Aero Bikes: History

Here’s a little more on the history behind aerodynamic bicycle frames; a subject that I touched on in my previous blog about the US team bikes.

In the mid 1970s there was a craze for drilling holes in components to save weight. Soon no component part of the bicycle was left untouched, with the possible exception of handlebars and stems for obvious reasons; although a few riders with death wish tendencies even tried that.



Steel frames were not immune, with cutouts in the bottom bracket shell and lugs. Towards the end of the 1970s I saw a few British Time Trial Frames with slots cut in the head tube, and matching slots in the steering column inside.

Soon bikes had so many holes in them, they didn’t have a shadow.

Aside from reducing the reliability of the frame or component, people began to point out that any gain in weight saving was offset by the increased air turbulence and the resulting drag of air passing through slots and holes.



People began to think seriously about aerodynamics. At the same time the East Germans were experimenting with aero bikes and helmets; I was one of the first in England to work with the idea in the late 1970s. I made a press tool to form round tubes into an oval shape. I also added an aerofoil behind the head tube and bottom bracket shell.

After the US team bike fiasco I lost interest but I do remember building one at the end of 1980. I had just started work for Masi in Southern California, and they had a sample set of aero tubes. (Japanese I believe.)

I built one Aero Masi frame for the New York Show in February 1981. It was built into a complete bike, light blue in color, and with all the Masi decals it was a very unique and classy looking machine. I wonder where that one is now; definitely one of a kind.


The aero steel frame never really caught on and was only around for about two or three years. The tubes were difficult and therefore expensive to produce. The frame had to be of a lug-less construction, not conducive to mass production. The biggest drawback was the extra weight because the tubes had to be straight gauge. They couldn’t be double butted like round tubes.

Footnote: The pictures are of an English built track pursuit frame built around 1978. Note the extended seat tube, round at the top to accept the seat post. The fork crown was a modified Ron Kitching crown that took the old style narrow Reynolds fork blades, and was hand filed into the aero shape. Also, see details of the aerofoil behind the BB and head tube.

Why is my Front Brake Lever on the Right?

I have been asked that question since I started posting pictures of my bike on this blog.

It came up again when I posted a picture of my now wrecked bike last Thursday.

Why is my front brake lever on the right?

The simple answer is that I have always had my brakes set up that way since I started riding back in the 1950s, and it is what I am used to.

From the 1930s through the 1950s the most popular side-pull brake was the Swiss made Weinmann 500; the caliper arms were opposite to most current side-pulls today. The front brake caliper arms were on the left, so with the brake lever on the right the cables crossed.

You can see this in the picture of me, circa 1953.

I did not put the front brake on the right just so the cables would cross, but rather followed the style of the day and did what people with far more experience were doing.

As I remember, it had a lot to do with the fact that both front and rear derailleurs were shifted using the right hand, leaving only the left hand to operate a brake.

The front derailleur was operated by a lever whereby you reached down between your legs with your right hand. Now dubbed, suicide shifters, although I don’t recall this ever being a problem.

The picture on the right is of a Huret front derailleur that was very popular in the 1950s.

[Picture from The Racing Bicycle.com]

Campagnolo did not come out with a brake set until 1971; when they did, it was opposite to the Weinmann and most other side-pulls of that era. It had the front brake caliper arms on the right.

Campagnolo quickly became the brake of choice among racing cyclists and enthusiasts world wide, and as a result, other side-pull manufactures copied the Campagnolo style.

An observation I have made is that many people who like me started riding in England in the 1950s have their front brake lever on the right. Others who started later in the 1970s have the front brake lever on the left.

There is also a theory that the English, front brake on right set up, can be traced all the way back to the Ordinary (Penny Farthing) bicycle that had a single spoon brake on the front wheel only, operated by the right hand.

Early "Safety" bicycles had the same front brake only set up, so when rear brakes were added later, people were already used to having the front brake on the right.

Old English roadster bikes with roller brakes had the front brake on the right. The explanation for this could be as simple as the rod operating the rear brake went down the left side of the frame to keep it clear of the chain and chainwheel on the right side.

Some could argue a right and a wrong way to set up brake levers, but I only speak for myself when I say I continue to set mine up the way I always have. Simple as that.

History Lesson

1968 Pugliaghi. Everything clamp on even the bottom bracket gear cable guides. Pictures from TheRacingBicycle.com

In the late 1950s through the early 1970s there was a slump in bicycle sales in Europe. In the 1960s the economy was booming and although in many places the bicycle had always been the mode of transport for the working classes; many were now buying cars for the first time. At the same time the fitness craze had not yet begun; that started in the 1970s.

Racing bicycles and framebuilders were also hit by this slump and the price of a frame rose very little in that decade even though inflation did. Framebuilders had to look for ways to cut costs and one of them was to leave off all braze-ons. Building a frame without braze-ons does save a considerable amount of time and therefore labor costs. The only braze-ons seen in this era was a chainstay stop and sometimes a little stop under the down tube to prevent the gear lever clamp from sliding down the tube.

Having done that framebuilders could not tell their customers they were doing this to cut costs, hence the story that braze-ons weaken the frame. I think Cinelli started it; framebuilding was never their main source of income (Handlebar stems was.) so the price of a Cinelli frame was always high. So everyone’s thinking was if Cinelli can get away with it so can we, and they followed suit.

Do braze-ons weaken the frame? Maybe very marginally but then so does brazing the lugged joints; it is part of the framebuilding process. I have seen down tubes break right at the clamp on gear lever. Clamps require more maintenance they collect moisture under them and if they are over tightened they can dig into the tube and start a stress riser. But I feel if anyone is restoring a bike from this era they should keep the cable clamps they are authentic for the period.