While the RTTC ruling may not have been the reason for 'non standard' frame designs such as Diadrant forks and curly stays I am sure that Ray must be correct in saying that they were a marketing tool. If Hetchins were so convinced that curly stays were a technically essential part of a Hetchins frame why did he also offer them with straight stays? I would maintain that any straying from the horizontal top tube diamond frame with no unnecessary curves is an effort to catch the customer's eye; in the shop window, on the road (whether racing or pootling) and on the magazine page. I know that I am still attracted to a frame that looks 'different'. For a start it makes it easier to find outside the coffee stop cafe! I also believe that styling and appearance are with us still - why does a Serotta framelook different from a Merlin? Why do car designers spend millions making their 'boxes on wheels' look different from other 'boxes on wheels'? An interesting thought, did a variety of frame designs ever come out of a state controlled bicycle factory?
Nigel Land North Lincs England
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:32:57 +0000 From: Hilary Stone <hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Subject: Re: [CR]Curved stays etc.- On topic Message-ID: <BFF9C6A8.56023%hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20060122222257.DVFR23006.aamta12-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: list Message: 3
I don't think the evidence stands up for this suggestion I am afraid. The RTTC ruling was only enacted in 1938; almost all the non standard frame designs - Hetchins, Bates, Baines were well in production by then. The main exceptions are Thanet (which were not primarily designed for competition), Paris (who's main interest was mass start racing) the rule does not really apply to. And in any case the rule seems to have generally fallen into disuse post WWII.
Hilary Stone, Bristol, UK
> From: <greenjersey@ntlworld.com>
> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:22:57 +0000
> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Subject: [CR]Curved stays etc.- On topic
>
> I think it is true to say that many non-standard bikes were developed
as a
> marketing tool as a response to the peculiar situation in England. The
Road
> Time Trials Council was very strict about shamateurism and riders
could be-
> and were- suspended if the name of their frame was legible in a
published
> photograph. The RTTC didn't have to prove that any money had changed
hands or
> even that the rider was given the frame. This explains why so many
British
> frames had longhand script-eg Claud Butler.
> Of course you could get round this rule with instantly recognisable
designs
> such as Hetchins and Bates and Flying Gate. You will never get a fan
of these
> marques to admit this but who really believe Bates forks give a better
ride?
> I recall that Charly McCoy a British TT champion and Olympic team
pursuiter
> got a years ban in 1961 because you could read "Eddie Soens" in a
photo
> published in Cycling Weekly. It was a bit provocative as Eddie, always
a
> rebel, had put the name in big block capitals right along the down
tube. They
> repealed the rule shortly after.
> It is amazing that the same year that Tom Simpson won the Tour of
Flanders
> English domestic cycling was still in the dark ages.
> Ray Green Brighton, Blighty.