JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Archives


CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Archives

CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Archives


CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Home

CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY Home

CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY  November 2012

CYCLING-AND-SOCIETY November 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Nineteenth Century Bicycle Evolution[Scanned-Clean]

From:

Alan Munro <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:55:35 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (281 lines)

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.
>>> 		 	   		  
> 
> 
> 
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager