>Hopefully this is not too off-topic, but I was wondering how much of
>our "Bike Boom Era" perception of what a "good bike" should be here
>in the U.S. was colored by the late author Eugene A. Sloane's "The
>Complete Book of Bicycling"? I recall reading this back in the
>early 1970s and I (being young and ignorant) considered it to be one
>of the "bibles" of cycling - along with John Forester's "Efective
>Cycling". I have both books, btw. My early Forester edition is
>crudely illustrated and GBC bound.
>
>It has been a while since I read his book, but I seem to recall Mr.
>Sloane praising Mafac Centerpull brakes and Reynolds 531 tubing, but
>having little to say about Columbus tubing or Campy NR brakes. I
>also recall his 1.09-times-inseam formula for saddle height that may
>have contributed to the "big frame craze" in the States. (No
>disrespect intended or otherwise implied toward the late Mr. Sloane.)
>
>Your thoughts?
If Sloane praised Mafacs, his influence waned quickly, and cannot be held responsible for today's popularity of Mafac brakes. I remember when I specified brazed-on Mafac centerpulls on my Rivendell in 1997. My cycling buddies were aghast, especially the older ones, who should have remembered Sloane. Grant Petersen at Rivendell called me three times, trying to talk me out of it, not because he thought the brakes were bad, but because he feared that for some reason I might not like the frame, and he'd have to take it back. He knew that with Mafac brakes, he'd never be able to sell the thing to anybody else.
I remember Chuck Schmidt presenting his pro-level Peugeot with brazed-on Mafac in Mike Kone's Vintage Bicycle Racing Newsletter. He tried hard to convince readers that these brakes were, in fact, good brakes. It was obvious that few people would believe that. Most riders remembered them as original equipment on cheap 10-speeds. In fact, it was Chuck's article, as well as seeing these brakes on Japanese custom bikes, that made me decide to spec them on my Rivendell.
Mafac brakes only became popular in the U.S. again when we (re-)discovered the bikes from the French constructeurs. After becoming totally enamored with the brakes on my Rivendell (I had been using Campy NR brakes before), I wrote an article for the Rivendell Reader about centerpull brakes, and why I considered them superior.
That led to Paul Price of Paul Components calling me and asking whether I saw a market for modern centerpulls, and which ones to copy. I sent Paul a set of Mafac Racers... and he introduced his Paul "Racers," the first new centerpull brake to enter the market in quite a few years. Of course, his were machined and thus relatively heavy, whereas the originals were forged and superlight. We pointed this out in Bicycle Quarterly, and within a few months, the prices on e-bay for Mafacs went up. A few years later, the Mafac Raids went from "Nobody wants those" to "Where can I get a set?" when wide 650B wheels became popular again... I remember publishing the test of Mark Vande Kamp's Goodrich equipped with Mafac Raids, and thinking "There goes the cheap supply of those brakes..."
When you mention Reynolds 531, I think it was a similar story. In the 1970s, Columbus was a relatively new player outside Italy. They just were trying to break into the French and British markets. When Sloane wrote his book, most high-end production bikes in the U.S. used Reynolds 531 tubing, whether it was Paramount, Peugeot or the many British builders. High-end Italian bikes were much less common during the bike boom.
This changed dramatically over the next 15 years. When I moved to the U.S. in 1989, Columbus SL and SLX was the stuff to have (as it had been in Germany, by the way). Reynolds 531 was considered OK, but not as "cutting edge". I think this was mostly because Reynolds was used by British and French bikes, and those had faded from the scene. A cutting-edge bike either was Italian or American, and both mostly used Columbus at that point. And the frames definitely were sized "European-style" with the Campy seatpost at the limit.
If somebody had an influence, it may have been Fred DeLong. He wrote somewhere that the hallmark of a good racing frame were Campagnolo dropouts. If a frame had them, you could assume it was made from quality tubing. This led to most Alex Singers made for the U.S. market having Campagnolo horizontal dropouts, even though these didn't work so well with fenders when compared to the vertical dropouts Singer usually used. But you couldn't sell a bike without Campy dropouts at that price point.
I think recent trends you mentioned above (and they really are recent trends) have more to do with people re-evaluating how they ride their bikes. Sloane never even mentioned 650B, yet it is increasingly popular in the U.S., among the same people who love their Mafac brakes and ride frames sized to get the handlebars in a comfortable position without riser stems and sloping top tubes.
All the while, there are many people who love their classic racing bikes made from Columbus SL, with Campagnolo brakes, and the frame sized for racing, not cyclotouring. When I recall the bikes at the Cirque this year, I'd say that the Campagnolo sidepulls outnumbered Mafacs and other centerpulls and cantilevers 4:1, so there is no need to be concerned about the future appreciation of the classic 1970s and 1980s racing bike. Many of the "new classics" at the Cirque were equipped with centerpulls or cantilevers, but I think this simply reflects that, whereas classic racing bikes are in ample supply, those wanting a performance cyclotouring bike often have to turn to a custom builder to have one made.
Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
140 Lakeside Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com