Did the Victorians know more about bicycle design?

[GrahamJohnWallace]

Those who know about cycling history and design often say that nothing is completely new.
However, today's marketing people like to tell us that everything is new and ground breaking.

One piece of modern marketing wisdom is that a bicycle with a low bottom bracket is more stable than one with a high bottom bracket. This is repeated on nearly every modern manufacturer's website and riders are even advised that it is worth using shorter cranks to obtain this additional stability.

The Victorians knew a thing or two about bicycle stability. They used to ride high-riders like this...

And whilst having so much weight over the steering wheel gave good control, it also made it very easy to take 'a header' over the handle-bars. These bikes were also large and cumbersome.

So in 1885, John Kemp Starley produced the worlds first commercially successful safety bicycle.


So lower centre of gravity and higher stability. Job Done! ?

Well not so. Riders used to riding taller bikes tried the new safety bicycles and complained about a loss of steadiness in steering and loss off lateral (side to side) stability.
In response John Kemp Starley designed this, his 'Giraffe' safety bicycle...


It seems that the Victorian's had a great deal of experience in riding tall bicycles. Back then, knowing that they are easier to balance was common knowledge.
Are modern designers making a mistake simply because they lack the Victorian's first hand experience? Or are they getting confused between lateral stability (side to side balance), and longitudinal stability (stability under braking and acceleration forces)?

 

[M-Power]

Re:

As a lover of these Victorian masterpieces, I have a huge amount of respect for their ingenuity. They pretty much covered all the design bases we still ride today. Bicycle design is littered with evolutionary dead ends often driven by a marketing monster powerhouse of fake science and engineering benefits.

 

[epicyclo]

One advantage of a high bike back then was it put you on a par for height with horse riders.

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

One advantage of a high bike back then was it put you on a par for height with horse riders.

Apparently, one of the reasons that the Victorians liked high bicycles is because could see over their neighbours hedges.
I have ridden a high bicycle in London traffic, and you do get a great view over the cars and smaller vans around you and it's easier to glance behind you to see what's happening. It's similar to walking only you're higher up and your moving faster.

One disadvantage is that because I can't touch the ground when in the saddle, I have to dismount whilst waiting for traffic lights or at junctions. I'm not that good at doing track stands for very long.

 

[Woz]

Re:

Personally think they did not get it right. A bike back then was a novelty for the rich.

Probably more to do with a gentleman high class fashion statement, socially acceptable stance, and equally trying to appeal to a penny farthing rider to part with their money.

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

Re: Re:

As a lover of these Victorian masterpieces, I have a huge amount of respect for their ingenuity. They pretty much covered all the design bases we still ride today. Bicycle design is littered with evolutionary dead ends often driven by a marketing monster powerhouse of fake science and engineering benefits.

There is indeed a lot of fake science used in bicycle marketing. I find it annoying, but it is so difficult to call this out as you have to give a lecture explaining the real science first.

It's very difficult when so many people do not know the first principals. I blame the education system!

In this instance the Victorians did not need to understand the physics involved. They simply rode tall bikes, then short ones, took for granted the difference they experienced, and mostly felt no need to know why.

These days we have the choice of thousands of superficially different bicycle designs, most of which are fundamentally the same. Due to this homogeneity, modern riders seldom get the chance to experience this kind of difference for themselves.

 

[Nob]

Re: Re:

Personally think they did not get it right. A bike back then was a novelty for the rich.

Probably more to do with a gentleman high class fashion statement, socially acceptable stance, and equally trying to appeal to a penny farthing rider to part with their money.

Zipp are full of fake science & bullshit just to sell there wheels......

 

[M-Power]

Re:

Cant help it but watching this chap in London traffic gives me palpitations

https://youtu.be/T_QyTnGPmEc


@Woz Like many emerging technologies eg TV, bikes were crazy expensive at first, so were cars until the 1930s, until mass production made them more affordable for the masses. Nothing has changed today.

 

[greencat]

Victorian entrepreneurs were just as full of it as today's marketers. Possibly even more so. Some had no qualms selling stuff that was known to be dangerous and there was little regulation to stop them.

I was chatting to my mates the other day and I realised I have had more mountain bikes than any of them (around two dozen of them - from the 80s to present day). Most bikes have felt too big or too small - although I've appreciated the length and stability of the big ones (long arms and long feet) - I was too high up. Smaller frames had an agility I liked (especially with the shorter stems now available) but were horribly cramped from a pedalling perspective.

My favourite rides have been a Dawes Ranger and a 2016 Whyte 905. Both long bikes for their small frame sizes, but with the ability to set them up to accommodate my awkward size. I thank goodness for modern geometry personally.

 

[legrandefromage]

1898's geometry change really brought the trails alive

Sir Stanley Whittle, V&A Gentleman's Bicycling Quarterly