Re: [Classicrendezvous] Laing stays are an Affectation?


From: Philcycles@aol.com
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:30:21 EDT
Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Laing stays are an Affectation?
To: richardsachs@juno.com
CC: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


In a message dated 10/10/0 5:41:33 PM, richardsachs@juno.com writes:
>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?
>e-RICHIE

That's the story but I don't think it's true. I think it's rooted in the English love of the eccentric. Only England produced the range of unusual frame design we see-Flying Gate, Hetchins, Bates, Thanet, etc. Comments,
Hilary?
Phil brown