I have been reading the exchange between Jan and Chuck and just felt that I had to add some important elements.
It is well-known that aluminum alloy bicycle components have been around since the 19th century. They are not the preserve of the 1930 and 40's as Jan would have us believe. Likewise, they are also not the preserve of the French. Alloy components were made and sold in Britain, Italy, Switzerland and elsewhere. For example Ambrosio was producing alloy stems and rims on an industrial level pre-war. SIAMT was likewise making alloy hubs pre-war, FOM was making alloy pedals pre-war, Bianchi was using alloy pedals pre-war and the list goes on. There used to be (and may still be) a 1920's Taurus city bike on display in one of the nicer Italian museums that had alloy cotterless cranks. So perhaps Jan might want to modify his thoughts regarding this matter. Please note that I am not saying that the Italians were first in their use of alloy. This would be silly on my part as it is far more believable that somebody had already developed alloy versions of virtually all components in the pre-1910 era, a period when the Italians were definitely towards the rear of the class in terms of bicycle development.
It is furthermore my firm belief that the 'Q' factor had absolutely no relevance to racers in the 1950's or even in 1962 when Rebour wrote the quote that Jan has attempted to translate. I base this claim on the folowing reasoning. In the 1870's the distance between the inside edges of the pedals of road bikes probably reached its widest limits. It was then steadily reduced until reaching the narrowest limits on road bikes in the 1930's and 1940's: a time when both road and track bikes had virtually identical 'Q' factors. On track bikes, the 'Q' factor has remained virtually unchanged since then. This alone would tend to make one think that it must either be close to optimum or perhaps is being legislated by some rule. I have checked the UCI rules and nothing seems to dictate any set 'Q' factor limits. So if the optimum is what existed on many bikes in the 1930's and 40's, the substantially increased width in the 1950's would surely have raised concerns. It apparently did not. It then increased steadily until the 1980's, before once again starting to be reduced. We have however not yet returned to the widths seen on track bikes or 1930's-40's road bikes. So, if Jan's claim that 'Q' factor was indeed important, it would suggest all component makers from the 1950's until the mid 1980's simply disregarded an important design factor...!?
As for the use of alloy components by the pros, they have long used alloy componentry, at least since the 1930's. The use was not however across the board or even constant. When considering pedals, bars and stems, among the top riders, you see riders that switch from alloy to steel and back to alloy, as well as the converse. You will also witness weights that go up and then down. Indeed a set of all steel pedals from the 30's often weigh considerably less that the average half-alloy pedals used by the pros in the 60's. As in all things, weight is but one of the variables taken into account. Far more important in the 1950's was national provenance. Italians used products produced in Italy and the French products produced in France. Apart from the rare exception like the TA chainrings used by Coppi, you will rarely find anybody going against this rule of thumb. In the 1950's, the Swiss riding for Swiss teams, when not using Swiss products would generally favor the Italian products, as apparently did the Belgians. Another element that goes against the claim that 'Q' factor was important are the solutions adopted to allow the use of double chainrings. If we were to give credence to Jan's claims, that the 'Q' factor was important, I believe we would have noted at least one solution that foresaw a reduction of the width of the BB shell. This does not occur, even though companies like Magistroni, then the largest producer of BB sets in Italy, did address the worries of extra flex caused by an extension of the axle. In fact when they made their first axles suitable for use with double chainrings, they made a special BB spindle and fixed cup. The spindle had a greater distance between the shoulders and maintained the same length extension from right-hand shoulder to spindle end. The accompanying fixed cup extended outward from the plane of the BB shell. Would this not point to the fact that they were aware that design compromises were necessary and were prepared to offer them? One last point is that Verot & Perrin (Stronglight) continued to supply French pros with steel cranks until the begin of the 60's. Either this shows a corporate distrust of their own alloy product or decided lack of will-power to promote the new. Either way, it makes me very doubtful of any claim of inate benefits of the alloy crank.
As for the comment about the reliability of Rebour as a source of information. It is well-known that he survived wholely on his ties to the French bicycle industry. His editorial and design remuneration were wholely based upon his ties to French industry. He should therefore not be considered impartial. Furthermore, a basic rule of reporting is that one should never make conclusions based on only one source. When I worked for The Wall Street Journal, the editor always used to pound into everybody that to include an interview in a newspaper is a cop-out and an example of fluff journalism. Interviews only have merit when they include counterpoints and the opportunity to openly analyse the validity of the statements made. Furthermore, I am somewhat troubled by the attribution to Rebour of a racing past as if this were somehow qualifying. To the best of my knowledge, Rebour had no more of a racing past that do I. Granted, he like I, may have held a license and competed, but there nonetheless seems to be a quantum leap separating the low level racers from the pros. Even though I can honestly claim to have, on occasion, beaten the likes of Steve Bauer, I would be delusional to suggest that I am in any way fit to speak for such riders. As for the claim that the first version Campagnolo cranks did not break, this is nonsense. From my own personal experience, the only cranks that I have ever owned that I have observed to be cracked are a first generation Campagnolo one and a first generation Mavic one. As Chuck has correctly pointed out, alloy cranks were far more prone to break under the use of the pros, regardless of the brand. Beyond the weight there were however other advantages to be achieved, that apparently overcame the disadvantages of possible breakage. I can think of at least one that was perhaps not sufficiently addressed by the earlier Stronglight models: flex of cranks and chainrings.
--
Steven Maasland
Moorestown, NJ