The old course had hills that were less long, but certainly steeper than today. Add to that lots of cobbles in the towns. Over time, the old "Route Nationale" was regraded, making the course easier, until the 1980s, when traffic got so heavy that the current, backroad route was chosen.
So modern tandems had ample opportunity to try their mettle on a course that was getting easier with every hilltop that was leveled and every dip that was filled. The single-bike records reflected that, dropping steadily over time.
So while the old course was easier toward the end, I don't think it was easier in the 1950s, when the "Route Nationale" was far from the current superhighway. Of course, with Americans first entering the ride in the 1970s and 80s, I can see where the perception of an easier "old" route originates.
Roger Baumann, who participated in every PBP between 1951and 1995
believes the 1950s route was the toughest.
--
Jan Heine, Seattle
Editor/Publisher
Vintage Bicycle Quarterly
http://www.mindspring.com/
><<If the old machines were so unworthy, why were the PBP tandems
>records (both male and mixed) set in 1951 only broken 48 years later?
>And that year, 1999, had tailwinds both ways, much better conditions
>than 1951.>>
>I believe that the reason for the record holding for so long was the
>change in course, in the old days the PBP ran along the main highway to
>Brest, now it follows the smaller roads in the hills. I don't know when
>they stopped using the original course, but in 51 weren't pros still
>able to enter the PBP?
>Chris Ioakimedes
>Fairfax California
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org
>[mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Jan Heine
>Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 6:08 AM
>To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: [CR]Tandems an American invention
>
>Larry,
>
>While Santana's contribution to _popularizing_ quality tandems cannot
>be overlooked, they hardly were the first to make worthy machines. I
>know Mr. McCready has been good about making bold claims, but... I
>still prefer the Taylors and Herse tandems. And I have ridden many
>for long distances (about 15 modern tandems, although, admittedly, no
>Santana).
>
>Working on the next Vintage Bicycle Quarterly, which focuses on
>tandems, I continue to be amazed by the machines that were built as
>early as the late 1930s. Oversize, tapered tubing, useful geometries
>(tandems that don't veer off course when the stoker moves!),
>tandem-specific components, 110 mm front hub spacing and 135 mm rear
>combined with smaller 650B wheels for super-strong wheels - you name
>it. They were thinking in the 1930s, and didn't stop. If you wanted
>an oversized aluminum tandem, Barra and later Marcadier (the latter's
>machine featured in the magazine) would build you one that looks
>remarkably similar to an early Cannondale.
>
>If the old machines were so unworthy, why were the PBP tandems
>records (both male and mixed) set in 1951 only broken 48 years later?
>And that year, 1999, had tailwinds both ways, much better conditions
>than 1951. The single-bike records didn't last nearly as long. On
>1200 km, even minor flaws, especially in comfort, translate into
>large time losses. You can't "tough it out" for 48 hours!
>
>The mass-producers, however, were trying to copy most of the
>appearance of the better machines at a cut-price. The results are
>less than exciting. But to conclude from a Peugeot that all old
>tandems are not much good isn't quite fair. These machines cost a
>lot less than a Santana, too.
>
>The long rear top tube is an American invention, but a doubtful
>contribution. Nothing wrong with sitting more upright as a tandem
>stoker: Usually it's more comfortable, you can see over the captain's
>shoulder (big plus, that!), it makes for a shorter, more maneuverable
>tandem with a stiffer frame. All Taylors seem to have the same
>(short!) rear top tube length, yet even my occasional stoker Mark,
>who measures a bit over 6', finds it very comfortable for 200+ miles.
>
>My problem with most newer tandems is that they don't have the right
>geometry. They are affected by leaning, like a single bike. So when
>the stoker reaches for a waterbottle, the tandem veers off course.
>When following a modern tandem, you will see that it moves along in
>very slight zig-zags, robbing power and requiring constant input from
>the captain. Over 52 hours, that will wear you out! The best old
>machines run as straight as an arrow, until they are asked to turn,
>which they do with alacrity.
>
>Of course, Jim Blackburn also invented the low-rider front racks
>(used in the technical trials as early as 1946, probably before), and
>Phil Wood made the first cartridge bearing hubs (C.A.R. had them in
>1938 or so, not to mention the British Harden).
>
>And a German magazine recently quoted a former racer (don't remember
>whom) as saying that even entry-level racing bikes these days are so
>much better than pro-level equipment in the 70s and 80s, which
>weren't much good at all. They did mention that the former racer now
>works for a bike company...
>
>--
>Jan Heine, Seattle
>Editor/Publisher
>Vintage Bicycle Quarterly
>http://www.mindspring.com/~heine/bikesite/bikesite/
>
>You wrote:
>
>Not sure about that!! i don't think the European tandem makers in the
>70's
>thought, to be observant!!
>That's why Santana came along and became the tandem market for others to
>follow A simple case of a gap and filling it.
>A true American contribution. In all respect, the Taylors made nice
>machines
>as did many smaller builders like Herse, but Santana set the world
>ablaze.
>
>Larry Black
>Mt Airy, Md
>
>In a message dated 1/29/2004 4:19:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>chasds@mindspring.com writes:
>Those 70s Tandem makers must have
>figured everyone had long legs and no torso...