eBay and Craigslist finds

no i was referring to another thread about a spelling mistake on the condor website where they put 'angels' instead of 'angles'

That was just a joke about a typo on Condor's website (check the Pista).

Would everyone just chill the fuck out before I chainring all your fucking heads off.. it's christmas you slags!

:P

Riiight. Lets get back on track.
Here (http://www.gumtree.com/london/52/32362352.html) is a stock Bianchi Pista 08, 6 months old, bare-bones listing (read into that what you will) £250 ONO.

You well with in your right to flog this bike on. What you are not within your right to do is flog it on as a 'track' bike when it patently is not a track bike. Your ad on e-bay omitted the fact that this bike is a conversion and it showed no clear photographs of the aforementioned 'dodgy ends'. It is customary but not obligatory on ebay to highlight any faults that a bike may have. New to ebay you may not of have known this. However when you state the fact that you "didn't think I would be selling this as a complete bike to the type of person who's on LGFSS... the majority of whom are (I'm assuming based on what I've read) knowldegable, opinionated, individuals to sell to a buyer neither knowledgable nor opinionated" it rather suggests that you were hoping for a buyer who knows even less about track bikes than you! Perhaps someone who would not know a dodgy conversion when they saw one. I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not down right dishonest but sunshine please spare us the bleedin lectures.

No one is picking on you stick around you might learn a thing or two.

the dropouts on my bike look the same, all this time i thought it was a track frame! now i know its a conversion because they point down a bit

** i don't think it is a conversion.**to be honest i think there is nothing wrong with that frame, the angles look right, the forks angle is spot on. and have seen drop-outs like those on so called "proper" track bikes often enough.

and welcome paris.

.

to be honest i think there is nothing wrong with that frame, the angles look right, the forks angle is spot on. and have seen drop-outs like those on so called "proper" track bikes often enough.
i don't think it is a conversion.

and welcome paris.

You think its straight up murtle? I have never seen track ends like that why the funny angle? I'll give you that the angles look about right!

yup

Maybe there was period where English track bikes had downward facing drop outs? Where is Platini when you need him? he must be the oldest bod around here.

I will be honest here, I jusmped into this thread (not giving any grieff, just advice hopfully)without reading all of it. But, why would a road frame not have holes for breaks/ bottle racks ect......

'Tis the season to pick pointless online arguments, tralala-lala-la-la.

What Hippy said. Merry Christmas grinches! :p

Yes, the lack of rear BRAKE drilling suggests track.

I spelt rack wrong as well. I dont mind not being able to spell, but when I get words wrong that I can spell it drives me fucking crazy.

i have seen a couple with that style of rear ends, but they are always a 'newer' style ie not vintage like chaterly's etc. if you are happy with the frame then fair enough, but you have to admit that it is very possible that it is a conversion.

it's not hard to fill the rear bridge hole, £5 at mercian

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Peugeot-Road-Racing-Bike_W0QQitemZ330294756066QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Bikes_GL?hash=item330294756066&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

The second peugeot is the same model as I have, Frame is 1979 I believe.

You can take a road frame, remove the braze ons, change the bridge and ends but you can't change the geometry without changing the headtube and stays. However some road bikes have very short wheelbases. It you had one of these you couldn't tell the difference. But why go to all the effort and braze in the drop out downwards? I got a feeling this was a fashion in English bikes

hole for break could be filled? not too bothered either way though

furry muff.

next...

please find me another
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/main.htm

I may have to swallow my words and grovel in apology to a newbie, but then maybe not

vintage track rears

armstrong

hobbs

ephgrave

This may be a repost/relist but i haven't cheaked this thread in a while:

I own one of those hats. I been called a king cnut many times while cycling...brings a smile to my face.

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=19228

La Jeaune, £375, complete bike

to be honest i think there is nothing wrong with that frame, the angles look right, the forks angle is spot on. and have seen drop-outs like those on so called "proper" track bikes often enough.
i don't think it is a conversion.

and welcome paris.

Thanks for the welcome.

I'd like to put his one to bed now as well, so thanks for your input and opinion.

To someone's earlier angry point that if track ends were fitted to a road frame it would lower the BB height. Thanks. I KNOW!! Rear axle position would be different to how the frame was originally built, which would throw the geometry out completely.

BUT... if this was the case with this frame and track ends were retro-fitted to a road frame and the original forks were left in place, the top tube would cease to be level, head tube angle would look wrong and it would be screamingly obvious. It would look like some kind of frankenbike retro compact.

You could argue that this could be rectified by sourcing a set of 'track forks' to then replace the original road forks which would have bigger clearances and greater rake I suppose, but I think that would be a lot of effort to go to just to rectify converting a road frame.

So to set the record straight, here's what I do know about this frame:

• The rear spacing is 110mm.
  
• The rear bridge was not drilled for a brake.
  
• Lugs (particularly the 'ornates' up front) point to it being pre 80's.
  
• The fork crown is too heavy to have been a road crown and the blades are round section. From memory, there weren't many builders who would spec this type of build to the front end of road frame.
  
• Plus, the clearances are way too tight for a road frame of that era.
  
  

I will concede that the plate track ends aren't the most attractive, nor do they look particularly horizontal, but what I will say is that the bike looks right and balanced (and thanks to 31t®um for agreeing) and it rides really well.

I'd suggest that this is actually a Path frame that has possibly had new ends fitted during its life for some reason, but I'd stand by the fact that it was built as a single speed / fixie.

I won't bother going into the explanation of 'path' as I know that a lot of you guys will know what it is, but it is in essence 'track'.

I think if I advertised this on eBay as a Path racer, I would

a. open up another can of worms and

b. miss a lot of potential buyers.

I suspect that there might now be another debate as to whether Path is track and that they are different disciplines and that path dates much further back.

However, what I will say, is that my introduction to track in 1982 was on Path in Poole in Dorset and from there I graduated up to riding track proper, so for me that was track.

The ends and geometry of this frame are not dissimilar to a Gillott Path frame I have in my collection.

I'm sorry that this has caused so much discord at a time when we should all be getting merry and I'll amend the ad accordingly so that it doesn't imply anything or offend the elders.

But watch out with the assumptions... they are the mother of all fuck ups.

And one more thing... If it does allow me to enter "the circle of trust"!

I did have the benefit of having three of my TT frames in the mid-80's built by the late Stan Pike down in Crewkerne (a true gent who let me spend a lot of time by the jig... ooo-errr), plus two road frames and one of my track frame built by Charlie Roberts.