First of all, I applaud Carsten's web site. It shows great bikes, and the bike presentations make every effort to point out what is original and what was replaced on the bikes.
That said, I, too, was struck by the intro text - and I read the original German. The text is well-written, would be great for the intro of a product catalogue, but takes liberties with the historical facts:
- Cotterless aluminum cranks were available in the early 1930s (Stronglight; source: personal communication Raymond Henry), but were not widely adopted by racers until the late 1950s or later. - Derailleurs were developed by and for cyclotourists (check "The Dancing Chain"). The tourists had great fun beating the racers' times up the cols in the Pyrenees, such was the advantage gears gave them. In Paris-Brest-Paris 1948, the tourists with their geared bikes solidly beat the racer's record (established in 1931). The racers, who started two days later, then proceeded to trounce that new record - they, too, now had gears on their bikes (source: B. Déon, Paris-Brest Et Retour).
In Carsten's bike descriptions, there are a few opinions as well (which bikes were the best of their times, etc.), that could be questioned.
I feel Carsten's historical errors are no big deal. I pointed them out to him privately, and I am sure he will make changes as he sees appropriate.
Since the issue is raised - and don't get me wrong, the following is not meant to relate to Carsten's site - I have a few thoughts on scholarly accuracy.
Unfortunately, our hobby has its fair share of half-truths and pure fabrications. Some of it just happens because we remember things wrongly or our sources do. Few, if any, of us are professional historians, so the rigor of checking our facts is difficult and time-consuming. Unfortunately, there also are the true fabrications... A certain interview with Jack Taylor in On The Wheel comes to mind. Or the infamous Rene Herse owners newslist, where all the information (and there was an amazing lot) was pure fabrication, probably by the same person who "interviewed" Mr. Taylor.
While I am working on the first issue of my newsletter, Vintage Bicycle Quarterly, I have been thinking about this a lot. The main reason for a paper newsletter is to produce something lasting, unlike an ephemeral web site or newsgroup. Something people can refer to in 50 years, if need be. Also, printed articles have the luxury of allowing fact-checking, unlike posted messages on this group... To make the newsletter such a valuable resource, I have come up with a few guidelines:
1. All articles will be referenced properly. If a story about an Alex Singer bike says that the Nivex rear derailleur first appeared at a certain date, the publication from which that info is taken will be referenced.
2. Interviews will include the date and location of the interview. Original tapes will be submitted to the editor, who will make copies available for a reasonable fee (maybe $ 20). Also, interviewees will be contacted to check whether the interview really took place. A problem is where the editor (me) conducted the interview... Who will check on me? Obviously, you can get the tapes.
3. There will be a letters and comments column, where anybody is able to disagree with what was said. I will not allow this to descend into flaming accusations, but if somebody has evidence that historical facts were misrepresented in an article, they will be able to air their concerns. Also, corrections will be published if new, contradicting information becomes available.
Obviously, many early bikes and events are fading into the mist of history. On a 1930s bike, it often is difficult to establish what was original equipment and what was replaced, say, in 1946. But I think we should try to uphold the highest standards possible. If anybody has further suggestions in that vein, please let me know.
Jan Heine, Seattle