Let's start a Clubman / Path Racer Pic Thread
 

I have a bug up my ***** about building a replica. There have been so many great examples on this forum. I would appreciate it if we could collect them in a thread for inspiration.

Thanks and Happy Easter.

RFC

I posted the following bit last year on my Raleigh rebuild:

I just completed my first project, rebuilding a Raleigh Sports 3 speed from a frame set I found on e-Bay.
After stripping the frame of all mechanicals, I had it sand blasted and powder coated a semi-gloss black.
Once I had that done, it just a matter of rebuilding from the ground up. I added a few "esentials" such as a Brooks B17 saddle in Honey, matching leather grips, a saddle bag of unknown origin, a chrome frame pump and a set of rat trap pedals with clips and straps.

Considering this is my first attempt to rebuild a bike, I think it turned out fairly well.

I feel a little obligated to post my Raleigh. Here she is:

http://velospace.org/files/Clubman_P...erwasser1x.jpg
http://velospace.org/files/Clubman_P...erwasser3x.jpg
http://velospace.org/files/Clubman_P...erwasser2x.jpg
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g...r/DSC_4197.jpg

She currently loos like this though:
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g.../Raleigh_1.jpg

As I work on a new project:
http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g...ck_diamond.jpg

One thing I don't get is seat height. For me to only have 3-4" of seat tube and still have good leg extension, when standing, the top tube would be well beyond my soft tissue and bumping up against bone.

Bob,
Top tube is more significant than seat tube in determining proper fit.

One usually doesn't stand flat footed when riding a bike, or have the bike straight up and down when stopped.

From looking at the way you have your bikes set up, you could probably greatly benefit from a custom build. Not everyone can comfortably ride 'off the shelf'.

You are probably right, but this issue is not specific to me. Everyones' legs run from the ground to their crotch. Bottom bracket is x cm from the ground. Seat height should also be about x cm if the TT is up to bone. Now, I do prefer my leg extension to just short of the knee break. That's probably a result of years of distance running.

Here is my Triumph.

http://s237.photobucket.com/albums/f...s/Triumph2.jpg

Bob,
Bottom bracket heights can vary widely, for example a 54 cm seat tube could differ in 'standover height' by as much as a couple of centimeters.

I understand, but a couple of cm's accounts for less than an inch. The point is, are people getting proper leg extension with seats at this height?

Both my Raleigh and Falcon are about one size larger then my theoretical fit. But I just measured the seat height from seatclamp on my Cilo to compare with the Falcon and the heights are within .5 inches of eachother. One thing to take into account is that the butchered Brooks B17 has very deep rails which calls for less exposed seat tube.

My theoretical fit is probably a 50cm but I wouldn't hesitate to go up to a 54cm frame if I knew I was going to be using swept back bars like the Lauterwassers. Stand over height might become an issue but I'm not worried about it.

I rode this yesterday with a friend who was on a 1940 Stoddard Clubman, 3-speed with a quadrant shifter and Lauterwasser bars. I'm afraid I didn't get a pic. It was a cool-looking bike, but he was working real hard to climb any sort of hill.

Neal

You get proper leg extension based on how high you set your saddle relative to the pedal at full extension, and with proper knee angle. If the top tube is lower, you have a short head tube and can't get your 'bars near saddle height, assuming that's what one wants. To get the bars near the saddle with a standard stem (such as a Cinelli 1A), the top tube comes up to as you say near the bone, while standing. Then the seatpost will be exposed about a fistful or so.

If this is combined with a laid back seat tube and a deep BB drop, such as the 8 cm you often see on DeRosa frames, the seat tube length could work out to 56 or 57 cm.

I'm not sure what is meant by"clubman/path racer." They're not remotely the same thing. As was recently discussed in another thread.

It was discussed to death, so no need to go into it again.

So let's get it right this time. Instead of just tossing terms out there and perpetuating the inaccuracies.

Thanks, we should. There is a common, yet technically inaccurate usage of "Pathracer." I'm personally comfortable with the technically inaccurate common usage. However, if you are not, please provide us with a short, succinct technical definition for those who wish to be technically correct.

Sorry to be pedantic (I know I am), but I think that perpetuating the inaccurate terminology sows the seeds of confusion, as well as obfuscating the historical record.
A "path racer" is a (pure) track bike.
A "road/path" bike is one that could have been used for club runs and training, but also for track meets. It would always have had rear-facing dropouts. As such, it is a relatively small subset of "clubman" bikes. It would have had a higher bottom bracket and more relaxed angles than a "pure" track bike, as well as some common braze-ons. Seems the term you're looking for is "road/path," but with the understanding that this would always have involved the track dropouts - otherwise, the bike could not have passed inspection for competitive use on the track (whether paved or grass).

Best definition I have seen yet. For general reference, I suggest that we might use the term "Clubman" to describe the road/path bikes and the replicas.

BTW, if you haven't noticed, I, too, am a know-it-all PITA. Welcome, or, as we say in our family, "If you don't have anything nice to say, come sit next to me."

Some observations- First off, I've seen old pictures where people are riding frames that are huge by modern standards, where they almost certainly couldn't stand over the bike- just have to dismount when stopping. And on some of those bikes, they used the seatpost/seat arrangement that shifts the seat forward, with seatpost at rear of the seat. So apparently, in the old days, at least some people had a lot different idea about proper bike fit than we do now. Secondly, I've got an Arpan bike which is presumably modeled on the Raleighs. It seems to have a higher bottom bracket but longer crank arms than my Ashtabula-crank bikes. Not sure if this is typical, or how this compares to modern road bikes, but that would affect the proper seat height vs standover and all.

1949 Raleigh Clubman:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_GmYBBzTzcVQ/SO...49Clubman3.jpg

1950 Raleigh Clubman:
http://web.mit.edu/nlerner/Public/Bikes/50Clubman3.jpg

http://web.mit.edu/nlerner/Public/Bikes/50Clubman2.jpg

1951 Raleigh Clubman:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_GmYBBzTzcVQ/SO...51Clubman4.JPG

And required reading on the topic, Peter Kohler's article on the Raleigh Clubman.

Neal

I really like the old Raleigh bikes especially the Clubman types. Attached is a pic of my 1958 Raleigh Trent Sports which is similar to the older "Clubman" types but made with Raleigh's garden-variety tubes. I've swapped-out the AW3 gearset in the rear wheel with a FW4 gearset and added the 3/4 speed shifter. With the Brooks B72 and new Kenda tires, it really rides like a dream. The only drawback is that it uses the now rare 597bsd wheels. So sometime in the near future I'll have to consider changing to 590, 584 or 700c rims when these wearout. Until then I'll just enjoy it as is. PG.

OOoooppppsss......here's the pic. PG.

Late '40's Schwinn Continentals.

Regards,
Alan

P.S. Still look for an actual Schwinn Clubman

My mock clubman/road/path etc:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...k/IMG_2705.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...k/IMG_2703.jpg

Some serious saddle to bar drop there.