, brazeons for racks, etc. 700 or 27 clearance for tires up to 42mm)

Hybrid frames (road geometry with 26 inch wheels, cantilevers, and huge tire clearance) these might overlap all rounders, or loaded touring.