
The Bicycle: Growing Popularity of the New Vehicle (1874) [pdf] - evilsimon
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B02E6DE1030EF34BC4F53DFB767838F669FDE
======
kayoone
For a year now i drive my bike to and from work in Berlin, about 11km daily. I
got a pretty cheap but decent quality single speed bike. It's light
(aluminium) and fast, perfect daily driver. It's beautiful because of it's
simplicity and efficiency. I am faster than either car or tram over the same
route and on top of that it's healthy and fun. When i can't do it for a couple
of days or even a week because of really bad weather, i start to feel really
guilty and bad :)

~~~
adrianN
As they say, there is no bad weather, only bad clothing (and bad tyres...)

~~~
Htsthbjig
That is what I used to say when I was living in Madrid, with the lower
temperatures in winter being 2-3 degrees under 0(celsius), but sun most of the
year.

But living in Germany was a completely different story in winter going under
30 degrees under 0, 3-4 hours less daylight than in Spain or Portugal, and
cloudy all day.

It is extremely disgusting to breath fast, like you need when in the bike when
the air is so cold. Somebody should invent something for it.

On the other hand, in most of Spain you can't go around in summer with your
bike, but it is great in Germany, Austria or Switzerland.

~~~
lorenzhs
-30°C is an exaggeration. If you don't live in the mountains there are usually a couple of weeks with sub-zero temperatures here; I use a ski mask when it gets really cold. That helps a lot with the cold head winds. I absolutely always ride my bike to work (5km each way) in southern Germany, and I kinda agree with the GP ;)

------
davidw
Bicycles are pretty amazing. They're the most efficient form of human
transportation over a reasonable surface (road or trail that's not too rough).
You can go 100 km on the energy in a plate of pasta that probably costs $2 -if
that - in terms of the ingredients.

------
galago
The two main commuter cyclists in my office have belt-drive bikes, so bicycle
technology hasn't completely ossified. They also have disk brakes, and seeing
how this is wintertime in New England, they're also rocking studded tires. I
don't have this, but I'm a fair-weather cyclist. Its like electric cars--
people don't notice how its been slowly moving forward.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Oh every 10 years you need a new bike, because there're no parts any more for
your old one. It changes pretty fast!

~~~
stinos
Too general, this _highly_ depends on what type/brand/price range of bicycle
you buy. My first 'grown up' cycle is now 23 years old and I can get any parts
I need to service it in the local bike shop.

Thinking of it, it seems that proven parts just keep existing while the crap
gets sorted out during the years. In some subgenres this goes faster and the
process is still heavily ongoing I have the impression - take bmx for
instance: what you can get now for a similar amount of money is lighter but as
strong or stronger and longer lasting.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ok, so you can't get _cost-effective_ parts. Cheaper to buy a new bike, than
keep buying hard-to-find expensive parts.

Anyway, the subject was, how fast bikes change. That's unrelated to how clever
we are at finding old parts - the fact is, new bike parts are invented every
year.

------
dredmorbius
More history and images of the bikes described:
[http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH1999/JSH2603/JS...](http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH1999/JSH2603/JSH2603e.pdf)

------
dexwiz
The article cites a race where the bikes were ~50 and 36 pounds. That sounds
like a lot. Even a cheapo bike from Walmart is half that. But over time, its
going to be the bearings that suck the most energy. I wonder what those were
like compared to today.

~~~
bch
In the late 1980s, early 1990s, sub-30 lbs was the reference for a high-
quality off-road bike. That'd be aluminum alloy rims, steel frames (cro-mo
alloy) and aluminum bars/stems/seat-posts. A principle that applies at all
times (1800's, 1900's, 2000's), is that rotational mass is what kills you;
Roughly, if you can save 1 lb on the wheels, or 1.5 lbs on the frame, save on
the wheels. It's mass that has to be accelerated/decelerated, versus (eg) the
frame, which is 'static'.

Edit: qualify "at all times", "late 80s, early 90s"

~~~
Nutmog
Can you explain the physics of rotating mass savings being more important? The
top of the wheel moves twice as fast as the bike, but the bottom of the wheel
doesn't move at all so don't they balance out? The frame isn't static - you
still have to accelerate it frame along with the wheels when you're speeding
up.

If your route has a lot of uphill, then I'd expect that 1.5:1 ratio to get
closer to 1:1 where the work you do is more fighting gravity than inertia.

~~~
adrianN
It takes energy to make things rotate:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy)

The wheels have a rather large diameter and go pretty quickly. Both diameter
and angular velocity are quadratic terms. You could now do the math to see how
much energy it takes to accelerate a bike to a given speed.

But you're right, going uphill or at steady speed completely changes the
picture.

------
alphabetter
Does anybody who knows the history of cycling know if this is talking about
"high wheel" (penny farthing) bikes or modern bikes with equal sized wheels?
Changes the context rather if they mean high wheel bikes. The reference to
bigger wheels and general suggestions of impracticality makes me think they
might.

The illustration on this piece suggests 1874 is still high wheel bike
territory: [http://www.oldbike.eu/museum/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/1874...](http://www.oldbike.eu/museum/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/1874_The_Graphic.jpg)

~~~
m0nty
As you suggest, "a driving wheel 58 inches in diameter" is a big clue here.
The safety bicycle (basically what we tend to ride nowadays) was invented in
1876, at least the version which became most popular. The so-called "penny
farthing" bikes were often called just "wheels" by their owners, hence "riding
a wheel" and "wheelers". Some modern clubs are still called "Something
Wheelers", e.g. "Bolton Wheelers", presumably because they have a history
going back to the 19th C.

There is a surprising evolution to the bicycle, leading not least to the
invention of the first automobiles. See Carlton Reid's book "Roads Were Not
Made for Cars" for a history of this from both a UK and US perspective.

------
smegel
I wonder what was the technical limitation that prevented bikes being invented
much earlier...unless it was simply that no-one did it. Steel piping?
Lightweight wheels? Affordability?

~~~
ocschwar
Steel for spokes.

Rubber pneumatic tires.

Ball bearings.

Then if you want to get a safety bicycle rather than a penny farthing, you
need a cheap process for bike chains.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Belts work for bike chains. Using those on steam engines.

------
jordache
I have a perfect bike commute from my house to the train station.

however I've found that the bike ride is 1hr longer than driving my car round
trip, each day. That 1hr is time I don't want to loose being at home with
family.

I can ride faster, but I'll by very sweaty when I get to the office.

