That's kind of what I'm saying. Often the actual performance of the technology is a side factor to other issues. There were for many years gas-powered fridges. However electric fridges pretty much won out totally because of some particular commercial reasons. The recumbent as a technology may be a victim of circumstances far away from its performance. I don't know enough about the specifics of recumbents versus safety cycles. However I know a fair bit about the sociology and history of technology and bike development (sorry, human powered vehicle development) sounds very interesting from this perspective.
alan
On 18 Nov 2012, at 14:00, Richard Ballantine wrote:
> Horsefeathers.
>
> There's a difference between a bike and a trike.
>
> My Rat9 recumbent bike carries luggage, potatoes, or whatever with ease -- one only has to flip the seat cover forward, chuck the goods in, and go. No need for bungee cords, and waterproof, too. The Rat9 is more comfortable than a regular bike, hence well-suited to long journeys and touring. It climbs hills just fine, and is faster than a regular bike.
>
> Go down on a Rat9 and you collect a little road rash. Go down on a 'safety' bike and you may break bones, quite possibly in a complex manner.
>
> Recumbent trikes are not about load-carrying. They're either for staid oldsters and people with balance problems, or for those who relish agile performance and running at the edge – which is why riders of high performance trikes commonly sport big grins.
>
> Just as no one would use an upright trike as a benchmark for 'safety' bikes, one should not equate recumbent with trike. In fact, in HPV racing, multi-track and bike are separate classes.
>
> Richard Ballantine, Chair
> British Human Power Club
> http://www.bhpc.org.uk
> World Human Powered Vehicle Association
> http://www.whpva.org
>
>
> On 18 Nov 2012, at 11:40, John Meudell wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>
>
>
>
|