[CR]Research and disagreements

(Example: Framebuilders:Alberto Masi)

In-Reply-To: <CATFOODgtc2S6AATiyh000009c9@catfood.nt.phred.org>
References:
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:10:40 -0800
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Jan Heine" <heine@mindspring.com>
cc: 520061944949-0001@T-Online.de
cc: 520061944949-0001@T-Online.de
Subject: [CR]Research and disagreements

I feel there is a proper way to resolve disagreements about historic facts, etc. If one person says one thing, somebody else questions this, then the first person simply has to provide their sources. The two people can compare sources, others can weigh in, and finally, people either agree or disagree on which sources are more likely to be correct.

It really is that simple, but when somebody does not want to give their sources, all the historic facts and nice stories become useless for research, because they are not verifiable. (If somebody claims to have found a cure for cancer, but won't publish their study, the medical world will pay little attention to that "researcher.")

There has been so much pure invention in the classic bicycle world (and unfortunately, not only in the classic bike world), that my magazine, Vintage Bicycle Quarterly, has a very strict policy of verification. This applies to everybody, and I almost rejected the wonderful article by the renowned historian, Raymond Henry, on the amazing Integral bike because it didn't list sources (I would have published the photo shoot, but not the accompanying historic article). Fortunately, Raymond agreed to rewrite the article, even found a few (minor) errors when looking up his research. The result is in the current issue of VBQ.

I understand and agree that the standards for posting on the CR list are not and should not be as stringent. Yet, if somebody asks, I hope most posters will be able to tell us where they heard or read something. This can be "I don't remember," in which case we'll note it as an interesting thought, but one that awaits verification. Nothing wrong with that at all.

The research of bicycle history will be controversial at times, of course. And there is nothing wrong with that, either. But please let us stick to the facts. This list has been an amazing resource.

Finally, resorting to insults when somebody questions historic facts doesn't get us any further. Any questioning of facts should not be taken personally. Nobody will think less of somebody because there were errors in a story that person read and posted. However, I suspect that in some cases, insults are the result of a story not being verifiable.

Of course, I have mentioned the corrections column of VBQ before. For the upcoming issue, there is an especially glaring error to be corrected: The bike shown with the story of Frank Pearne's ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 1902 looked like just another fixed-gear bike to me (the original photo could not be reproduced, so David Stowe on the list provided a photo of his great-great-uncle on a fixed-gear from that period). But of course, I don't know anything about turn-of-the-century bikes. Toni Theilmeier, expert on stayer (motor-paced track) racing at that time, wrote to say that the bike clearly is a stayer bike, and could never have been ridden on the road! It probably was ridden behind four- or five-seater tandems (quads or quints), with several teams taking turns pacing the rider! I don't think anybody will think less of VBQ for such a glaring error. It'll be corrected, and Toni has agreed to write an article or two on the topic for the magazine.

Jan Heine, Seattle