Sorry, but I'd argue that the recumbent, whilst an interesting and fun
niche, fails in quite a number of areas relative to the safety bike:

a)  inefficient use of human physiology;

b)  poor hill climbing;

c)  poor and inflexible load carrying;

d)  (and as a consequence) poor weight distribution when loaded;

c)  and the aerodynamic efficiencies claimed are mostly a consequence of the
reduction of frontal area, which is in fact a geometric effect, rather than
down to aerodynamic efficiency (though there is some efficiency gains if a
streamline body is used).

Having spent a lot of years riding a recumbent tricycle, mostly touring
(including across America) and around London and the South East, any real
market penetration would be limited to countries with a predominantly flat
topography and leisure markets where load carrying capability is not
required.

Cheers

John Meudell
C.Eng, MIMechE



-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Munro
Sent: 18 November 2012 11:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Nineteenth Century Bicycle Evolution[Scanned-Clean]

Yes, the recumbent issue is a good case in point. IMHO, I think you've hit
the nail on the head, Gary. 

Recumbents in some ways do seem a viable technology. I wonder if visibility
is a factor, or simply that if they are not universally available, they
won't attract a universal usership (and I realise this is a chicken-and-egg
situation). Without this, you don't get wide sale points, or maintenence, or
see many using them to be encouraged to use them. The same is true in some
ways of computer operating systems. Nothing succeeds like success. Once an
operating system gets a certain share of the market, it becomes a
warrantable question to ask why one would Not use that. This was true of
Unix in research labs for quite a long time, then Microsoft Windows. Now
we're in interesting territory with IOS and Android. But all those run on
infrastructure built on various flavours of UNIX. 
(Apologies if this gets too geeky. Sorry.)

alan

On 18 Nov 2012, at 08:07, gary cummins wrote:

> This is a fascinating discussion, and to  some extent brings us around to
the discussion that goes on in recumbent groups, why are we still using the
safety bicycle?
> 
> On this subject a lot will argue that its because of the infamous UCI
regulations, and the influence that organisation exerts through bike racing.
> 
> (This itself comes back to Andrew's point about the legal, political etc
frameworks of the time)
> 
> Others argue that we still ride safety bike because we have ridden horses
for years, and humans like being upright!
> 
> Others argue that recumbents are dangerous and hard to see (from a car
presumably) which brings us right back to external influences from the
existing of legal regulation environment.
> 
> In all fascinating stuff, but where you pin things down and begin and end?
> 
> Gary Cummins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:49:31 +0000
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Nineteenth Century Bicycle Evolution[Scanned-Clean]
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> Hi Andrew,
>> I'd just add that the benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing. Take any
object in your house or garage or garden shed - how would you think it might
develop? Nicholas is quite right here - evolution in this sense is very much
an analogical thing. We might say the evolution of technology is Lamarckian
as we do actually learn and put that into the 'evolution'.
>> 
>> Things are never straightforward and neither is their 'evolution'. The
weapons used by US troops in Vietnam were the best for the job as regarded
by army proving grounds. Unfortunately, the proving grounds looked for
accuracy in a long distance and were in quite dry conditions. Meanwhile the
North Vietnamese had AK 47s which could generally hit a barn door if you
aimed and hoped. However the AK 47 was the better weapon, in that it could
be dropped, waterlogged but fired. The M 16 could misfire - a lot - to do
with the type of bullets it used and its sensitivity to humidity. Rather a
factor in Vietnam. Then because it was so accurate, its stopping power was
less - the Kalashnikov was so inaccurate because its bullets wobbled. But
because they wobbled they made for greater 'stopping power' i.e. a big hole.
In a jungle you want something to work, all the time. And in close range.
You never need to shoot long distances accurately, or at least, if you do,
you're not involved in jungle warfare.
>> 
>> My point with this somewhat arcane example is different things might
work, but it really depends on the circumstances in which they were used,
economic conditions. and all sorts of other variables. I've worked a lot in
technology and specifically Human-Computer Interaction. The development of
mobile phone technology in Europe, and the rise of Ericsson and Nokia to be
world players, was very dependent on the EU pushing forward a unitary GSM
standard for mobile telecommunications.
>> 
>> It's not enough to think of the artefact in isolation. Small and
seemingly insignificant factors from your perspective may have been deciding
factors. For example I think it is Levi Strauss who talks about the very
liberating aspect of the plastic water container in Africa. Before this,
there would be clay pots used, which were quite valuable. However with the
plastic water container, women could wait at the well, and leave the water
containers in the queue and go and do other things. If they are stolen it is
no great calamity. In a way it was revolutionary in women's lives.
>> 
>> I myself worked a bit in the internet, web and early mobile
communications. I remember using a Nokia Communicator in 1997 from Finland
to telnet (an old protocol) into my account in the computing lab in the UK.
I remember thinking that this was revolutionary. I also remember myself and
my colleagues just trying to imagine what these devices would do if combined
with locational information and sensory abilities. I organised workshops at
that time in that kind of theme. We still have not seen the full
ramifications of this technology.
>> 
>> My punchline - it's easy to ironicise the lack of, or wrong develpment;
you are always looking with the benefit of hindsight. Also, the
strongest/best technology does not always come to the fore - such as with
the M 16. As well as technological developments, you have to consider the
political/legal/logistical/(your factor inserted here) framework in which
these things are developed and which might shape them as much as
technological concerns.
>> 
>> But anyway you raise very interesting questions so good luck solving this
conundrum!
>> 
>> alan munro
>> 
>> On 18 Nov 2012, at 01:03, Oddy, Nicholas wrote:
>> 
>>> Interesting topic, but the development of the safety seems a bit
irrelevant to it and is such a huge and controversial one I'd recommend
avoiding it unless you want to make it the subject in its own right. Chain
technology was pretty primitive even in the early 1880s and most makers
thought in terms of levers. If you discount the likely fraud of the
Meyer-Guilmet machine of 1908, which is claimed to be 1870, all the rear
wheel drive velocipede bicycles of that period (and there were a fair
number), used levers. The drive was heavy and inefficient. The wooden (or
metal) spoked compression wheel begins to lose efficiency above about 36
inches because of its weight and structure. The high bicycle, on the other
hand, exploits the technology of wire wheels to their best advantage given a
male market whose primary interest was speed. The tension wire wheel's
origins have been very much forgotten in most histories, but it was the
invention of Meyer in 1879 who almost immediately realised its potential to
increase speed through its size using the direct drive of the velocipede
bicycle, thus the wire wheel and direct drive were bedfellows. Meyer high
bicycles were first raced in early 1870 and by the middle of the year the
velocipede bicycle was run off the track. With solid tyre technology the
wire wheel performs better the larger it is and direct drive has the least
number of points of friction at a time of pain bearings. This made the
machine faster than any other. Moreover the high riding position and need to
'master' the machine were very attractive to the particular market bicycles
enjoyed. Harry Lawson did produce a chain drive to rear wheel safety in
1879, following his earlier lever drive version. Both failed to make any
impression on the market, as would any other 'safety' design that could not
guarantee higher speeds than the high bicycle. Even when Starley introduced
the Rover, its success was touch and go, relying on very rapid early
improvements coupled with thoughtful marketing, in particular staged races
between Rovers and high machines. The Rover and its ilk were in fact no
faster and considerably less responsive than high machines in normal use,
but by putting gorillas on them they could be geared higher and run faster.
Where the difference came was in the application of the pneumatic tyre, this
works best on wheel sizes in the c26-28 inch region, while its effects are
less marked on larger wheels; moreover it was expensive and was most
economically made in smaller, standardised sizes. Once the pneumatic was
established after 1888, the high machine was doomed. Inspite of its less
manly riding position, the pneumatic rear-drive safety went a lot faster,
even in normal conditions. All a part of a complex mix of social and
technological determinants and certainly nothing to do with evoloution.
Bicycles are the product of human agency, every part of them a product of
conscious thought. Evoloution is a natural process in which conscious
thought plays no part.
>>> 
>>> Nicholas Oddy
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> 
>>> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of
Andrew Wager
>>> Sent: Sat 17/11/2012 22:57
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Nineteenth Century Bicycle Evolution[Scanned-Clean]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm doing postgraduate research at University of Leicester and am
interested in the development of cycling as a leisure activity among the
working classes in the late nineteenth century. I'm trying to understand why
it took so long to develop the "safety bicycle". This appeared on the scene,
probably in the Stanley show in 1885. There were a number of evolutions
culminating in the "ordinary" which preceded the "safety bicycle". With
hindsight, this latter seems a trivial engineering exercise. All the
technology was well in place before the 1880s - spoked wheels, chain drive,
etc. It is difficult to understand why all this was not in place many
decades before. There has been some recent research in understanding a
workable model that represents the stability of a bicycle, and this seems to
imply that the evolutionary development of the bicycle was not trivial. This
may explain why it took so long to get from the "hobbyhorse" to the "safety
bicycle". I'd be very interested to discuss this matter with anyone who has
a view on the subject.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For the latest news, information and events, follow The Glasgow School
of Art on line at www.gsa.ac.uk and on Facebook.com/glasgowschoolofart or
join the conversation @Twitter.com/gsofa
>>> 
>>> 
>>> he Glasgow School of Art is a charity registered in Scotland, charity
number SC012490.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain
confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please
send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use,
copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any
attachment.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Any views, opinions or conclusions expressed by an individual in this
e-mail do not necessarily reflect the views of The Glasgow School of Art.
Since it has been transmitted over a public network, The Glasgow School of
Art makes no representation nor accepts any liability for the e-mail's
accuracy or completeness unless expressly stated to the contrary.
>