I am wondering why racing bikes go through "lightweight" phases, usually followed by phases of "we don't care about weight."
I don't know much about the 1950s, except that bikes don't seem to have been very light or even built with weight as a foremost consideration. Durability, Q factor and other things seem to have influenced component choice more than light weight (steel cottered cranks vs. aluminum ones, steel stems, etc.)
1960/70s saw an increased interest in light weight, but maybe not among pro racers. Most of them rode sturdy NR. I realize I have visions of Merckx' drilled bars on the hour record bike, and Ocana on a ti frame, but for the most part, it seems racers were rather unconcerned by weight.
1980s: LeMond won the world championships on 36-hole wheels, which now fellow randonneurs (!), who have no support cars, say are too heavy to go fast! Yes, Greg used TVT carbon frames, too. But for most other riders, bikes actually were heavier than in the 70s - witness Columbus Max tubing and such stuff.
1990s: With "innovative" bike companies becoming more active in sponsoring pro racing (Cannondale and Trek come to mind, but Bianchi, too), they wanted to showcase lightweight bikes, since they couldn't compete on "mystique" and craftsmanship. So the bikes are getting lighter. Would Eddy have won more decisively on a Trek? Would Lance be slower on a Colnago NR bike? Who knows?
Any thoughts?
--
Jan Heine, Seattle
Editor/Publisher
Vintage Bicycle Quarterly
http://www.mindspring.com/