Spike on bikes:
> I had a thought while riding the other day. Recumbents have never
> caught on much, but if they had been invented first, I wouldnt
> imagine the now-traditional knd would have caught on . . . .
> [R]ecumbents are safer, faster, and more comfortable.
> Bicycle people, why dont you ride a recumbent?
The story of bikes v. 'bents reveals something of the problems facing
technological innovations. Here's a brief version told from the 'bent point
of view, lifted from the FAQ of the International Human Powered Vehicle
Association <http://www.ihpva.org/FAQ/#around>:
* * *
In 1933 Charles Mochet built a supine recumbent named the "Velocar". Between
the years of 1933 and 1938 pro racer Francois Faure, while riding the
Velocar, set several speed records for both the mile and kilometer. In Paris
on July 7, 1933, Francis Faure broke the 20 year-old hour record of 44.247
km. by going 45.055 km.
Unfortunately Faure's hour record created a controversy amongst the Union
Cycliste Internationale (U.C.I.), the governing body for bicycle races. The
controversy was based on whether the Velocar was a bicycle and whether the
time records were legal. In February 1934, the U.C.I. decided against Faure's
record and banned all recumbents and aerodynamic devices from racing.
That is the reason why recumbents have not gained popularity in the racing
scene, and why they have not been mass produced by bike manufacturers.
* * *
Fuller accounts of the tale relate the ugly roles played by nationalism and
industrial protectionism.
That said, allow me to note that the diamond frame bike exhibits well-evolved
engineering. It's a design tested by time and many iterations to satisfy
pretty stringent criteria. Not for nothing did the Wright brothers run a
bike shop.
T.0. Morrow
http://members.aol.com/t0morrow/TOMpage.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:12 MDT