Bob was not quite correct in asserting that all the gears with the two hole mount could be fitted to the version which was part of the dropout. Whilst Cyclo, Simplex, Trivelox and Cyclo all made gears that would fit those two hole mounts but not all would work when fitted in that position. Cyclo Standard gears generally need to be further away from the freewheel than that type of mount allowed and so were generally fitted to the separate mount brazed on, on the underside of the chainstay. Cyclo quoted specific distances for the mech/freewheel to be mounted according to the size of the largest freewheel. Cyclo Standard gears and some from Huret could also be fitted to the mount with single large diameter hole suspended from the chainstay - more of the clip was discarded - the Taylor Bros copied French practice in this way quite often too. The Taylor Bros continued like quite a few of the French builders using older style gears such as the Cyclo on the tourers long past other current useage.
As to The Dancing Chain corrections, they are not available on the Web as of yet - there is some discussion at present about publishing them in a small booklet with some further illustrations as I understand The Dancing Chain is being republished quite soon without any revisions. The corrections run to some 5000+ words at present!
Hilary Stone. Bristol, England
> Roy quoted ;
>
>> As p 172 in "The Dancing Chain" says:
>> "1958-61. The Huret Monobloc rear derailleur required a unique
>> braze-on two-bolt mounting. Cyclo, Huret, and Simplex could never
>> agree on a standard derailleur hanger."
Bob Reid replied:
> This is one of these statements in The Dancing Chain that's slightly off the
> mark. For what commercial reason would any of the gear manufacturers have
> produced new derailleurs that could not be fitted in some way to the bulk of
> the frames already on the road as well as to new builds ?. By the 1930's
> there was an accepted "Standard" mount, and that two bolt extension from the
> from the frame end of the Jack Taylor was it !
>
> At least until the late 1950's not only the gear manufacturers but the frame
> fittings folk like Nervex, supplied either "ends" as in the JT with this two
> bolt hole extension, or a "gear bracket" on it's own with the same two
> elongated holes, to braze on to the chainstay. There was an alternative
> clip-on version for the chainstay for frames not built with the facility. It
> has little to do with the method of operation, as it was used for gears
> moved by single cable, twin-cable, with a spring, without a spring, with a
> toggle chain et al.
>
> The bit beyond this bracket, that is missing as it was not required here, is
> the lower half of the bracket,which was the "non-standard" "unique to the
> derailleur" part that was fitted between the bracket and the derailleur body
> itself. Manufacturers had no need to "standardise" this part.
>
> Parallelogram style derailleurs that required the main attachment point /
> pivot to be nearer the axle centre (rather than in the case of Cyclo almost
> 2.7/16" in front of it) seems to have put paid to this style of mounting,
> hence perhaps it's demise.
>
> I'd guess either that clip on the JT, was the Bros. using up old stock or
> that frame is considerably older....
>
>
> p.s Can anyone (Hilary ?) tell me the link to the comments about the
> accuracy of "The Dancing Chain" that were produced a few years back ?