Designing Path Racer/Porteur Frame - opinions?

I know you want to build something more classic ... But here's mine. It's built for 28s with muddies.

Rear centre is 16 & 1/4 ".
BB centre is 10 & 3/4" height.
Fork rake is 45mm
Angles are 73 HT and 74 ST
It's something like 59.5 effective ST (actual around 57cm C-C) x 56 TT, quite a strange shape, for a short reach and tall HT, which is 170mm.

The upright position om the tops is just wonderful, and means I'm comfy in the drops, even with my massive belly.

cough Still available cough

hehehe

Joey boy, what's the TT length on that Mercian?

I meant the opposite really. I have an old steel frame with quill stem and I like it however if I were to buy a modern frame I would look for superior tubing (ie better than 531) and Ahead, whis IS better than quill.
I'm not having a go at your project, I just believe you shouldn't dismiss modern technology.

Yeah, I may go with 631 tubing instead. A-Head is "better" marginally, but Standard Quill looks so clean and nice, I can't compromise on that one.

cough Still available cough

Yes, I would love this, let me save my dollars or I guess pounds.

how's the champion 600 joe?

maybe answer in the guitar nerd thread to avoid derail

It's more comfortable, has more give, and at the same time more support.

how's that work then? can you explain this theory.

how's that work then? can you explain this theory.

It's just my personal opinion and feel of the material from riding them. To me, 531 feels stiff, springy, strong. CrMo feels strong but lacks the same give and take "springy" feel I get from 531.

I realize that's very vague and inarticulate, those are just the feelings that come to mind for me.

Cheers

thanks for sharing.
i need to get me some of that 531

It's just my personal opinion and feel of the material from riding them. To me, 531 feels stiff, springy, strong. CrMo feels strong but lacks the same give and take "springy" feel I get from 531.

I realize that's very vague and inarticulate, those are just the feelings that come to mind for me.

Cheers

You just described a butted steel frame.

you might not like plain gauge 531 though.

As I understand it a Path Racer and a Porteur are rather different bikes with different purposes in mind so somewhat different designs.

A Path Racer is a bit of a club racing bike that you can ride on the track but then also comfortably ride home afterwards, seem to remember that they also had a nod towards grass racing. So a fairly lightweight bike with geometry predisposed towards racing, but with slightly slacker geometry than an out and out racer and a lower bottom bracket than a bike solely intended for track riding.

A Porteur is a load carrying work bike, built to stably carry a load rather than for speed, so more heavily built than a Path Racer, with fork geometry tweaked for stability and predictable steering when carrying a load over the front wheel.

While I'm sure the designs aren't mutually exclusive, not sure I'd consider them interchangeable. My current commuter is a Kogswell G that I'd say broadly had Path Racer geometry. I initially tried building this up as a shopping bike with a Paul Flatbed, it looked great and handled okay when not heavily loaded, but when heavily loaded the steering became much more ponderous and unresponsive, it also felt less predictable. So not a very successful Porteur bike, even if it looked the part.

Kogswell produced a purpose designed Porteur bike, the PR, they did a lot of work getting the fork geometry right, seem to remember that they also had some input from www.blackbirdsf.org . The Kogswell website seems to be down and I get the impression that they've stopped building bikes, but there's still quite a lot of info/discussion about the PR on the Kogswell Owners Group .

You might also want to look at On One's Lincolnshire Poacher as a recent example of someone trying to do a traditional path racer, don't think this was a huge success for them. It seems that while a lot of us appreciate the classics and think it'd be a damn fine idea to revive them, when a budget one comes along very few people seem to buy them. At a completely different price point Rivendell have built their business building these kind of genuinely multi-purpose bikes... but at a price.

I have rear entry horizontal drop-outs on the Kogswell G, which I also use with mudguards and it's a nightmare, the one bit of the design of the bike which is a complete dogs dinner. Rear entry drop-outs and mudguards are a shit idea, sorry, but it's true. What (I think) would be a worthwhile idea would be a Path Racer design, taking advantage of modern advances in tubing design with shortish forward facing horizontal dropouts a-la-Velo-Orange Polyvalent, but for 700c wheels and without the mech-hanger. I know mech-hangers make the frame more adaptable, but they also make my purpose built fixed bike look like a conversion job, which (probably stupidly) irks me.

Them's my thoughts anyway, good luck to you :-)

Seth, I think you want to have a look at Randonneur bicycles, although they're not stricty porteur, but they tend to have a small front rack build to hold a certain load for randonnees/brevet where they have a bag within easy reach making it possible to grab says a sandwich while on the move.

Here's an example of a randonneur bicycle;

They have clearance for bigger tyres and mudguard, a geo that's inbetween a road bike and a touring bike (and lighter than one), small front rack to hold a bag, etc.

Also this one has won the Oregon Manifest Techincal Trial in where not only they required to ride at least 77 miles on and off road, but to make sure that the bike is still in perfect working order when you finish the ride, it should be something that you can ride everyday (i.e. have lights).

if you says, pop a spokes, you'll lose a point, dented a rims, 5 point etc.

those with the most point win, the winner is Pereira Cycles with their bike;

certain load for randonnees/berets where they have a bag within easy reach making it possible to grab says a sandwich while on the move.

cough brevet cough

Worth bearing in mind that a "randonneuse" describes both lighter audax bikes and full on cyclocamping tourers. At least in its original language.

...and the patron saint is no other than site boss Velocio.

Also this one has won the Oregon Manifest Techincal Trial in where not only they required to ride at least 77 miles on and off road, but to make sure that the bike is still in perfect working order when you finish the ride, it should be something that you can ride everyday (i.e. have lights).

if you says, pop a spokes, you'll lose a point, dented a rims, 5 point etc.

those with the most point win, the winner is Pereira Cycles with their bike;

http://vimeo.com/8048466

Looks awesome!

As I understand it a Path Racer and a Porteur are rather different bikes with different purposes in mind so somewhat different designs.

A Path Racer is a bit of a club racing bike that you can ride on the track but then also comfortably ride home afterwards, seem to remember that they also had a nod towards grass racing. So a fairly lightweight bike with geometry predisposed towards racing, but with slightly slacker geometry than an out and out racer and a lower bottom bracket than a bike solely intended for track riding.

A Porteur is a load carrying work bike, built to stably carry a load rather than for speed, so more heavily built than a Path Racer, with fork geometry tweaked for stability and predictable steering when carrying a load over the front wheel.

While I'm sure the designs aren't mutually exclusive, not sure I'd consider them interchangeable. My current commuter is a Kogswell G that I'd say broadly had Path Racer geometry. I initially tried building this up as a shopping bike with a Paul Flatbed, it looked great and handled okay when not heavily loaded, but when heavily loaded the steering became much more ponderous and unresponsive, it also felt less predictable. So not a very successful Porteur bike, even if it looked the part.

Kogswell produced a purpose designed Porteur bike, the PR, they did a lot of work getting the fork geometry right, seem to remember that they also had some input from www.blackbirdsf.org . The Kogswell website seems to be down and I get the impression that they've stopped building bikes, but there's still quite a lot of info/discussion about the PR on the Kogswell Owners Group .

You might also want to look at On One's Lincolnshire Poacher as a recent example of someone trying to do a traditional path racer, don't think this was a huge success for them. It seems that while a lot of us appreciate the classics and think it'd be a damn fine idea to revive them, when a budget one comes along very few people seem to buy them. At a completely different price point Rivendell have built their business building these kind of genuinely multi-purpose bikes... but at a price.

I have rear entry horizontal drop-outs on the Kogswell G, which I also use with mudguards and it's a nightmare, the one bit of the design of the bike which is a complete dogs dinner. Rear entry drop-outs and mudguards are a shit idea, sorry, but it's true. What (I think) would be a worthwhile idea would be a Path Racer design, taking advantage of modern advances in tubing design with shortish forward facing horizontal dropouts a-la-Velo-Orange Polyvalent, but for 700c wheels and without the mech-hanger. I know mech-hangers make the frame more adaptable, but they also make my purpose built fixed bike look like a conversion job, which (probably stupidly) irks me.

Them's my thoughts anyway, good luck to you :-)

Nice one polybikeuser.

Good to separate the path and porteurs. very different geometry for front loading is what I was originally trying to recommend being sure of, to the OP. Apparently it's all about how much trail you have.

Sad really that OnOne didn't do well out of the Lincolnshire Poacher. But there is the problem with overtly retro-styled things ... they are too much a matter of taste. I reckon the Steamroller is a good example of a sort of trad style fame, but being tigged keep it cheap, and their curved chain stays and stuff also means it doesn't look like a museum piece, and can be built up in different ways with some success. For the On One to try to emulate, in some small way, the finery of Hobbs and Hethchins and Flying Gates with the Fleurs-de-Lys lugs was probably a bad move, especially in a rather basic tubeset.

About track ends with mudguards: yes it is an affectation to build a frame like this. I struggled with having dropouts on my Yates build, and ended up choosing the dogs dinner approach. Still, having switched to chromoplastic mudguards, using the SKS safety QRs on the rear (they're intended to be used on the front), mounted to the inside of the eyes, I have no problems at all with removing the wheel. Those clips do reqiure replacement once in a while as the gripping of the stay gets loose, but that's a price I'm happy to pay.