Re: [Classicrendezvous] Laing stays are an Affectation?


Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:23:03 -0700
From: Brian Baylis <rocklube@adnc.com>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Laing stays are an Affectation?
References: <20001010.140415.-240751.12.richardsachs@juno.com>


Richard,

I think that's close enough to the jist of it regarding the origin of much of this "off the wall" stuff. Technically, the Hetchins vibrant stays had enough merit to warrent a patent, but in reality I think most of the deviations were for "looks", or maybe some builders trying to reinvent the wheel. The upshot is, now we have all of these wonderful variations to seek out and add to our collections just for the sake of having such things. Works for me. It would be rather boring to have only "conventional designs to collect, IMHP.

Brian Baylis somewhere in Crazyfornia
>
> 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