Most recent activity
-
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.
-
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.
- The rear spacing is 110mm.
-
because then it's not a fucking track frame is it darling, it's a road frame with track ends isn't it? 130 spacing, slacker angels (© Condor), drilled for brakes. There for, not a track frame.
And one more thing Slack... to your previous quote which AGAIN includes an assumption and accuses me of lack of knowledge:
"it's a road frame... 130 spacing, slacker angels (© Condor), drilled for brakes. There for, not a track frame..."
Thanks for the info, shame you didn't point out that it could have been 126 or even a 120 spacing tho, given its age. That would have displayed knowledge.
And FYI - the rear spacing is 110. Sorry to disappoint you.
And the rear bridge was never drilled for a brake, sorry again.
And 'slacker angles' OK fair enough.
Not sure if you were alleging that Condor build their track bikes with slacker angles with your "© Condor" dig? Does that mean in your opinion that Condor track frames aren't proper track frames either? They might have an opinion on that.
-
Dogs has probably built more bikes this year alone (for his own pleasure) than your little business exterprise has built all told. If I was you I would stick around listen and learn. Your copywriting is spot on but if you are going to make money on e-bay you have to be an expert in the product you sell. If had bought that bike for £600 and it arrived with dodgy fucking ends that would be your seller rep up in smoke. Don't take it personal just accept that we know what the fuck we are talking about.
I also wanted to say thanks to Motti for at least suggesting that I should be able to 'fight my corner'.
I feel like trying to respond to all these pointless digs in one go, but I know I can't and it's frustrating the hell out of me.
But to open up... this one's to you TheSmilingBuddha: how am I not supposed to "take it personal" when you start with the line "Dogs has probably built more bikes this year alone (for his own pleasure) than your little business exterprise has built all told".
Of course I'll take it personally! I've been riding, racing and building bikes "for my own pleasure" since 1980.
FYI - the bike I'm selling on eBay was a personal build (originally for me). I bought the frame from an LFGSS member who did vouch for me on another thread. I originally planned to build the bike for my own collection, but a friend of mine fell in love with it at the beginning of the summer and I built it for him. Sadly he was killed in an RTA in August in Dorset (NOT RIDING THIS BIKE) which means I still have the bike.
I'm NOT a business or 'exteptise' as you stated. I make this point quite clear in my eBay ad - again frustrating as there is FAR TOO much ranting speculating on who I am and questioning my motives.
I'd like to think that like you guys, I'm an enthusiast who has a passion for bikes. Not some no mark who's attempting to jump on the band wagon!
And to your point:"If had bought that bike for £600 and it arrived with dodgy fucking ends that would be your seller rep up in smoke."
I'm completely in agreement with you, but let's be honest I 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 who know their kit and most likely (like me) would prefer to source parts and build their own bike to their own personal spec.
In short, I was pretty sure guys like you wouldn't want to buy it as a complete anyway.
A fair assumption?
I genuinely joined LGFSS as I thought it was a 'community' and the idea of a community was a gathering of like minds with like interests. Yes... I accept that some people will know more than others, and I agree that a community should be self-regulating, but this 'exclusive' attitude seems demented. This might as well be The Masons' forum.
You've made assumptions about the frame based on what you've seen in a photo and one other members cycnical and, I feel, somewhat unprovoked attack on an item I'm genuinely trying to sell on eBay.
Furthermore, you've then made the assumption that I know nothing about the subject matter. Why?
Because I'm a newb on the forum?
Because I don't post regularly?
So should I conversely, therefore, assume that to be taken seriously or given any courtesy on LGFSS you have to have been a long-standing member or possess and ride something utterly unique and very rare, and only then will your validity be unquestioned? Makes it kind of difficult to attempt to become part of something if you're stone-walled.
Bit sad... seems a very conservative, stuck up attitude. Bit like a bunch of rich kids or an old school tie network.
The sort of thing I would have thought a group of intelligent, knowledgeable individuals who favour an alternative approach to life would collectively be against.
I can't stand the idea of bowing to peer pressure, but if it means I can avoid having my eBay inbox clogged up with uninvited judgements I'll change the wording to read 'track inspired' bike.
-
It amazes me on a daily basis how many fucksticks we get on here thinking they know better, they try and sell single brake single speeds, awful conversions and try and fob it off to us as 'the latest track bike craze that's hitting london from the states' i mean come on have a fucking look around yeah? the names and faces, with pictures of all our rides surely would let you know that we all have a pretty good idea of how to put a bike together, no? or is it just me?
i don't confess to to be the be all and end all of bicycle mechanics but i know enough of what i'm talking about, and when some one on the forum spots some one trying to pull a fast one on the back of fashionable bikes and calls them up on it, they then come on here with a identical user name claiming to be some one else and get all fucking shitty about be rumbled. It's fucking bollocks.
you wouldn't spray a astra red and sell it as a fucking ferrari at a owners club and expect to get away with it would you? so why do you think it will wash on a bike forum?
slack.
My first chance to check this post or respond, so apologies for the delay... and it appears the rage is still there!
Slack, just so we're clear... I didn't come on here to try and sell anything. The bike was advertised on eBay.
I'm pulling a 'fast anything'.
I just came on here to find out why I got an unsolicited and blunt email to my eBay account about the bike.
Seems fair enough... I like that people have greater knowledge and I think it's good if they want to share that, but an email saying something like "NIce looking bike, but just wanted to let you know that I think it might be a converted road frame..." then going on to explain the difference would have been better tha the blunt one I originally got.
-
because then it's not a fucking track frame is it darling, it's a road frame with track ends isn't it? 130 spacing, slacker angels (© Condor), drilled for brakes. There for, not a track frame.
Oh, Gosh, Yes.
I see.
So I suppose I should have listed it as "converted road frame with track ends"? I expect loads of people who want to ride fixed on the road and fancy something that didn't come from Evans would be using that type of terminology in the eBay search box?
-
Thank you hippy.
I was about to follow up with the comment that from my ancienttwo-wheeled history these are track ends.. not drop-outs.
Drop-outs are so-called for a very obvious reason. This type of stuff riles me.
And all this 'conversion' talk is conjecture and speculation, as I said to DB in my response: "What difference it would make even if it was a converted road frame, provided the 'conversion' had been done by a reputable frame builder?"
I have 3 frames at Mercian for restoration right now, one of which is having the rear brake bridge removed and repositioned to facilitate running 700c wheels with long reach Campag calipers. Mercian's workshop have willingly taken on the job and I trust them. What's to say this hasn't been done here?
I stand by the fact that this is a rideable classic - it's an old English frame, not some robot built badge-engineered Taiwanese thing.
I've used terms like "track" and "messenger" as search terms to enable interested buyers to find the bike when searching. I don't honestly believe anyone buying this will be using it as a track bike in the same way that I don't suppose many Bianchi PISTA's make it onto a track for an entire season.
There is in fact there's another angle to this frame which I supports it legitimacy as original and not converted.
But thanks for actually replying with decent input.
-
OK, Fred that was a little patronising. In the message he spent (sorry wasted) his time sending me on eBay he called them "rear drops" not drop-outs.
So what angle are they, based on what you can see from the photo? And what angle should they be?
-
Well spotted. Damn, you guys are sharp aren't you?
So regarding the 'drops' as DB termed them... why exactly would DB be right to point this out if is was correct in his assumption?
Matt
I've got a 23" Flying Scott: ornate lugs, grease-nipple bb shell, big clearances, in a sholcing pink (original paint as far as I can tell).
Was going to build it up as a hack, but I'm having a clearout.
Should be able to send some pics over next week as I'm away on business until Friday.
What's your budget?