Re: [CR]cottered aluminum cranks

(Example: Production Builders:Peugeot:PX-10LE)

In-Reply-To: <421CF61F.BD9836AB@earthlink.net>
References: <022220052339.6234.421BC2B0000BD6A10000185A21604666480E070B080E90@att.net> <a052106c6be41a5bc977e@[68.167.254.37]> <a05210604be4295e1c342@[67.100.126.95]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:10:16 -0800
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Jan Heine" <heine93@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]cottered aluminum cranks


Chuck,

You claim that pro racers in Europe were concerned about breaking aluminum bars, stems and cranks.

However, pro racers, including René Vietto, used aluminum frames in the 1940s. Koblet won the 1951 Tour de France using aluminum bars. And so on. So they weren't averse to trying these things.

I can only go by the literature - if Rebour or somebody points out advantages (perceived or real) of a product, I assume that riders saw it that way (if only because Rebour said so!).

Since you were around at the time, you may have a better feel for what people were thinking then. What were the reasons people liked the TA cottered cranks, if not Q factor? From today's vantage point, it appears like they combine the worst of both - breakage problems of aluminum and the insecure mounting of a cottered crank. (I know in fact that both are not a problem, but I'm just playing devils advocate.)

They must have been popular - they were very expensive, yet you find them on a remarkable number of bikes from 1960-61. So why did people buy them instead of the proven alloy Stronglight 49D or the cottered steel cranks, either of which were cheaper (and better from today's vantage point)? I am sure you heard people talk about them during your rides in 1960/61... because riders discussing equipment probably is as timeless as turning the pedals! -- Jan Heine, Seattle Editor/Publisher Vintage Bicycle Quarterly c/o Il Vecchio Bicycles 140 Lakeside Ave, Ste. C Seattle WA 98122 http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com

Chuck Schmidt wrote:
> >What I have heard that was a concern to pro racers was a distrust of
> >aluminum cranks and aluminum bars because of breakage. Steel cranks and
> >steel bars and stems being used right up through the sixties in
>the pro ranks.

Jan Heine wrote:
> I don't know about reasons in the U.S. to stick with steel cranks. I
> find that the same equipment choices often were due to different
> reasons on different continents.

I think you've misunderstood my comment about "steel bars and stems being used right up through the sixties in the pro ranks" Jan. I don't mean in the U.S., I mean in Europe as there were no "pro ranks" in the U.S. in the sixties.


> In France, the cyclotourists had shown that aluminum cranks were
> durable - often during the same events as the pros, such as the Poly
> de Chanteloup - even on tandems.

I'd question aluminum cranks being "durable" enough for pro use in the mid 1930s to the mid 1950s in the big tours of those periods; the TdF, GdI or Vuelta.


> Of course, racers always have been slow to be persuaded that
> "unfashionable" equipment might be as good or better. But I find that
> more often than not, what seems like stupidity or backwardness to us
> from a vantage point 50+ years later, in fact was done for good
> reasons. The racers weren't stupid, and their bikes were their tools
> of the trade.

Yes, I agree, and pro racers slow acceptance of alloy cranks was probably done for, like you say, "good reasons."

Chuck Schmidt South Pasadena, Southern California

.