Re: [Classicrendezvous] Laing stays are an Affectation?

(Example: Events:Eroica)

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:41:12 +0100
Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Laing stays are an Affectation?
From: "Hilary Stone" <>
To: "Richard M. Sachs" <>,

This is mostly a myth that bore out of a misunderstanding that has been perpetuated in quite a few places. The RTTC (Road Time Trials Council) did enact a rule in 1938 stating that maker's transfers should not be of a size readily seen in photographs. However this was AFTER most of the funny designs had come into being ­ Hetchins curly, Bates Cantiflex, Baines Flying Gate, Saxon twin-tube, Granby taper tube, Sun Wasp etc. In fact the only two major funny designs that came after in Britain were the Paris that was built for Road racing (not affected by the rule being governed by the outlaw BLRC organisation) and the Thanet Silverlight built mostly for touring. Hilary Stone

Richard wrote:
> regarding all this hellenic, etc. stuff...
> my memory is foggy on some of this, but
> didn't most of the non-trad 'affectations'
> arise during those pre-war years when british
> racing was banned on the open roads, relegated
> to outlaw type time trials only at dusk and later?
> does anybody recall this story...riders rode only
> in black, no commercial marks on uniforms...OR
> on frames. if i'm half on here, the explanation i'm
> reaching for is that all the 'unusual' frames designs
> we associate with this thread were born out of
> a framebuilders yearning to have an identifiable
> look, whether there were transfers or not, or whether
> the sun was out or not.
> i can't seeing any engineering gains in any of this
> stuff. only decorative. regarding the hellenic stuff,
> after the stay is joined someplace on/near the
> seat tube, i can't figure out how it's additional length,
> that part that travels to the top tube, adds, or does
> anything at all.
> i'm not an engineer. and i'm not old enough
> to have lived through those pre-war years.
> any thoughts?