Re: [CR]Fwd: Where do you get your bicycle history?

(Example: Production Builders:Teledyne)

In-Reply-To: <aeae62ad0811040946u6e5f5665lc2e8b02beff578eb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f8b7efd12840.4910a58f@netvision.net.il>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:56:45 -0700
To: "Amir Avitzur" <walawalaoxenfree@gmail.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Jan Heine" <heine94@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Fwd: Where do you get your bicycle history?


At 7:46 PM +0200 11/4/08, Amir Avitzur wrote:
>As a kid I read Bicycling!
>Even then, I could see that a lot of what was written didn't jive with my
>experience on the road. I'd hate to think that old Bicycling! magazines are
>being considered historically correct today. (Same goes for a whole slew of
>bike books from that period.)
>
>A lot of the articles in Bicycling! in the 70's seemed to be spoon-fed by
>the advertisers. I wonder if 40's and 50's French or Italian bike mags were
>any better.
>
>So here's my question:
>
> Where do you get your bicycle history?

If you are looking for historic fact (Who rode which bike, etc.), historic photos are best. They don't lie. Rebour's drawings, which usually were made from photos, are quite useful, too. If a photo shows a certain component, you can assume that component existed. If a racer is shown during a race with that component, you can assume he rode that component.

If you are looking for dates, the contemporary literature is best. If Bicycling showcases the latest Campagnolo derailleur, you know that it existed, at least as a prototype. Maybe Bicycling missed the boat, and the part has been available for a while, so introduction dates are minimum ages, as they say in geology. (The part may have been introduced earlier, but not later.)

If you are looking for what people were thinking at a certain time, the contemporary literature is my best source. People's recollections change over time, so even if somebody remembers something, it may not have happened that way.

For technical issues, you have to do your own testing, unless the test procedures are described in detail and you find them adequate. Daniel Rebour wrote in the 1950s that your bike goes up when you turn the handlebars. The opposite is true - it goes down - and that is what causes wheel flop. Rebour was considered the foremost expert on bicycle technology, but he made many similar errors. So be careful about technical analyses then and now.

To give you an example, in the research about steel cranks vs. aluminum cranks, we first went to historic photos (thanks to Aldo for supplying a bunch). This allowed us to determine when racers started to use aluminum cranks (late 1940s), and during which stages they used them (more in the mountains than on the flats).

To find out why they did not switch wholesale to aluminum cranks, I asked a number of people, but nobody knew. Ernest Csuka laughed and said "The racers were concerned about anything aluminum, because it might break." I am sure that was true at some point in the 1930s, but by the late 1940s, things were more complex. It made no sense that racers would use fragile aluminum cranks in the mountains, but sturdy steel ones on the flats. Sprints back then were high-rpm affairs, with the riders staying seated, so that would not stress the cranks. If a crank would break, it was during an attack in the mountains.

So then I turned to the literature, and found numerous mentions of concerns about crank tread (I prefer the classic term over the modern jargon "Q factor"). And I also found the references I posted earlier that specifically said that racers were concerned about crank tread and thus resisted aluminum cranks.

I then asked people about crank tread, and several builders confirmed that crank tread was a huge concern of the racers back then. Racers specifically asked for frames that minimized tread when they got their custom bikes made.

I also measured the tread of a number of historic racing bikes. Working on our book "The Competition Bicycle" gave me access to quite a few very historic machines. The steel cranks generally were about 7 mm narrower than the aluminum ones - see the chart of various cranks and their tread width in a recent issue of Bicycle Quarterly. The reason for that are the tapers: aluminum cranks can move up on the tapers each time they are taken off - especially with the relatively soft alloys used by Stronglight at the time. So you had to have a little extra space. Steel cranks would always end up in exactly the same spot on the BB spindle.

For the time being, I am comfortable with the conclusion that racers resisted aluminum cranks in the 1940s because they were concerned about tread width. I suspect - without any evidence - that in the 1930s, they really were concerned about the cranks breaking, but by the 1940s, the cranks had proven their worth, even in the Tour de France under some of the strongest climbers.

Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
140 Lakeside Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
http://www.bikequarterly.com