Jan Heine wrote:
>
> You (Chuck) wrote that you read the pros were afraid of crank breakages. I
> really, honestly am interested where you read that... because this is
> an issue of interest to me. Rather than subscribing to myths, I want
> to know why the pros rode what they rode, preferably from the pen or
> mouth of somebody who was there at the time.
and
> But there was a reason why some chose the steel. Chuck thinks it's
> because the racers were concerned about cranks breaking. Rebour
> claims it's Q factor... I don't know, but I haven't seen any evidence
> that contradicts Rebour on this one.
Sorry Jan, but I can provide you with no footnotes.
Most of what I known has been learned from talking with old guys who are long dead now, looking at photos of pros racing and how their bikes are equipped, and me riding old bikes. Things like parts failures (actual breakage or design problems) were not written about until fairly recently.
As an example, the design problems and failures of the late 60s/early 70s Cinelli bivalent hub have never been published, but I can tell you in great detail why they were a failure from a design standpoint, what parts failed, and why they were never accepted by the pro peloton. This from personal experience with them and talking with old guys. But like I said, you'll never get any footnotes from me so put it down to, as you like to say, "subscribing to myths."
Maybe someone else wants to beat this poor old dead horse? I've had enough...
Chuck Schmidt South Pasadena, Southern California
.