scientific american 1869 velocipede climbs 10% grade

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

The "Velocipede Notes" column in the April 24, 1869 "Scientific
American" describes a velocipede climbing a 10% grade:

"We recently saw a bicycle propelled up the heavy grade from the Wall
Street Ferry to the top of Brooklyn Heights. We were too far away to
ascertain the maker of the machine, or the name of the rider. When we
add that this grade is certainlly not less than one foot in ten, our
readers will appreciate the significance of this statement, with
reference to the overcoming of steep grades. The rider ascended the
entire grade, certainly not much less than three hundred yards in
length using the flagged sidewalk as a way."


http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fscia%2Fscia1020%2F&tif=00271.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABF2204-1020-19

A 300-yard 10% grade struck me as impressive for a velocipede, even
allowing for the dubious "certainly not less than" and "certainly not
much less than" phrases.

The velocipedes of that era were just the primitive bicycles that
preceded highwheelers. They used the same direct pedals fixed to the
front wheel, with no gearing:


http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fscia%2Fscia1020%2F&tif=00380.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABF2204-1020-26

A little earlier, the same 10%-grade article explained:

"Much diversity in opinion, as to the proper dimensions of the
velocipede wheels and cranks, has existed, but the favorite size seems
to be from 30 to 36 inches for diameter of driving wheel, and 6 inches
for length of crank."

A table of overall gearing, meaning wheel-travel forward to
foot-travel around the pedal circle, suggests that such climbs were
quite possible, even with 60-pound iron-tired solid-spoked
velocipedes. The extremely low overall gearing for velocipedes
explains why the highwheelers were so popular--the riders hated
cruising around on the flats in the equivalent of our modern granny
gears:

53 x 11 700c 175 mm 9.31 to 1
53 x 12 700c 175 mm 8.53 to 1
53 x 13 700c 175 mm 7.88 to 1
53 x 14 700c 175 mm 7.31 to 1
53 x 15 700c 175 mm 6.83 to 1
53 x 16 700c 175 mm 6.40 to 1
53 x 17 700c 175 mm 6.02 to 1
53 x 18 700c 175 mm 5.69 to 1
39 x 14 700c 175 mm 5.38 to 1
39 x 15 700c 175 mm 5.02 to 1
39 x 16 700c 175 mm 4.71 to 1
39 x 17 700c 175 mm 4.43 to 1
52" x 6" 152.5 mm crank 4.33 to 1 52-inch highwheeler
39 x 18 700c 175 mm 4.19 to 1
39 x 20 700c 175 mm 3.77 to 1
52" x 7" 177.5 mm crank 3.71 to 1 52-inch highwheeler
39 x 24 700c 175 mm 3.14 to 1
39 x 28 700c 175 mm 2.69 to 1 modern road double granny
36" x 6" 152.5 mm crank 3.00 to 1 big 36" velocipede
36" x 7" 177.5 mm crank 2.57 to 1 big 36" velocipede
30" x 6" 152.5 mm crank 2.50 to 1 small 30" velocipede
30" x 7" 177.5 mm crank 2.14 to 1 small 30" velocipede
30 x 28 700c 175 mm 2.07 to 1 modern road triple granny

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> The "Velocipede Notes" column in the April 24, 1869 "Scientific
> American" describes a velocipede climbing a 10% grade:
>
> "We recently saw a bicycle propelled up the heavy grade from the Wall
> Street Ferry to the top of Brooklyn Heights. We were too far away to
> ascertain the maker of the machine, or the name of the rider. When we
> add that this grade is certainlly not less than one foot in ten, our
> readers will appreciate the significance of this statement, with
> reference to the overcoming of steep grades. The rider ascended the
> entire grade, certainly not much less than three hundred yards in
> length using the flagged sidewalk as a way."
>
>
> http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fscia%2Fscia1020%2F&tif=00271.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABF2204-1020-19
>
> A 300-yard 10% grade struck me as impressive for a velocipede, even
> allowing for the dubious "certainly not less than" and "certainly not
> much less than" phrases.
>
> The velocipedes of that era were just the primitive bicycles that
> preceded highwheelers. They used the same direct pedals fixed to the
> front wheel, with no gearing:
>
>
> http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fscia%2Fscia1020%2F&tif=00380.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABF2204-1020-26
>
> A little earlier, the same 10%-grade article explained:
>
> "Much diversity in opinion, as to the proper dimensions of the
> velocipede wheels and cranks, has existed, but the favorite size seems
> to be from 30 to 36 inches for diameter of driving wheel, and 6 inches
> for length of crank."
>
> A table of overall gearing, meaning wheel-travel forward to
> foot-travel around the pedal circle, suggests that such climbs were
> quite possible, even with 60-pound iron-tired solid-spoked
> velocipedes. The extremely low overall gearing for velocipedes
> explains why the highwheelers were so popular--the riders hated
> cruising around on the flats in the equivalent of our modern granny
> gears:
>
> 53 x 11 700c 175 mm 9.31 to 1
> 53 x 12 700c 175 mm 8.53 to 1
> 53 x 13 700c 175 mm 7.88 to 1
> 53 x 14 700c 175 mm 7.31 to 1
> 53 x 15 700c 175 mm 6.83 to 1
> 53 x 16 700c 175 mm 6.40 to 1
> 53 x 17 700c 175 mm 6.02 to 1
> 53 x 18 700c 175 mm 5.69 to 1
> 39 x 14 700c 175 mm 5.38 to 1
> 39 x 15 700c 175 mm 5.02 to 1
> 39 x 16 700c 175 mm 4.71 to 1
> 39 x 17 700c 175 mm 4.43 to 1
> 52" x 6" 152.5 mm crank 4.33 to 1 52-inch highwheeler
> 39 x 18 700c 175 mm 4.19 to 1
> 39 x 20 700c 175 mm 3.77 to 1
> 52" x 7" 177.5 mm crank 3.71 to 1 52-inch highwheeler
> 39 x 24 700c 175 mm 3.14 to 1
> 39 x 28 700c 175 mm 2.69 to 1 modern road double granny
> 36" x 6" 152.5 mm crank 3.00 to 1 big 36" velocipede
> 36" x 7" 177.5 mm crank 2.57 to 1 big 36" velocipede
> 30" x 6" 152.5 mm crank 2.50 to 1 small 30" velocipede
> 30" x 7" 177.5 mm crank 2.14 to 1 small 30" velocipede
> 30 x 28 700c 175 mm 2.07 to 1 modern road triple granny
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

The hill in question I believe is the one my friends and I referred to
as "The Big Hill" when we were young. Sledding, sliding on the grass
in the rain with plastic bags over our shoes, and perhaps the most
spectacular, riding down uncontrollably in a tractor tire. When the
tire hit a fire hydrant and shot straight up into the air, and the kid
fell out onto the sidewalk, it was dramatic too. Later I used the hill
for hill sprints on various bikes, usually a track bike with if I
recall a 50x15. While it is steep, it is not anything out of the
ordinary.

Joseph

[M-gineering]

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> The "Velocipede Notes" column in the April 24, 1869 "Scientific
> American" describes a velocipede climbing a 10% grade:
>
> "We recently saw a bicycle propelled up the heavy grade from the Wall
> Street Ferry to the top of Brooklyn Heights. We were too far away to
> ascertain the maker of the machine, or the name of the rider. When we
> add that this grade is certainlly not less than one foot in ten, our
> readers will appreciate the significance of this statement, with
> reference to the overcoming of steep grades. The rider ascended the
> entire grade, certainly not much less than three hundred yards in
> length using the flagged sidewalk as a way."
>
>
> http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fscia%2Fscia1020%2F&tif=00271.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABF2204-1020-19
>
> A 300-yard 10% grade struck me as impressive for a velocipede, even
> allowing for the dubious "certainly not less than" and "certainly not
> much less than" phrases.
>
> The velocipedes of that era were just the primitive bicycles that
> preceded highwheelers. They used the same direct pedals fixed to the
> front wheel, with no gearing:
>

limiting factor would probably be the less than ideal traction of a
lightly loaded driven frontwheel shod with a slippery steel hoop


--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:35:22 +0100, M-gineering
<ikmotgeenspam@m-gineering.nl> wrote:

>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> The "Velocipede Notes" column in the April 24, 1869 "Scientific
>> American" describes a velocipede climbing a 10% grade:
>>
>> "We recently saw a bicycle propelled up the heavy grade from the Wall
>> Street Ferry to the top of Brooklyn Heights. We were too far away to
>> ascertain the maker of the machine, or the name of the rider. When we
>> add that this grade is certainlly not less than one foot in ten, our
>> readers will appreciate the significance of this statement, with
>> reference to the overcoming of steep grades. The rider ascended the
>> entire grade, certainly not much less than three hundred yards in
>> length using the flagged sidewalk as a way."
>>
>>
>> http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fscia%2Fscia1020%2F&tif=00271.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABF2204-1020-19
>>
>> A 300-yard 10% grade struck me as impressive for a velocipede, even
>> allowing for the dubious "certainly not less than" and "certainly not
>> much less than" phrases.
>>
>> The velocipedes of that era were just the primitive bicycles that
>> preceded highwheelers. They used the same direct pedals fixed to the
>> front wheel, with no gearing:
>>
>
>limiting factor would probably be the less than ideal traction of a
>lightly loaded driven frontwheel shod with a slippery steel hoop

Dear Marten,

Actually, the front wheel of a typical velocipede has more weight than
you might expect:


http://books.google.com/books?id=2D3GrbB131cC&printsec=frontcover#PPA9,M1

Remember, the rider (shorter back then than today) sat far enough
forward to reach a normal-size crank attached to the front axle of a
~36 inch wheel, meaning his feet ended up a crank-length ahead of the
axle and his knees at the steering tube.

The picture makes it easy to see the dead-end evolutionary path from
the velocipede to the highwheeler. You just keep increasing the front
wheel for higher gearing and reducing the rear wheel to save weight,
since handling was too primitive to matter much.

Once the safety bicycle revived the two-small-wheels idea, the wheels
reverted to around 30 to 36 inches and then slowly evolved down to our
smaller modern wheels, but the early safeties were still ridiculously
tall compared to post-1900 bikes:

These fellows were probably not as short as they look:


http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/regviews/pneumatic15v.jpg


http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/regviews/pneumatic5v.jpg


http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/regviews/pneumatic28v.jpg


http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/regviews/pneumatic9v.jpg


http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/regviews/pneumatic26v.jpg

http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/free-1f.jpg

http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/free-f.jpg

Look at the front tire on the right--it's so big that the other three
riders look as if they're riding Moultons:

http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/sawd-f.jpg

The guy below may be cheating a little (his rear tire is rolled up the
concrete), but look at the space between his rear tire and seat:


http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/regviews/pneumatic3v.jpg

The pose with one elbow resting casually on the seat is quite common,
simply because early safeties often had 32-inch wheels and frames that
Jobst would find tall:


http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/bicycles/Elgar.jpg

That's one reason why they had mounting pegs at the rear axle.

Compare the front tire and fork steering tube on the old safety above
with a modern bike:

http://www.habcycles.com/road.html

The front tire of the Habanero hardly rises above where it passes the
fork.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <aikmm3lprmf8leapvppi28ou9glfffk7vm@4ax.com>,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

> Once the safety bicycle revived the two-small-wheels idea, the wheels
> reverted to around 30 to 36 inches and then slowly evolved down to our
> smaller modern wheels, but the early safeties were still ridiculously
> tall compared to post-1900 bikes:
>
> These fellows were probably not as short as they look:
>
>
> <http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/regviews/pneumatic15
v.jpg>
[...]
> The pose with one elbow resting casually on the seat is quite common,
> simply because early safeties often had 32-inch wheels and frames that
> Jobst would find tall:
>
>
> http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/bicycles/Elgar.jpg
>
> That's one reason why they had mounting pegs at the rear axle.
>
> Compare the front tire and fork steering tube on the old safety above
> with a modern bike:
>
> http://www.habcycles.com/road.html
>
> The front tire of the Habanero hardly rises above where it passes the
> fork.

I'm tryng to do the math on these old bikes: really high bottom brackets?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[James Thomson]

<carlfogel@comcast.net> a écrit:

> http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/bicycles/Elgar.jpg

> Compare the front tire and fork steering tube on the old
> safety above with a modern bike:

> http://www.habcycles.com/road.html

> The front tire of the Habanero hardly rises above where it passes
> the fork.

That's just a function of the slacker head angle and greater fork offset of
Elgar's Sunbeam roadster.

James Thomson

[M-gineering]

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>>> A 300-yard 10% grade struck me as impressive for a velocipede, even
>>> allowing for the dubious "certainly not less than" and "certainly not
>>> much less than" phrases.
>>>
>>> The velocipedes of that era were just the primitive bicycles that
>>> preceded highwheelers. They used the same direct pedals fixed to the
>>> front wheel, with no gearing:
>>>
>> limiting factor would probably be the less than ideal traction of a
>> lightly loaded driven frontwheel shod with a slippery steel hoop
>
> Dear Marten,
>
> Actually, the front wheel of a typical velocipede has more weight than
> you might expect:
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=2D3GrbB131cC&printsec=frontcover#PPA9,M1
>
> Remember, the rider (shorter back then than today) sat far enough
> forward to reach a normal-size crank attached to the front axle of a
> ~36 inch wheel, meaning his feet ended up a crank-length ahead of the
> axle and his knees at the steering tube.

You don't see trains (also with steel shod wheels) climbing steep
grades. Steel wheels have surprisingly litle traction, and you'll need a
smooth pedalling style to prevent slipping and sliding at the top of you
pedal stroke
--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

[Chalo]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> I'm tryng to do the math on these old bikes: really high bottom brackets?

I was already noticing that despite having huge wheels by today's
standards, many of these bikes have negligible hanger drop. Perhaps
before long 29ers will grow level top tubes and we will have closed
the circle.

Chalo

[James Thomson]

"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca> a écrit:

> I'm tryng to do the math on these old bikes: really high bottom brackets?

This one has:

http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/regviews/pneumatic3v.jpg

but it's a track racing bike.

The bottom bracket height on Elgar's Royal Sunbeam roadster isn't
outlandish:

http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/bicycles/Elgar.jpg

The saddle of my modern XC mountain bike with fat tyres and a high-ish
bottom bracket is just above my hip bone when I stand alongside the bike. I
don't have to slouch much more than Elgar did to comfortably lean my elbow
on the saddle.

James Thomson

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:26:52 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca>
wrote:

>In article <aikmm3lprmf8leapvppi28ou9glfffk7vm@4ax.com>,
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Once the safety bicycle revived the two-small-wheels idea, the wheels
>> reverted to around 30 to 36 inches and then slowly evolved down to our
>> smaller modern wheels, but the early safeties were still ridiculously
>> tall compared to post-1900 bikes:
>>
>> These fellows were probably not as short as they look:
>>
>>
>> <http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/regviews/pneumatic15
>v.jpg>
>[...]
>> The pose with one elbow resting casually on the seat is quite common,
>> simply because early safeties often had 32-inch wheels and frames that
>> Jobst would find tall:
>>
>>
>> http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/bicycles/Elgar.jpg
>>
>> That's one reason why they had mounting pegs at the rear axle.
>>
>> Compare the front tire and fork steering tube on the old safety above
>> with a modern bike:
>>
>> http://www.habcycles.com/road.html
>>
>> The front tire of the Habanero hardly rises above where it passes the
>> fork.
>
>I'm tryng to do the math on these old bikes: really high bottom brackets?

Dear Ryan,

The frame and fork geometry are rather different, aren't they? The
chopper-style fork angles and longer wheelbases were the product of
using big wheels with big tires. Gradually, the wheels and tires were
squeezed down and the down tubes came closer and closer to the tires.

The bikes rode fine on much rougher streets than we complain about,
but then they often came with 2-inch tires, heavily sprung seats, and
even suspension.

Pictures like these of famous ~1900 racers make it hard not to giggle
at our modern obsession with fit:


http://www.muzeocollection.co.uk/data/modules/oeuvre/4b/e6/4be682355b131d24-grand-charles-terront-cycliste-anonyme.jpg


http://www.muzeocollection.co.uk/data/modules/oeuvre/cf/f6/cff6dffdb84e3af4-grand-andre-gougoltz-cycliste-anonyme.jpg


http://www.muzeocollection.co.uk/data/modules/oeuvre/12/54/12543de3f08e525b-grand-marius-the-cycliste-barenne-charles-19e.jpg


http://www.muzeocollection.co.uk/data/modules/oeuvre/59/36/5936b701e2ff6153-grand-tom-linton-anonyme-19e-siecle.jpg


http://www.muzeocollection.co.uk/data/modules/oeuvre/42/b5/42b54dab5d783669-grand-zimmermann-anonyme-19e-siecle.jpg

Zimmermann in the last picture, for example, was the top U.S. racer of
his era, but he still looks silly, partly because the tradition was to
pose sitting up.

Imagine the height and length of those bikes if the fork were at
modern angles and the frame still used straight tubes.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<3c5eea04-7e76-4d28-a7ee-48731a47b8e0@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > I'm tryng to do the math on these old bikes: really high bottom brackets?
>
> I was already noticing that despite having huge wheels by today's
> standards, many of these bikes have negligible hanger drop. Perhaps
> before long 29ers will grow level top tubes and we will have closed
> the circle.
>
> Chalo

I think most 29er riders like their crotches too much for that!

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:44:15 +0100, M-gineering
<ikmotgeenspam@m-gineering.nl> wrote:

>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>>> A 300-yard 10% grade struck me as impressive for a velocipede, even
>>>> allowing for the dubious "certainly not less than" and "certainly not
>>>> much less than" phrases.
>>>>
>>>> The velocipedes of that era were just the primitive bicycles that
>>>> preceded highwheelers. They used the same direct pedals fixed to the
>>>> front wheel, with no gearing:
>>>>
>>> limiting factor would probably be the less than ideal traction of a
>>> lightly loaded driven frontwheel shod with a slippery steel hoop
>>
>> Dear Marten,
>>
>> Actually, the front wheel of a typical velocipede has more weight than
>> you might expect:
>>
>>
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=2D3GrbB131cC&printsec=frontcover#PPA9,M1
>>
>> Remember, the rider (shorter back then than today) sat far enough
>> forward to reach a normal-size crank attached to the front axle of a
>> ~36 inch wheel, meaning his feet ended up a crank-length ahead of the
>> axle and his knees at the steering tube.
>
>You don't see trains (also with steel shod wheels) climbing steep
>grades. Steel wheels have surprisingly litle traction, and you'll need a
>smooth pedalling style to prevent slipping and sliding at the top of you
>pedal stroke

Dear Marten,

Forget climbs--a smooth pedalling style was essential just to get
going and avoid falling down on the smooth, level training rinks.

Here's how you learned to ride a velocipede:

"Run beside your iron horse, leading it as it were, with your hand, so
as to familiarize yourself with its movements; this will be an affair
of a few minutes merely. Then commence practicing with it on a slope,
and, after mounting it, let it move forward of its own accord, while
you occupy yourself with studying the effects produced by the
inclination which you give to the balancing pole or handle of the
machine. [The handlebar was sometimes confused with the balancing pole
carried by tightrope walkers.] When you thoroughly understand the
action of this, place one foot on the pedal, and follow the movements
without assisting them. The difficulty with beginners is to restrain
the unnecessary expenditure of muscular force; they ordinarily perform
ten times the labor that is requisite."

"Next repeat the experiment on level ground, having both feet on the
pedals, and working them alternately with scrupulous regularity. Speed
is obtained by simply accelerating this movement."

"After an hour or two's practice, the tyro will be able to accomplish
the distance of thirty or forty yards without running the risk of an
upset. Should the machine incline on one side, all that is necessary
to be done is to remove the foot on the same side from the pedal and
place it on the ground. [Remember, it's a 60-pound fixie with direct
cranks on the front wheel!] This can of course be accomplished when
the velocipede is of a moderate height, which, by the way, is the
proper kind of machine for beginners to make their first essays with."

"To alight, both feet are raised from the pedals at the same instant,
which has the effect of slackening the speed of the machine; the feet
are then placed simultaneously on the ground without the handle being
let go."


http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fscia%2Fscia1019%2F&tif=00376.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABF2204-1019-26

Yes, riders had to be told not to let go of the handlebar when trying
to stop. Unlike modern riders, who can usually make at least a clumsy
stab at riding a velocipede because they've been riding bikes since
they were kids, the beginners back in those days were adults who had
never been on a modern bicycle and consequently had no clue what to
do.

"King of the Road" quotes parts of the same passage from J.T.
Goddard's 1869 "The Velocipede: Its History, Varieties, and Practice"
to explain this picture of fallen beginners littering the wooden floor
of a velocipede training rink:

http://i13.tinypic.com/8fow76w.jpg

People usually learned to ride on velocipede rinks, which were
licensed in some cities, probably for the sake of government revenues,
but ostensibly to protect the public from unnamed hazards:

"In Boston the municipal authorities have recently granted fourteen
licenses for velocipede rinks."


http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fscia%2Fscia1020%2F&tif=00255.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABF2204-1020-18

As for traction, you may be right about the steel wheels slipping so
easily (particularly in the wet), but the railroad example involves
smooth steel wheels on smooth steel rails.

Velocipedes tended to batter their wheels into less than polished
perfection and were ridden on dirt, wood, flagstone, flint, and so
forth, which might have provided better traction than steel on steel.

Presumably the more serious MTB velocipede riders resorted to bare
wooden rims for steep climbs.

:-)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Dec 21, 7:26*pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:26:52 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <aikmm3lprmf8leapvppi28ou9glfffk...@4ax.com>,
> > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >> Once the safety bicycle revived the two-small-wheels idea, the wheels
> >> reverted to around 30 to 36 inches and then slowly evolved down to our
> >> smaller modern wheels, but the early safeties were still ridiculously
> >> tall compared to post-1900 bikes:
>
> >> These fellows were probably not as short as they look:
>
> >> <http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/regviews/pn....
> >v.jpg>
> >[...]
> >> The pose with one elbow resting casually on the seat is quite common,
> >> simply because early safeties often had 32-inch wheels and frames that
> >> Jobst would find tall:
>
> >>http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/Museum/Transport/bicycles/Elga...
>
> >> That's one reason why they had mounting pegs at the rear axle.
>
> >> Compare the front tire and fork steering tube on the old safety above
> >> with a modern bike:
>
> >> *http://www.habcycles.com/road.html
>
> >> The front tire of the Habanero hardly rises above where it passes the
> >> fork.
>
> >I'm tryng to do the math on these old bikes: really high bottom brackets?
>
> Dear Ryan,
>
> The frame and fork geometry are rather different, aren't they? The
> chopper-style fork angles and longer wheelbases were the product of
> using big wheels with big tires. Gradually, the wheels and tires were
> squeezed down and the down tubes came closer and closer to the tires.
>
> The bikes rode fine on much rougher streets than we complain about,
> but then they often came with 2-inch tires, heavily sprung seats, and
> even suspension.
>
> Pictures like these of famous ~1900 racers make it hard not to giggle
> at our modern obsession with fit:
>
> http://www.muzeocollection.co.uk/data/modules/oeuvre/4b/e6/4be682355b...
>
> http://www.muzeocollection.co.uk/data/modules/oeuvre/cf/f6/cff6dffdb8...
>
> http://www.muzeocollection.co.uk/data/modules/oeuvre/12/54/12543de3f0...
>
> http://www.muzeocollection.co.uk/data/modules/oeuvre/59/36/5936b701e2...
>
> http://www.muzeocollection.co.uk/data/modules/oeuvre/42/b5/42b54dab5d...
>
> Zimmermann in the last picture, for example, was the top U.S. racer of
> his era, but he still looks silly, partly because the tradition was to
> pose sitting up.
>
> Imagine the height and length of those bikes if the fork were at
> modern angles and the frame still used straight tubes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

I'm starting to contemplate a bowler and a handle-bar! With a 65cm
framed fixed gear bike, I'll be styling!

Joseph

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:52:36 -0800 (PST),
"joseph.santaniello@gmail.com" <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm starting to contemplate a bowler and a handle-bar! With a 65cm
>framed fixed gear bike, I'll be styling!
>
>Joseph

Dear Joseph,

Here's your sartorial model:


http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10327510&wwwflag=2&imagepos=6

Charles Rolls (of motor-car fame), as outfitted by Jeeves for a ride
around the park with bowler, tie, high collar, folded hanky, starched
cuffs, and polished shoes.

Note the _double_ seatstay bridges and monster high-speed chainwheel
(180 inch gearing).

And that's no simple spoon brake, heavens no!

It's an early caliper brake, whose pads (on pivots) press kinda-sorta
upward against the rim, like some of these from "The Data Book":

http://i2.tinypic.com/6pq4mkw.jpg

High-tech and high fashion!

(I've never found any explanation for what the hell Royce was doing,
posing on that motor-paced beast.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[M-gineering]

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>
> http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10327510&wwwflag=2&imagepos=6
>
> Charles Rolls (of motor-car fame), as outfitted by Jeeves for a ride
> around the park with bowler, tie, high collar, folded hanky, starched
> cuffs, and polished shoes.
>
> Note the _double_ seatstay bridges and monster high-speed chainwheel
> (180 inch gearing).
>
> And that's no simple spoon brake, heavens no!
>
> It's an early caliper brake, whose pads (on pivots) press kinda-sorta
> upward against the rim, like some of these from "The Data Book":
>
> http://i2.tinypic.com/6pq4mkw.jpg
>
> High-tech and high fashion!
>
> (I've never found any explanation for what the hell Royce was doing,
> posing on that motor-paced beast.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Appearently British cyclist can't get done for speeding, but could be
booked for 'pedalling furiously' The big ring probably exploits this
loophole
--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Dec 22, 12:12*am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:52:36 -0800 (PST),
>
> "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com" <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm starting to contemplate a bowler and a handle-bar! With a 65cm
> >framed fixed gear bike, I'll be styling!
>
> >Joseph
>
> Dear Joseph,
>
> Here's your sartorial model:
>
> http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10327510&wwwflag...
>
> Charles Rolls (of motor-car fame), as outfitted by Jeeves for a ride
> around the park with bowler, tie, high collar, folded hanky, starched
> cuffs, and polished shoes.
>
> Note the _double_ seatstay bridges and monster high-speed chainwheel
> (180 inch gearing).
>
> And that's no simple spoon brake, heavens no!
>
> It's an early caliper brake, whose pads (on pivots) press kinda-sorta
> upward against the rim, like some of these from "The Data Book":
>
> *http://i2.tinypic.com/6pq4mkw.jpg
>
> High-tech and high fashion!
>
> (I've never found any explanation for what the hell Royce was doing,
> posing on that motor-paced beast.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

I've got a bike with those uppward squeezing mechanical brakes. It
needs a little TLC, and it's a 3 speed so it's a little too modern for
my tastes. I am more enamoured of those early racer types.

I can't find a bowler online in a larger size for less than 60 GBP, so
this whim may need some further consideration. The handle-bar is in
the works.

Joseph

[Ben C]

On 2007-12-21, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
> http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10327510&wwwflag=2&imagepos=6
>
> Charles Rolls (of motor-car fame), as outfitted by Jeeves for a ride
> around the park with bowler, tie, high collar, folded hanky, starched
> cuffs, and polished shoes.
>
> Note the _double_ seatstay bridges and monster high-speed chainwheel
> (180 inch gearing).
>
> And that's no simple spoon brake, heavens no!
>
> It's an early caliper brake, whose pads (on pivots) press kinda-sorta
> upward against the rim, like some of these from "The Data Book":
>
> http://i2.tinypic.com/6pq4mkw.jpg
>
> High-tech and high fashion!

[...]

They look like a good solution to the wheel ejection problem.

[James Thomson]

<carlfogel@comcast.net> a écrit:

> http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10327510&wwwflag=2&imagepos=6

> Note the _double_ seatstay bridges

> And that's no simple spoon brake, heavens no!
>
> It's an early caliper brake, whose pads (on pivots) press kinda-sorta
> upward against the rim, like some of these from "The Data Book":
>
> http://i2.tinypic.com/6pq4mkw.jpg

Don't they have stirrup brakes in Colorado?

I think your "double seatstay bridges" are just the rear brake stirrup and
the clamp-on bridge on which the stop for the newfangled Bowden cable is
mounted. Compare the second picture on the top row of the "Data Book" page
above.

James Thomson

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:33:31 +0100, "James Thomson"
<yosnappyj@hotmail.com> wrote:

><carlfogel@comcast.net> a écrit:
>
>> http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10327510&wwwflag=2&imagepos=6
>
>> Note the _double_ seatstay bridges
>
>> And that's no simple spoon brake, heavens no!
>>
>> It's an early caliper brake, whose pads (on pivots) press kinda-sorta
>> upward against the rim, like some of these from "The Data Book":
>>
>> http://i2.tinypic.com/6pq4mkw.jpg
>
>Don't they have stirrup brakes in Colorado?
>
>I think your "double seatstay bridges" are just the rear brake stirrup and
>the clamp-on bridge on which the stop for the newfangled Bowden cable is
>mounted. Compare the second picture on the top row of the "Data Book" page
>above.
>
>James Thomson

Dear James,

You're right--now that I look, I can just see a rear brake cable.

'Round these parts, a stirrup brake is just the high heel on a cowboy
boot, whose pointy toe makes it easy to get your foot in the stirrup,
but sometimes a little too easy.

Not that you want to go asking them fellers if'n they borrowed their
pointy-toed, high-heeled boots from their wives, 'specially not if
you're wearing spandex shorts, a shirt that the painter used for a
drop-cloth, and gloves with the fingers forgot.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel