At 10:37 AM +0200 1/5/10, Amir Avitzur wrote:
>"The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles"
> is much catchier than the more accurate
>"The Golden Age of French Bicycles"
>
>Be that as it may, it is a wonderful book,
>one I keep going back to ... again and again.
We kept the title more general to underline one of the main points of the book: That these bikes are as relevant today as they were then. When you look at the many builders and riders who have been inspired by these bikes, you see that these bikes have a great influence of what many of us ride today. Just check out the latest bikes Peter Weigle, Pereira, Rene Herse, Vanilla, Dan Boxer, etc...
When the book came out in 2005, there were few builders who made custom racks and used aluminum fenders. Today, even Electra is offering a "French-inspired" bike. They displayed a well-thumbed copy of "The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles" on their stand at Interbike last year to show where they got the inspiration.
The book has been popular among people only marginally interested in
bikes. Our best wholesale customers are not bike shops, but furniture
stores, architecture bookshops and the like. If our book introduces
classic bicycles from the CR timeline to a general audience, I hope
you'll be able to live with the title. In fact, without that appeal
to a general audience, the book would have to cost twice as much,
even if every CR listmember bought a copy.
>
>As for why Brit framebuilders didn't make their own parts:
>I've got two conflicting theories:
>
>(1) they didn't have to, since they had many good bikcycle parts makers
> supplying a huge variety of parts ... and were not averse to
>using imports.
The French gladly used imported parts, too. Just consider the
prevalence of Reynolds 531 tubing, when there were many French makers
of high-end tubing. If the French had preferred French parts, they
would have made all their bikes from Vitus, Faubur and Durifort. So I
am sure that it there had been better stems or front derailleurs
available from Britain or Italy, the French constructeurs would have
used them. However, I cannot think of a single front derailleur from
those countries that was available in 1946, much less one able to
handle a compact double with 48-32 chainrings.
>(2) they couldn't charge what the top French builders were able to charge
This is part of the real reason - you can do a lot of nice things if you charge the equivalent of $12,000 in today's money for a bike. In 1940s France, a constructeur bike was a status symbol like a sportscar is today. Many people bought them even if they weren't avid riders, just like few Lamborghinis sold today ever see a racetrack. That was different from Britain, Germany or Italy, where cycling was seen as a lower-class activity. Jack Taylor in Britain made bicycles in the French constructeur spirit. The interview with Jack and Ken in the Summer 09 Bicycle Quarterly showed how much they were inspired by the French machines. However, they couldn't charge the same money, so their tandems don't have custom lugs or derailleurs. Their workmanship isn't on par with the top-notch frames from Britain, perhaps because tourists weren't willing to spend the same money as racers...
France in the 1940s was different, because it wasn't the racing bike that was considered the epitome of bicycles. So racks, lights and other "accessories" really were considered more important than they were in other countries. I believe that in Britain, the "ultimate" form of the bike revealed itself when fenders, rack and lights were removed for a time trial. As a result, there was more focus on quick removal of these parts than on careful integration. So your hypothesis (1) "They didn't have to" does apply, but for different reasons. The British builders didn't have to make superb custom racks, stems and lighting solutions, because their customers didn't consider these parts very important.
The French also had time trials and other competitions, but the rules for "cyclotouristes" required fenders, rack and lights. So there was a strong incentive to make these parts as light and functional as possible, and quick removal (or removal at all) wasn't a concern at all.
Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
140 Lakeside Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
http://www.bikequarterly.com