On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Doug Fattic <fatticbicycles@qtm.net> wrote:
> My theory (which I'm willing to open up to discussion) is that racers see
> bicycles as tools which should never overshadow their results. They are to
> be acknowledged when a race is lost (implying that might have been the
> reason) but not when one is won (all glory to the victor). It also wouldn't
> be cool to have a frame with too much foofa (a word I'd roughly define as
> embellishments). Some of the other types of riders like beauty in what they
> ride and look to the past for inspiration. The British had more going on in
> the looks department.
>
If your theory means that racers back then didn't enjoy the aesthetics of classic bicycles like your current students seem to, then I agree it's true that it was part of the hard man mythology of racing as I recall racing (U.S.) in the on-topic era of late 70s, early 80s, but was only mythology. During that era race bikes could, of course, seem pretty uiniform, mostly Nuovo or Super Record, and some Dura Ace (or SunTour) which soon seemed as generically uniform and N/S Record (especially after 1984). It seemed to me that English and French racing bikes went from seeming very current for racing in the mid 70s to seeming very old-fashioned on the starting line in the early 80s. By then, Italian frames were it, completely, and American and Japanese bike seemed pretty standard on the line, too, and usually looked pretty much like the Italian race bike style. (Raleigh Team Pro was the English exception that always seemed up-to-the-minute current in the early 80s when other fine English bikes seemed more like non-racer high end bikes for enthusiasts and others.) I think the reason that racers came to prefer the Italian style simple long and short point lugged frames instead of fancier lugged English frames was for aesthetic reasons and not because they think of the race bike as only a tool that shouldn't be adorned. By the early 80s Italian style looked better and fancy lugs seemed old fashioned. That may have been coming on for a while if you think of the 1970 Raleigh Pros as a recognition of the pre-emminence of Italian style in racing.
I recall that at the time it was not at all cool to talk about or even seem aware of whether your bike was pretty or not. I'd be lining up next to some guy on a sparkley lovely Masi full Super Record, with me on my dated looking mid 70s Gitane with Mafacs, and when I menitoned his cool Masi we'd both be careful to be only talking about how fast it was, how light (or so we'd say), and how proper for racing. Both of us careful not to say how pretty it was. Salivating during the cycling scenes in the film Breaking Away was a private thing, not to be admitted.
A big part of U.S. racing culture, as I recall, was the idea the Doug mentions, that serious bike racers thought of the bikes as tools and didn't like bikes for their own sake. A myth, of course, that was clearly wrong as you could see in any conversation at the bike shop, but it did seem to be true the better and more serious the racer was the less he noticed his bike. Those of us who bought our race bikes with our hard saved money chose carefully (and fully aware of what bike looked best to us) but we believed that the faster guys who were closer to being sponsored could care less about how the bike looks.
An example comes from story Cyril Guimard tells (IIRC) about scouting Greg Lemond in a big amateur race where Greg flatted out of the break and in frustration threw or kicked his bike. Guimard said this passion and impatience was a sign to him of Greg's champion attitude and was one of the reasons he signed him. But those of us far sub-Lemond in ability and aspirations recognized from this story the idea that real racers don't care about the bikes themselves. Again, not true, if you read Greg's own recollections about his race bikes, especially early ones such as his first Della Santa, and how much he appreciated their good looks. Usually following the racer creed he emphasized the technical and speed virtues of his bikes, but the other is there too. I've noticed this appreciation in the written recollections of other great racers.
By the time I was racing on the track in Britain in the late 80s/early 90s, I'd long ceased to care about this pretense and frequently talked bikes with my team mates and admired the Roberts, Coopers, Holdsworths, etc, we were riding. This was tolerated in me as an American idiosyncracy but the conversations would include some team mate's plan to re-chrome is classic Cinelli stem because it would look so good, or some other mate's plan to sell one track bike and get another one just because he liked the look of the big round columbus fork blades and flat crown used by Roberts. Turns out racers like pretty bikes too, even those who prefer plainer lugs.
Mitch Harris
Little Rock Canyon, Utah, USA