Yes in essence that's true - the ruling by the RTTC (the time trilling body) was in 1938 after most of the unorthodox designs were introduced.
However the makers did like their frames to be readily identifiable regardless of whether they were being raced or being ridden on the Club run...
Hilary Stone, Bristol, British Isles
Peter Brueggeman wrote:
In reference to a Baines Flying Gate, Harvey Sachs said "...My guess is that this, like the "curly" stay Hetchins and the "Cantiflex" with "diadrant" (?) recurved forks was an effort to do almost anything to make your brand identifiable in races where no brand markings were
allowed. ..."
My unschooled understanding is that the use of unorthodox frame designs to make brands identifiable where no brand markings were allowed (in British racing) is a recurring CR urban legend, and there's been no documentation to back this up?
I checked the CR Archive and couldn't find anything but it is a tough topic to keyword search.
Peter
Hilary is correct when he says that the RTTC rules (actually recommendations to be incorporated in club rules) were adopted by the RTTC in 1938. However, those rules were simply copied from the rules of the previous organisation, the Road Racing Council. You can see copies of both sets of rules at
http://www.photobox.co.uk/
The double page is from a 1933 Cyclists Diary (the earliest edition I have) and shows the RRC rules, and the 2 single pages are from a 1938 edition of a diary and shows the very similar RTTC rules. So the RRC rules predate the introduction of such frames as the Bates with diadrant forks and Hetchins with Curly stays. There has been much discussion on this list and elsewhere as to how much such introductions were to circumvent the rules or for sound engineering principles, and I don't believe there is any conclusive proof to support either option. However, some of the old timers racing at the time tell me that they never regarded any of the "funnies" as an attempt to get round the rules, but there was always discussions about whether or not a particular frame rode better, and opinions were personal and varied and not usually based on any engineering principles. There was certainly no requirement for riders to remove or cover badges or transfers, and if a photograph of a name did appear in a publication no blame was attached to the rider, unless of course it could be interpreted that he was promoting a particular brand. The rule was not binding on publishers either, and the quality of reproduction in those days was such that transfers were rarely legible.
The rules on clothing were much more strictly enforced and observed by the riders. There was one incident when my brother, riding in a 12 hour event in the late 40s, sewed a strip of sequins on to his sleeve so that his feeders could pick him out at a distance and be ready for him, and there was some discussion as to whether or not he should be allowed to start. He did start, and when he won in record time there were further discussions as to whether the record should stand. In the end common sense prevailed and his record stood until the next year, when he won again, still wearing his sequins.
So I think this is another of those myths that grows with each telling until everyone believes the last version they heard, and probably adds a bit to it, but by going back to original evidence this myth can be dispelled.
Peter Brown, Lincolnshire, England.