Jan asked the following:
"Why only 1 mm? If you can turn the cone-shaped skewer locknut, why can't you turn it as far as you want, until it falls off the skewer?"
The 1 mm mentioned was the same 1 mm difference that you had brought into the discussion when you wrote in your earlier post:
"Imagine if one racer had 3 mm thick rear dropouts, the next 3.5 mm, and another 4 mm!"
You can obviously turn it as much as you want.
As far as your quote from Le Cycle goes, may I suggest once again that when quoting foreign texts, it would be exceedingly helpful if you were to also include the original French text alongside your translation, especially as you have already written to me stating that your French language skills are not the greatest. If your translation is indeed correct and complete, may I suggest that Rebour might have misunderstood the desire to have thicker dropouts? In my eyes, it would make more sense that the minimum thickness had to do with the amount of axle that extended beyond the locknut. With a mere 3 mm dropout thickness (were they really that thin?), your could readily face a situation where the quick release might bottom out before making a solid wheel attachment. If French cyclists had been riding under such conditions, I can readily understand why they might have been hesitant to take up the use of quick releases. Under such conditions, I too would worry about the holding power of the cam on such dinky dropouts using such tight tolerances. Just imagine an axle extending 2 mm past the locknut and a 1 mm thickness coil spring...