|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
scans from bike book
An older book arrived yesterday, Arthur Judson Palmer's "Riding High."
Published in 1956, it has over 250 photos and can be found used at www.bookfinder.com. *** A smaller wheel needed gearing, so highwheelers usually turned to weird gearing because the inventors wanted to minimize the dangerous height of the huge front wheel. But this highwheeler went the other way: http://i12.tinypic.com/72udph1.jpg Despite the series of mounting pegs running up the backbone, I can't see how anyone except an exceptional acrobat could get up and rolling on the thing without helpers or a high starting step. *** Weight weenies, eat your hearts out: http://i10.tinypic.com/87m2g3t.jpg Eight pounds fourteen ounces is 4.034 kg. I've seen another reference to this lightweight wonder, but can't find it. *** Speaking of lightweight racing bikes . . . http://i7.tinypic.com/6xv3j4g.jpg Two-and-a-half minutes for a mile works out to 24.0 mph. I can't tell if the tiny black marks are tied-and-soldered spoke crossings, but that's what they look like. *** This nice page shows the original remote-steering 1884 Starley safety, the much more popular 1885 "modern" version, and Starley's later inexplicable shift in 1887 to a wire-truss cross-frame that shows how erratic a genius can be: http://i5.tinypic.com/7331vlh.jpg Yes, it was called the Psycho. No, Starley didn't have the Hitchcock film and modern meaning in mind. Probably he had the innocent meaning of "mind" that would have clearer as "Psyche." But the dark posters for the Psycho might have pleased Hitchcock: http://www.wonderfulitems.com/brasil623.jpg *** Speaking of weird frames . . . http://i19.tinypic.com/8gjdvsz.jpg The 1890s marketing department probably claimed that the racquette had a large sweet spot. The 1890s RBT probably pointed out that the sweet spot was located in thin air. *** That leads us to weird fairings . . . http://i6.tinypic.com/6tepwyt.jpg Look closely because the contrast is faint. What look like two umbrella sections on either side of the front wheel are reducing wind drag, protecting the rider's modesty, and making the Batmobile's heart beat faster. *** Time for more highwheeler antics, specifically a how-to-mount and (more importantly) how-to-fall manual. The how-to-fall directions are at the lower right and continue to the next page, where the picture is worth a thousand words: http://i6.tinypic.com/6k8za84.jpg http://i6.tinypic.com/6kqj3f6.jpg As he toppled over sideways, the rider whipped one leg around the steering rod (what we'd call the steering tube) and wrestled his dangerous mount to the ground. It probably didn't work at any reasonable speed, but it may have appealed to cowboys used to bull-dogging steers in rodeos. *** Multiple-use paths? Bah! In 1900, Pasadena and Los Angles were to be connected by an elevated wooden track dedicated to bicycles (and the handful of pitiful motorcycles then available): http://i13.tinypic.com/6jg2654.jpg http://i8.tinypic.com/8ebkz8k.jpg Alas, what actually happened wasn't quite as grand as the book claims: "Pasadena Cycleway: The world's first elevated cycleway, which was slated to run nine miles between Pasadena and downtown Los Angeles. The wooden construction was to have two six foot wide lanes, and a maximum grade of 3%, made possible with elevations of three to 50 feet off the ground. Incandescent lighting was going to be placed every 50 feet. For a ten cent toll, riders were to be permitted to stay on the cycleway all day, and have access to a 100 acre park." "The economics looked very good at the time of planning, and by 1900, a single lane was built that went two miles out of Pasadena. At that time, however, the Southern Pacific Railroad, fearing competition, got an injunction issued against construction of a bridge over their railroad. In the meantime, interest in cycling began to wind down with the growing popularity of the automobile, and the cycleway eventually failed and was torn down by the city of Pasadena." http://oklahomabicyclesociety.com/thisthat.htm *** Two portraits caught my eye. I'd never seen this picture that shows Mile-a-Minute Murphy's solution to the choking dust and train cinders as he pedaled behind the train: http://i7.tinypic.com/8a30k6g.jpg And here's what the Bill Gates of 1900 rode, the best bicycle that money could buy: http://i17.tinypic.com/6ujx4pv.jpg That's John D. Rockefeller, smiling and posing next to his shaft-drive bicycle, presumably confident that the silly contraption would never cut into Standard Oil's profits. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
Ads |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
scans from bike book
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:06:30 -0600, A Muzi
wrote: wrote: An older book arrived yesterday, Arthur Judson Palmer's "Riding High." Published in 1956, it has over 250 photos and can be found used at www.bookfinder.com. -snip- Weight weenies, eat your hearts out: http://i10.tinypic.com/87m2g3t.jpg Eight pounds fourteen ounces is 4.034 kg. I've seen another reference to this lightweight wonder, but can't find it. -snip- Could there be a misunderstanding someplace? Looks like a reasonably 8-9 pound frameset in carbon steel tube. For a complete bike of that style, with steel bars and crank, wide tires, carbon steel frame, under nine pounds seems improbable. Dear Andrew, There might be, but I remember seeing the same claim elsewhere. I couldn't track it down, but now you've motivated me. First half-remembered find, not the one I'm after, but at least hinting of weirdness: "Among the freaks at shown [at the 1896 cycle show at Madison Square Gardens, not the 1895] was one at the Worcester Cycle Company's booth. It is a regulation pattern bicycle and is ticketed as weighing seven pounds. The visitor is invited to lift it. He then finds that it weighs about 100 pounds instead of seven. Its weight is obtained by filling the entire frame and forks with lead." http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...CF&oref=slogin So far, no luck finding the original half-remembered article. If true and made of steel, what made it possible was extremely small diameter tubing, not easy to see in the drawing. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
scans from bike book
On Dec 6, 2:21 am, wrote:
An older book arrived yesterday, Arthur Judson Palmer's "Riding High." Published in 1956, it has over 250 photos and can be found used atwww.bookfinder.com. *** A smaller wheel needed gearing, so highwheelers usually turned to weird gearing because the inventors wanted to minimize the dangerous height of the huge front wheel. But this highwheeler went the other way: http://i12.tinypic.com/72udph1.jpg Despite the series of mounting pegs running up the backbone, I can't see how anyone except an exceptional acrobat could get up and rolling on the thing without helpers or a high starting step. I rode a pennyfarthing once in a parade. It came from the museum at Oudtshoorn in South Africa. I don't remember the maker -- if indeed anyone knew. The front wheel might have been four feet high because the pedals drove the centre of the wheel directly and a six footer has an inner leg measurement of around 30 inches. As a teenager the pedals were a bit of a stretch for me. Mounting was by being boosted onto the crossbars of a rugby goal and hanging there while the bike was wheeled under me. I then pedalled out and joined the parade already in motion, being unable to dismount until I reached the showgrounds, where bales of hay had been prearranged for dismounting. There was a step on it, just above the small rear wheel, but the contortion required to reach it was always more destabilizing than any speed one could get up to on the level. At the dress rehearsal, dressed in loud check pants and a striped jacket also from the museum, trying for a dignified but dashing dismount, I fell and damaged the clothing; even if I had the instructions, further down in your post, for dismounting, I would merely have split the trousers at the seams rather than at the knee (1). People those days either wore very tight clothes (the opinion of one my editors, who of course is an expert, having published a series of books on fashion through the ages) or were smaller than we are now, the statistical/demographic/historical theory I hold to. The penny- farthing was the devil's invention! Also further down, I'm amazed at how modern Mile-a-Minute Murphy's bike is, and at Rockefeller's shaft drive bike: you think he imported it from Denmark? Andre Jute http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html (1) It might have been easier to go forward over the handlebars and roll over your forearm, something like a breakfall in the martial arts. I was reminded of this recently when, to avoid a motorist speeding through a stop sign at a multiway junction, I went up the wheelchair access to a pavement (sidewalk to the Americans), clipped the angled part and was sent into the air, bike and all. The front wheel stuck momentarily in a palings fence, and then bike and I went over, ten or twelve feet into the air. My judo came back to me from decades ago and I rolled over my forearm, mainly to protect my new Metro helmet and mirror. This was such a spectacular accident that people came running from stopped cars and a nearby pavement cafe, but my jacket wasn't even scuffed and the only harm done to me was a broken little finger where the bike handle came down on it; several hundred euro of scratched HRM and bike computer and the Flight Deck control, all on the handlebars; fortunately no bent wheel (Keith Bontrager builds them strong!) which might have been a nuisance. The driver got away on the day but I found him a couple of weeks later; he won't be stupid ever again. *** Weight weenies, eat your hearts out: http://i10.tinypic.com/87m2g3t.jpg Eight pounds fourteen ounces is 4.034 kg. I've seen another reference to this lightweight wonder, but can't find it. *** Speaking of lightweight racing bikes . . . http://i7.tinypic.com/6xv3j4g.jpg Two-and-a-half minutes for a mile works out to 24.0 mph. I can't tell if the tiny black marks are tied-and-soldered spoke crossings, but that's what they look like. *** This nice page shows the original remote-steering 1884 Starley safety, the much more popular 1885 "modern" version, and Starley's later inexplicable shift in 1887 to a wire-truss cross-frame that shows how erratic a genius can be: http://i5.tinypic.com/7331vlh.jpg Yes, it was called the Psycho. No, Starley didn't have the Hitchcock film and modern meaning in mind. Probably he had the innocent meaning of "mind" that would have clearer as "Psyche." But the dark posters for the Psycho might have pleased Hitchcock: http://www.wonderfulitems.com/brasil623.jpg *** Speaking of weird frames . . . http://i19.tinypic.com/8gjdvsz.jpg The 1890s marketing department probably claimed that the racquette had a large sweet spot. The 1890s RBT probably pointed out that the sweet spot was located in thin air. *** That leads us to weird fairings . . . http://i6.tinypic.com/6tepwyt.jpg Look closely because the contrast is faint. What look like two umbrella sections on either side of the front wheel are reducing wind drag, protecting the rider's modesty, and making the Batmobile's heart beat faster. *** Time for more highwheeler antics, specifically a how-to-mount and (more importantly) how-to-fall manual. The how-to-fall directions are at the lower right and continue to the next page, where the picture is worth a thousand words: http://i6.tinypic.com/6k8za84.jpg http://i6.tinypic.com/6kqj3f6.jpg As he toppled over sideways, the rider whipped one leg around the steering rod (what we'd call the steering tube) and wrestled his dangerous mount to the ground. It probably didn't work at any reasonable speed, but it may have appealed to cowboys used to bull-dogging steers in rodeos. *** Multiple-use paths? Bah! In 1900, Pasadena and Los Angles were to be connected by an elevated wooden track dedicated to bicycles (and the handful of pitiful motorcycles then available): http://i13.tinypic.com/6jg2654.jpg http://i8.tinypic.com/8ebkz8k.jpg Alas, what actually happened wasn't quite as grand as the book claims: "Pasadena Cycleway: The world's first elevated cycleway, which was slated to run nine miles between Pasadena and downtown Los Angeles. The wooden construction was to have two six foot wide lanes, and a maximum grade of 3%, made possible with elevations of three to 50 feet off the ground. Incandescent lighting was going to be placed every 50 feet. For a ten cent toll, riders were to be permitted to stay on the cycleway all day, and have access to a 100 acre park." "The economics looked very good at the time of planning, and by 1900, a single lane was built that went two miles out of Pasadena. At that time, however, the Southern Pacific Railroad, fearing competition, got an injunction issued against construction of a bridge over their railroad. In the meantime, interest in cycling began to wind down with the growing popularity of the automobile, and the cycleway eventually failed and was torn down by the city of Pasadena." http://oklahomabicyclesociety.com/thisthat.htm *** Two portraits caught my eye. I'd never seen this picture that shows Mile-a-Minute Murphy's solution to the choking dust and train cinders as he pedaled behind the train: http://i7.tinypic.com/8a30k6g.jpg And here's what the Bill Gates of 1900 rode, the best bicycle that money could buy: http://i17.tinypic.com/6ujx4pv.jpg That's John D. Rockefeller, smiling and posing next to his shaft-drive bicycle, presumably confident that the silly contraption would never cut into Standard Oil's profits. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
scans from bike book
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:31:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Also further down, I'm amazed at how modern Mile-a-Minute Murphy's bike is, and at Rockefeller's shaft drive bike: you think he imported it from Denmark? Andre Jute Dear Andre, By 1899, the double-diamond bicycle frame looked pretty much like what we see today. It only took a few years for the safety bicycle to settle down after it appeared in its first commercially successful form in 1885. The changes since then are hard to see except in close-ups. http://i7.tinypic.com/8a30k6g.jpg You can see the moustache bar on Murphy's Tribune bicycle and just make out the bulging end-grips later replaced by handlebar tape. The picture is dark, but you can infer the old-style 7-shaped seat post (like a handlebar stem) with its greater fore-and-aft range of adjustment. The widely spaced teeth on the sprocket on his shirt reminds you that he used inch-pitch chain. The inch-pitch chain slowly faded, wooden rims hung around even longer, forward-facing dropouts appeared, ram's horn handlebars replaced the moustache design, thick oval aluminum cranks replaced thin round steel cranks, frames and wheels became smaller, seat posts and handlebar stems lost some of their adjustment range, cable brakes and derailleurs were added, and so on. But at a distance, one safety bike usually looks like another by 1900 because bizarre things like this had vanished: http://books.google.com/books?id=gFM...CQ#P PA278,M1 or http://tinyurl.com/26463x As for Rockefeller's shaft-drive bike, it's not likely to be an import. It's probably just one of the many Spalding, Pierce, Monarch, Gormully-Jeffries, Stearns, Columbia, and other chainless models that were widely sold in the U.S. circa 1900. They cost a bit more than chain-drive bicycles and practically vanished when the bike boom collapsed. Here are a few examples of the flood of shaft-drive bikes. 1890s Spalding: http://www.nostalgic.net/bicycle399.htm (The May 13 1888 date stamped into the Spalding frame in one picture refers to a patent for some part on the bicycle, not to the date of manufacture. There were huge legal wars over bicycle patents, so absurdly long patent lists were often stamped into the frames. Dunlop patented the pneumatic bicycle tire on December 7, 1888, so we can be sure that this bicycle wasn't built seven months earlier. In fact, there's a good chance that Spalding wasn't even making bicycles in 1888, which illustrates how quickly safety bicycles went from nothing to the bicycle boom that exploded by 1900.) 1895 Stearns: http://www.nostalgic.net/bicycle378.htm 1901 Monarch: http://www.nostalgic.net/bicycle373.htm 1901 Pierce with front and rear suspension: http://www.nostalgic.net/bicycle471.htm 1901 Tribune with wooden rims, 7-shaped seat post, and round steel crank arms visible: http://www.nostalgic.net/pictures/1631.htm 1902 Gormully & Jeffries: http://www.nostalgic.net/bicycle362.htm 1903 two-speed Tribune with front suspension: http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S...ft+drive%2Ejpg Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
scans from bike book
In article ,
wrote: On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:06:30 -0600, A Muzi wrote: wrote: An older book arrived yesterday, Arthur Judson Palmer's "Riding High." Published in 1956, it has over 250 photos and can be found used at www.bookfinder.com. -snip- Weight weenies, eat your hearts out: http://i10.tinypic.com/87m2g3t.jpg Eight pounds fourteen ounces is 4.034 kg. I've seen another reference to this lightweight wonder, but can't find it. -snip- Could there be a misunderstanding someplace? Looks like a reasonably 8-9 pound frameset in carbon steel tube. For a complete bike of that style, with steel bars and crank, wide tires, carbon steel frame, under nine pounds seems improbable. Dear Andrew, There might be, but I remember seeing the same claim elsewhere. I couldn't track it down, but now you've motivated me. First half-remembered find, not the one I'm after, but at least hinting of weirdness: "Among the freaks at shown [at the 1896 cycle show at Madison Square Gardens, not the 1895] was one at the Worcester Cycle Company's booth. It is a regulation pattern bicycle and is ticketed as weighing seven pounds. The visitor is invited to lift it. He then finds that it weighs about 100 pounds instead of seven. Its weight is obtained by filling the entire frame and forks with lead." http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...73BEE33A25755C 2A9679C94679ED7CF&oref=slogin So far, no luck finding the original half-remembered article. If true and made of steel, what made it possible was extremely small diameter tubing, not easy to see in the drawing. Cheers, Carl Fogel Even so, I daresay that reproducing that bike today, using steel, would be nearly impossible, even if you accepted that it would be all but unrideable. My suspicion is that either the quoted weight was a frame weight, or that the usual sort of lying and exaggeration was occurring. If not, then I would like to find out more about any individual who was fearless enough to ride it. Maybe on a board track? -- Ryan Cousineau 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
scans from bike book
wrote:
An older book arrived yesterday, Arthur Judson Palmer's "Riding High." Published in 1956, it has over 250 photos and can be found used at www.bookfinder.com. -snip- Weight weenies, eat your hearts out: http://i10.tinypic.com/87m2g3t.jpg Eight pounds fourteen ounces is 4.034 kg. I've seen another reference to this lightweight wonder, but can't find it. -snip- A Muzi wrote: Could there be a misunderstanding someplace? Looks like a reasonably 8-9 pound frameset in carbon steel tube. For a complete bike of that style, with steel bars and crank, wide tires, carbon steel frame, under nine pounds seems improbable. wrote: There might be, but I remember seeing the same claim elsewhere. I couldn't track it down, but now you've motivated me. First half-remembered find, not the one I'm after, but at least hinting of weirdness: "Among the freaks at shown [at the 1896 cycle show at Madison Square Gardens, not the 1895] was one at the Worcester Cycle Company's booth. It is a regulation pattern bicycle and is ticketed as weighing seven pounds. The visitor is invited to lift it. He then finds that it weighs about 100 pounds instead of seven. Its weight is obtained by filling the entire frame and forks with lead." http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...73BEE33A25755C 2A9679C94679ED7CF&oref=slogin So far, no luck finding the original half-remembered article. If true and made of steel, what made it possible was extremely small diameter tubing, not easy to see in the drawing. Ryan Cousineau wrote: Even so, I daresay that reproducing that bike today, using steel, would be nearly impossible, even if you accepted that it would be all but unrideable. My suspicion is that either the quoted weight was a frame weight, or that the usual sort of lying and exaggeration was occurring. If not, then I would like to find out more about any individual who was fearless enough to ride it. Maybe on a board track? The lightest modern steel frames, using material unavailable a hundred years ago, are about 3 pounds. 9 pounds doesn't leave much room for that forged steel crank, steel bars, wide tires, etc. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
scans from bike book
On Dec 6, 11:31 am, wrote:
I rode a pennyfarthing once in a parade. It came from the museum at Oudtshoorn in South Africa. I don't remember the maker -- if indeed anyone knew. The front wheel might have been four feet high because the pedals drove the centre of the wheel directly and a six footer has an inner leg measurement of around 30 inches. As a teenager the pedals were a bit of a stretch for me. Mounting was by being boosted onto the crossbars of a rugby goal and hanging there while the bike was wheeled under me. I then pedalled out and joined the parade already in motion, being unable to dismount until I reached the showgrounds, where bales of hay had been prearranged for dismounting. There was a step on it, just above the small rear wheel, but the contortion required to reach it was always more destabilizing than any speed one could get up to on the level. My experience has been different. I've ridden penny farthings a few times, and I was always amazed at how easily they balanced, even at sub-walking speeds. This allowed easy mounting, and almost as easy dismounting. To mount, I grabbed the handlebars and put my foot on the step above the rear wheel. (Yes, that was a bit of a stretch, but not much.) A couple scooter-style pushes got the bike moving at 3 or 4 mph, and it was so stable it was no problem to get astride the seat. IIRC, dismounting was a little trickier because my foot had to find that rear step. One owner explained that many riders preferred to hook their legs up over the handlebars, lock the spoon brake and catapult forward, landing on their feet in a sort of trick dismount. - Frank Krygowski |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
scans from bike book
Those high wheelers are still around and making news:
http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/ Jobst Brandt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Park Tools' The Bike Book | Peter | UK | 1 | December 13th 06 09:35 PM |
bike book list! | [email protected] | Techniques | 1 | July 12th 05 01:13 AM |
Scans of the new On One Wheel | tylercox | Unicycling | 106 | July 1st 05 11:01 PM |
interviews wanted for bike book | BKatovsky | General | 1 | February 16th 04 02:46 AM |