Wdgadd@aol.com wrote:
>
> A friend of mine told me that the main reason for unorthodox frame
> designs ( Vibrant stays, Diadrant forks,etc) in England were not due as much
> to any revolutionary ride characteristics as they were to a sanctioning body
> rule on trade names being visible in newsprint photos of races. I dont know
> what organization, pre or post Percy Stollard, time trial or massed start.
> Apparently, so says my friend, these distinctive designs made it possible for
> the make of a cycle to be apparent, thus circumventing this rule. I believe
> he also told me that downtube lettering during this period was usually of a
> design that didn't photograph well, i.e., script or "olde English" style
> rather than big bold block letters. The fellow who told me this is a lifelong
> cyclist, about 60 years old, and an English citizen who moved here about 10
> years ago. He says he worked for Rotrax, first making tea and later building
> wheels and such.
> Kind of an interesting story; has anyone else (Hilary? Bob Reid?) heard
> this?
Hi Wes,
One of my favorite quotes is your's on collecting:
"If you can have everything, what's left?" --Wes Gadd
Anyway, here's what Hilary wrote about the subject of unorthodox frame design and santioning body rules on trade names on frames etc.
Hilary Stone wrote:
>
> I don't really know how many times it has to be said that Britain's RTTC ban
> in 1938 (which lasted effectively just two years) on maker's names being
> clearly shown in photographs had no effect on frame design in the UK. Most
> of the funnies (Hetchins, Bates, Baines, Sun Manx, Saxon SWB, Moorson etc
> etc) had already been designed and built prior to this and the ones that
> came after were not aimed at time triallists (Paris Galibier, Sun Manxman TT
> road racers, Thanet Silverlight tourists). It is a myth that needs to
> be killed once and for all.
Chuck Schmidt
South Pasadena, Southern California
http://www.velo-retro.com (list of reprints, T-shirts and Campagnolo Timeline)