[CR]re: British derailleurs...and KOF efforts

(Example: History)

From: <"tom.ward@juno.com">
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:27:50 GMT
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR]re: British derailleurs...and KOF efforts

Hmm,

Wasn't the 'Gian Robert' (do I have that spelling right) brand of front and rear derailleur a product of Great Britain? They didn't catch fire in the marketplace, but if we want to speak of derailleur output in national terms (though do we, really? nah), it should be considered--and one does have to note the wide acceptance of Cyclo (back in the period)(the Birmingham wing of the brandname). My own wishful thinking would like to have seen a Cyclo built on double-parallelogram lines (did they even experiment?)...or a Gary Burgess (GB) -branded rear derailleur. Say, designed to match the Coureur 66 brakes. Now that would have been urbane, in the visual sense!

One is always left to bemoan corporate expedience and changing times--fashion, and economic currents--which result in such might-have-beens as mine above. I often feel that, on the aesthetic level, the year in which I was born (1967) was about (or even two years after) "last call" on many areas of designed objects...cycling being one area that inclined to be an exception for a bit longer; continuity with the '50s / '60s modes (if only, at times, in that "surface" way) held a bit longer in our given field. In fact the "bike boom"--by both encouraging speed-up and extention of production of existing designs--and by fostering increased competition from the East--helps to explain (a) the long afterlife of some already then-obsolescent designs (which I often cheer), (b) relatedly, a certain amount of design stagnation--and (c) the seeds of change...delayed, but by delay, having all the more impact--leading to our CR cut-off date.

I thrive on variety and so I regret to some extent the Campagnolo stranglehold on the higher echelons--which may help to explain the lack of (not only a British but also) an American contender in the rear derailleur game as well. "Schwinn-Approved" Huret doesn't quite cut it. Simplex SLJ does--Japan got it, too. The U.S.A. had to import it; no Hi-E homegrown derailleur, etc.--or am I overlooking something?Market forces explain it all (as ever), but that's not really much fun, is it? We are here ourselves as outliers on the scatterplot (i.e., resisting the 'big picture' of the cycling market) every day. Individualized desires and perceived needs can here and there change expectations of what gets built. Each classic bicycle is not unlike a miniature yacht...friction shifting is not unlike sail, in a way--and sail persists (I love to buy the occasional copy of "Wooden Boat"; it's heartening).

Even if we can't have reissue Campagnolo Nuovo Record, perhaps we could have a Paul Components derivation of late period Simplex? Just more wishfulness--but it wouldn't seem entirely out of reach forever. Just needs someone with time and fortune to spare...probably less than maintaining a vintage P-51 or any number of other worthy pursuits. Very specialized parts and equipment for very specialized markets manage to get built all the time--sometimes through the efforts of one solitary deviant--I mean, one dedicated individual.

Actually, I am frequently amazed at what KOF-type items ARE out there. No "attaboy" intended, but make sure to vote for them with hard currancy as often as possible or practical or practicable so that they remain viable ("no relation to KOF builders or sellers", etc.) I often get the feeling that a new "bike boom" is underway, or nearly so, and I think the classic side of cycling can only grow within it. That has to be healthy--and gum brake lever hoods might go back into production ;-) ! Some current KOF builders and suppliers are bound to be seen as pioneers further down the road. That would seem to feel more positive than seeing ourselves as cranky holdouts--though there is pleasure, perhaps, in that self-image as well.

Tom "digressing wildly" Ward New York, NY wondering how much ground he could have covered in the time spent writing the above

P.S. Hoping to see the hills of Scotland someday. Hoping to finish building the Elrick (with Stallard ends) someday--and still trying to decide between derailleur and hubgear (or both) for it before applying either to NOS Conloy 26" rims....

Bob Reid wrote:

Yep,

Keep piling the stereotypes on... Goes well with the one about Britain being a relatively flat country... Perhaps relative to the alpine mountain ranges, yes, but almost the same as most of Northern Europe bearing in mind that this island fell off mainland Europe in the Pre-CR timeline. Nope, living in the Grampians I have to say it's hills to get in here, and hills to get back out.

As far as derailleurs are concerned I would argue that Britain was not alone. In the pre and post-war years, out of all the European nations, the French led the way with development of the derailleur. The Italians, in the main, from the post WWII period (more than 30+ years after Velocio was advocating their use) were represented only really by Campagnolo and then only in improving the breed, and specifically for racing.

The British like the Germans continued to plod on for some years with variable speed hub gears that were considered for a long number of years far more reliable than the fragile derailleur systems. Derailleurs have to be cycling's VHS and"Sturmey's" Betamax. Who can't admire the "keeper of the flame" modern 7-speed hub gears ?

Okay pile it on.

Bob Reid Stonehaven Scotland

On 1 Aug 2005, at 07:37, Mitch Harris wrote:
> Good question-- why didn't Sturmey-Archer make a derailleur? Like, why
> Brooks never made a carbon saddle. Why Morgan never made an SUV. You
> have to love it. This probably explains why I fell off my chair a few
> years ago when I saw that Reynolds was making carbon forks.
>
> Here's a cultural theory explanation: During the early development of
> deraillures, the French struturalism movement was bent on turning
> things inside out and making the insides visible. Derailleur systems
> are all surface. The innards are on the outside; same thinking that
> produced the Pompidou Center. Meantime, British syncretism was intent
> on holding everything inside, keeping secrets, wrapping and cloaking
> things, spy stories, Le Carre, while showing the world an ubane casual
> exterior as though nothing was happening. Sturmey-Archer hubs are like
> most brits: banal and plain on the outside while inside there's a
> galaxy of tiny gears and frenzied spinning. Derailleur systems, like
> most French, are pointy, notchy, and prickly on the outside, a blur of
> contorted effort and convoluted chain run, while inside there's not
> much going on except where to find the next pack of Gitanes. Now if
> only I could connect Sturmey-Archer's abandonment of hub gears to the
> breaking of ground on the Lloyds of London building.
>
> Mitch Harris
> Little Rock Canyon, Utah