Peter Rodgers wrote: "Having grown up in the UK and, therefore, under different influences with respect to bikes, I always wondered why Americans had bikes that were much bigger. At the time, I thought that it was a product of Americans having a better standard of living and growing taller as a result!!"
I thought it was basically true that Americans tended to be larger on average, at least back in the early and mid 1900's. I thought I remembered reading somewhere of American soldiers in WW II creating the impression of being a race of giants. I also read somewhere of European custom bike builders being somewhat amazed at the number of large frames being ordered by American buyers back when. I don't think this was purely Sloane's influence. Even today, I seem to notice mostly larger bikes listed on ebay. Time and again I see an interesting bike, but it turns out to be a 56 or 58 when I need a 54. Somewhere not long ago I read that back when Japanese bike makers were trying to get in on the American Bike Boom, they couldn't seem to adapt at first to the notion that the Americans really needed larger frames.
As for the brakes, my dim recollection is that the cheapest 10-speed bikes had side-pull brakes that didn't work very well because they wouldn't stay centered on the wheel. The Mafac center-pull brakes just seemed like the best way to apply strong, even force to both sides of the rim. I remember being (in my ignorance) rather surprised and puzzled reading (in Sloane?) that the "very best" brakes were Campagnolo side-pulls. "How could that off-center design be any good?" was my reaction. And I seem to remember Campagnolo brakes being expensive, even for Campagnolo. So center-pull was simply the best design available for the money: simple, easy to understand and adjust, and trouble-free, if perhaps a little noisy at times. And Mafac was dominant in the center-pull market, so you saw a lot of them.
John Hurley
Austin, Texas, USA