Jan Heine wrote:
>
> Chuck,
> You claim that pro racers in Europe were concerned about breaking
> aluminum bars, stems and cranks.
Not _my_ claim Jan; that would be the common knowledge for the period
between 1935 and about 1960. For example the first Campagnolo cranks
(1958) were known to break and Cinelli didn't make an aluminum stem till
1960. Ambrosio had aluminum stems and bars in the early 1950s used by
the pros, but it is easy to see in photos of the pros that steel cranks
and stems were used clear up into the mid 1960s.
> However, pro racers, including René Vietto, used aluminum frames in
> the 1940s.
Vietto didn't race any of his Tour de Frances on an aluminum frame.
> Koblet won the 1951 Tour de France using aluminum bars.
> And so on. So they weren't averse to trying these things.
Yes and La Perle sold their version of Hugo Koblet's team bike with
Stronglight 49D aluminum cranks, but Koblet won the '51 TdF on steel
cranks (verified by photos).
> 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!).
I have a huge amount of admiration for Daniel Rebour but I wouldn't make
the assumption that pro riders agreed with everything Rebour wrote. No
different today with cycling scribes and pro riders.
> 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.)
Hope you didn't mean that to sound as snide as it does to me. I'm old,
but not that old. My understanding of why sport riders liked the
various T.A. cranks over the years was because of the unlimited choice
in chainring teeth and configurations (single, double, triple,
quadruple). I never cared for them because the foil sticker stuck on
the crank looked cheap and the pros all rode Campagnolo. (Incidentally,
there's no need for a devil's advocate on this list, unless you like
arguing both sides of the question. <grin>)
> 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!
Why would T.A. Criterium cottered aluminum cranks be popular in 1960? Because they were newer than new!!! Same reason people keep buying the latest and greatest today... its new and unique (for a while). In 1960/61 I was riding an English Racer (Raleigh with roadster bars and Sturmey 3-speed) to high school occasionally and was only aware of one crazy old man (old meaning in his mid 30s) that road a Schwinn with a derailleur for sport (that would be a ride of an unimaginable distance to me of 25 or 30 miles in length).
I'll end with your previous statement: "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. When something truly useful came along, they adopted it, unless there were reasons not to."
Anyone else what to share their opinions?
Chuck Schmidt South Pasadena, Southern California
.