A Search For "Gravel" Geometry": Part 4 - Inspired By History, Still "New"

 Today I will wrap up this series and in this post I am going to show what the bike design is and why this idea I started out with has garnered interest with a few folks.

But first, let's review:

Purpose: The idea is to see what, or even if, any past efforts in bicycle design have any bearings on where we are at with geometry regarding"gravel bikes" today.

Okay, and with that, let's keep in mind that the ideas that were presented in the page I shared this past week are what this post is mainly based on.  That page, which featured a bike design shared by Willie Honeman, an accomplished track racer and frame builder, is the genesis for this whole series. Willie is someone who I believe exemplifies the ideas which influenced my thoughts on gravel bike design, and in turn, ideas which have impacted the cycling industry in terms of gravel bike design. 

 Many of Willie Honeman's ideas were congruent with gravel bike design as I saw it.  I should also point out that master frame builder, Steve Garro was the one who posted about this design on his Facebook page. Steve had similar thoughts about this design being an influence on current gravel bike design. You can see my original thoughts about the bike HERE from an April 2023 blog post. 

Willie Honeman's Brennan Track bike from 1932 Image courtesy of "Classic Cycles")

  

Willie's championship winning sprint bike was built by John "Pop" Brennan, according to this information I found. Read that link's information and you will learn that Willie Honeman was the first cyclist to wear the Stars and Stripes jersey, that he advocated for helmet usage by his fellow racers, and that he rode the bike, imaged above, for racing, training, and for recreational pursuits. 

That bike is also the same that was detailed in my last post which showed the original plans for the bike. So, this gives a little better context for that drawing.

There are a lot of things about this bike that would work for me today, but the thought is to take the basic foundation here and modernize it for today's components and for me, obviously, because I would need a longer seat tube and head tube than Willie did. 

But the basics like head tube angle, offset, bottom bracket drop, and chain stay length is all easily transferable. How one approaches the extra long top tube/short stem factor in this design scaled up for my size would be the challenge here. (Yes! Short stem, long top tube, slack and "low' are NOT a new thing.) And before anyone asks, yes. This would be a single speed gravel bike.

But some things would be smart to change. Modern wheels use disc brakes and drop-outs are through axle now. Bottom bracket standards, fork length to accommodate bigger tires, and even that fork's material are all up for consideration. Do you steepen that seat tube? What about the top tube? How wide a tire are we talking about. Several salient points here that need clearing up. And then there is this....

Do I already have "that bike"?

My Twin Six Standard Rando frame has very similar numbers to the Honeman bike built by Pop Brennan. The bottom bracket drop, head tube angle, and chain stay length are all almost identical. The seat tube angle is different though. So, other than that, the Standard Rando is steel, does single speed, (although now mine is set up geared), and it is likely "close enough" to the 1930's track bike design that making a custom one-off might seem, well......unnecessary. 

Plus, the T-6 is a modernized bike with all the typical standards of a 21st century bicycle for gravel. No need to re-invent the wheel, as it were, unless there is a compelling reason to pursue this idea. Like maybe sticking to the original plans for a bike like this more closely. Otherwise I am hard pressed to see what I would learn from having to go through a custom bike build. 

Now, I am not saying I will get a custom done or not, but if I do, the working name would be "The Honeman Sprinter", since that is the inspiration for this bike.

Conclusions: Can we say with any certainty that a bike like the Brennan made for Willie Honeman influenced gravel bike design? Perhaps the answer is no if we are looking for a definitive, direct lineage, but the answer is "yes" in a general sense. Bicycles in the Pre-WWII era were made to be ridden on roads that, at that time, were still mostly unpaved. Riders that bought these expensive, custom made machines rode them all over. I read one account of a professional track rider that was from Davenport, Iowa that rode to a national event held in Chicago, raced his bike, and rode back to Davenport again. So it would seem that many of these track racing designs also had to work off-track as well, making them a forerunner of gravel bikes, in a way. 

That I found inspiration in these older designs, which I used to relate my design ideas to Raleigh in 2012, which resulted in the Tamland series of bicycles, is another facet which speaks to the relevance that these track bikes and road bikes had from the pre-WWII era as well. So, does gravel bike design owe anything to old designs like the Brennan? Probably. Yes. 

Another question: Will I have this custom single speed gravel bike built? Maybe.... Again, I don't need another gravel bike. I have the T-6 which, for all intents and purposes, is 80% of what a modernized old Brennan would be. So, why bother? (Read a review on the Standard Rando HERE)

Well, if the design sticks more to the original, (in particular, the slack seat tube), then perhaps it would be an interesting experiment and it probably would be a fun bike regardless. But that said, things like this cost money, I would need help getting parts and pieces lined up, and maybe to make it all make sense, I'd need a goal. (There is one that would make sense, but no need to go there unless the bike comes first.) 

That all said, I'm not now feeling a great need to pursue the custom Honeman Sprinter idea. Even though it might be fun to see how that design would stack up against today's bikes, I am more than sure I can tell you, at least from my viewpoint, how it would work,because of the Standard Rando. 

Again, this is all my opinion, and I'm not doing anything in this series but espousing my views on what a gravel bike should be like, for myself. So, contrasting opinions will abound, but just go dig into so-called gravel bike geometry charts and you'll see that the Honeman, the Twin Six, the Raleigh Tamland, and many others are pretty closely related. And in my opinion, that is significant from a historical point of view. Gravel bikes may be relatively "new", but I think it is safe to say that they are indeed inspired by the past bicycles that came before them. 

That brings this series to a conclusion, for now. Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions!

A Search For "Gravel" Geometry": Part 3 - Is This Really New?

Okay, so far we've looked at how geometry can be a tradition, a myth, and how the "human factor" can adapt differing geometries making anyone saying that "this" geometry is THE geometry for any particular bicycle an erroneous statement. We also know that manufacturing, fashion, and popular figures in sport can influence what geometry might be baked into a bicycle at your local retailer. 

But certain things are better than others, so where do you look to find out what works? Well, you need to think about what you want to do with your bike, and then you need to think about how your rides might look, and of course, where your rides will take place in terms of terrain. 

I  never thought about anyone else but myself when I was thinking about a "gravel bike". I was thinking about long rides. I was thinking about stability, comfort, and all that on crushed rock roads, which we have 70,000+ miles of in the State of Iowa. I never was what you'd call a "roadie", having come from a mountain biking point of view, but before that, a rider that just wanted to ride a bicycle wherever I could go. In Iowa, that means gravel, pavement, and some dirt. 

My cycling as a youth was all over my small Northeastern Iowa city. I enjoyed bikes that I could ride no-handed for blocks upon blocks. It was easy, and the bike was friendly, not a hassle to pilot. Why ride a bicycle if you have to fight the bike just to get down a road, be that into a wind, on a rough surface, or on gravel? I figured that I wasn't the first person to have done this, or to have thought about this. So, I searched online years ago to see what sorts of bicycles riders used in the early 20th Century. 

A page from "Bicycling" magazine from the 40's detailing Willie Honeman's track bike.

A few things were becoming evident in my searches. The front end geometry was going to be numero uno in importance here. That, more than anything else, was going to determine how my "ideal gravel bike" would handle. 

My research pointed to a bike with a slightly slacker head tube angle, a healthy amount of fork offset, but nothing crazy, and a lower bottom bracket coupled with a bit longer than road bike chain stay length. Everything would be wrapped around some poofy tires, 42mm at least, and there would be room for mudguards too. 

That was all derived from older road bikes, but the discovery earlier this year of a page out of "Bicycling" dated from the 1940's kind of opened up my eyes to another source of geometry ideas that I had not considered before - Track racing. 

Nowadays a track bike isn't what it was back in the 1930's, when a man by the name of Willie Honeman was a track cycling champion, and neither were the machines like they are now back then. If you read the article correctly, the head tube angle is not some crazy steep degree. It is 72° and the bottom bracket drop, which is hardly anything on a modern track bike, is a healthy 75mm on this older design. The seat tube angle is 70°, rather slack, but that was still not uncommon in the 1930's.  Chainstays? About 430mm. Perfect for a 42mm tire. Well....not a track racing tire, but you know what I was thinking now. 

And the kicker? That is a 58cm top-tube on this frame. That's my size. 

And so what? What does this have to do with a gravel bike? Well, in old school track racing, which could be a multiple day affair, stability was prized. That also is reflected in the fork offset on the Honeman bike which is approximately 38mm. You had to be able to hold a line, especially no-handed. You could not be fighting the bike, because all the rider's energy had to go into moving forward and not be wasted by fighting the geometry. All the things I'd want in a bike, this track bike design has also. 

It's interesting to note that in the article, Honeman recommends a slightly slacker head tube angle for rough road riding. So, right up my alley. And again, all things which were race and rider proven design. It only makes sense then that gravel bikes have a similar design to cover rougher roads with stability and less rider fatigue induced by bad angles or less comfortable geometry.  

But I gotta admit. A track bike wasn't where I thought I'd find my ideas being proven out. 

Next: On Saturday - The Honeman Sprinter

A Search For "Gravel" Geometry": Part 2 - Myths & Traditions

Delving into the world of geometry for any bicycle is a lesson in how various opinions are held in high regard, how traditions affect reality, and how reality is often nothing like what anyone thinks it is. 

Okay, so do the science. Check out the data! That should square things up, right? Right? Well, considering that humans ride bicycles, and not robots, you have one gigantic, monstrous wildcard in the equation. Consider this quote I came across in my research from an article on chriskvalecycles.com page speaking about a research paper done by a couple of scientists that was being discussed there concerning geometry and bicycles:

 "However, they do stress the extremely important point that the person-machine relationship is so complex and so variable that mathematical models and absolute statements are, at very best, only a rough guide."

"Only a rough guide"? Yep! So....how do we know anything for certain then? Great question. It just is hard to get through the cloudy, vagueness introduced by us humans. Consider confirmation bias, beliefs in personalities, hearsay, and myths passed down as "truth". Most of which are things based on theories that haven't been thoroughly vetted or are not considering this "human factor" at all. 

Speaking of which, I ran a fork test in 2008 where I tried to keep everything the same except the fork. I accounted for handlebar positioning, bottom bracket height, saddle to handle bar height, and more. I ran suspension forks and rigid forks. 

I tried this 430 A/C, 38mm offset fork and 7 others on the same 29"er.

The main thing I learned there was that the human element is a powerful one. I learned that within a few rides I was able to make almost every fork work the way I wanted them to. Differences? Yes, there were, but adaption? Yes. Totally. 

And every set up has to be seen as a system, which is something I've held to be very important for years. One measurement, one change, affects everything. You cannot point at "head angle" or whatever, and say "that's going to be "this" in terms of handling. 

Then there seems to be some widely held "truths" about geometry that may have been originally thought out not because the old designers were seeking a handling trait, per se', but as a way around a materials limitation. Take, for instance, the popular "low trail" (trail figure is a measure of front end geometry) designs popularized by old French "constructuer" builders. A site I discovered during my research claims that back in the day, drop bar handlebars had a longer reach. This was due to limitations in manipulating the handlebar stock, which forced these bars to have a long reach, which in turn affected overall reach for a rider. So designers had to shorten the top tubes accordingly. This led to massive toe overlap, so the answer was, according to this source, low trail geometry. Low trail geometry features a longer fork offset which pushes the front wheel out front, further away from the rider.

Now that source's claims can be debated. But the argument put forth there is plausible, and it illustrates how a solution to a problem becomes religion after decades of use and lore are layered on top. Now the common ability to bend and shape materials helps illustrate why things like longer top tubes, shorty stems, and slacker head tube angles are becoming more popular now. This stuff isn't "new" though. In fact, it was figured out a century ago. It's just that it took a revolution in thinking about geometry, instead of just sticking to the ordinary ways, which were partially driven by traditions, but also by ease of manufacturing concerns. 

The staid old ways of thinking were entrenched in the industry for decades, until mountain bikes came along, that is, and in particular, the 29" wheel, which kind of blew the doors open on design which had been closed for so long. (Read about the story of where 29"ers came from HERE)  Old ways were rediscovered that had been forgotten, and traditional thinking and ease of manufacturing had less of a hold on bicycle design. Now is "The Golden Age" of cycling. You've had choices brought forth in the last 20+ years that were unheard of before 2010 and are now commonplace. 

Next: New freedom to dream up a "new" kind of bike. But is it really new?

A Search For "Gravel" Geometry: Part 1 - Sifting Through The Scans Of Time

 Throughout the years that this blog has existed I have done periodic forays into what geometry for certain bikes is, should be, what it was, and where it all may have come from to begin with. (Example here) This has always been one of my minor "nerd" passions and well.....here we go again! 

Recently a proposal for a certain niche build from an up-and-coming builder in California by a certain individual who stands to have an interest in writing up the story was put forth to me. In return for my participation, ($$$) I would end up, at the least, with a frame set. Okay, so that is where this all is generating from.

That propelled me into digging, once again, into the sands - or scans - of time. Internet information is not stagnant. What was available to look up in 2005, when I started this blog, is a pittance to what is available to all of us today. So, I was a bit surprised to find a LOT more information than I had a decade or more ago. 

Purpose: The idea is to see what, or even if, any past efforts in bicycle design have any bearings on where we are at with geometry regarding"gravel bikes" today. This has bearings on what this proposed project is, and eventually I'll bring that up which should bring this series full circle. But before we get there....

History: First of all, it is paramount to this discussion to understand a few things. One - Almost every technical and design attribute for modern day bicycles was conceived of in the late 1890's/early 1900's. The technology developed for bicycling spawned a think-tank that would rival anything assembled today in terms of talent and firepower in intelligence terms. All the science and math behind bicycle technology was so potent that it spawned the air industry, automobile industry, and the motorcycle industry, to name a few things. 

This resulted in ideas that, theoretically would work, but that couldn't be fully realized due to limitations in materials technology. That said, our dive isn't about soft-tail design, gear changers, or about tires, but it will concern, mainly, what the angles were for the tubes which were brazed up to make those earlier bicycles. 

Fashion & Marketing: Yes, even back then there was marketing and due to what was popular, influences infiltrated design and what came out for the public to ride. So, a lot of what we may think of as "the purity of the sport" from antiquity may actually just be marketing what was then popular. For instance, just as we had "The Lance Effect" in the 2000's, from the turn of the 19th Century to the 20th Century riders had "The Track Effect". Madison Square Garden exists because of track racing. Track racing was as big as the NFL is now in the early 1900's. There was betting, spectators galore, and lots of money to be made. So, all the young bicycle riders wanted to be track racers. Guess what kinds of bikes were sold to them? 

But that wasn't all. Even old traditions carried over affected design, and in particular, it was the old "high-wheelers", or penny farthings, that had a big effect upon design of the newer "safety bikes" well into the 20th Century. This most affected seat tube angles as the slacker angles put riders into similar positions for pedaling as they would have had on high wheeled bikes. 

And the aforementioned materials technology deficits also dictated some of what we see in terms of geometry and components. For instance, geometry had to account for the fact that steel and aluminum forming wasn't as well understood as it is today, so things like handlebars were limited in shape and therefore that affected geometry. That's just one facet. There were many others.

Next: Myths & Traditions