Found another part of a Coventry Machinists' Co bike catalogue tonight while working in the loft of our church. The catalogue appears to be from either 1890 or 1891, which would tie in with when the church was built. Funny to think it's been sitting up there undisturbed all those years!
Found another part of a Coventry Machinists' Co bike catalogue tonight while working in the loft of our church. The catalogue appears to be from either 1890 or 1891, which would tie in with when the church was built. Funny to think it's been sitting up there undisturbed all those years!
The first part was found a few weeks ago and narrowly avoided being lost in a bonfire - I'll scan it too, if anyone is interested.
That's brilliant! A bit worrying that up to this, the "side play of the wheels" was a limiting factor in introducing suspension forks...!
I'm sure Sheldon Brown would love to see this as he has pages on his website about old bike designs. Perhaps you could post this to rec.bikes.tech or send an email via his website at http://www.sheldonbrown.com/
Excellent, I presume the spring fits on top of the fork crown in the same style as a cannondale headshok? Thanks for taking the time to scan these in. Steve.
Found another part of a Coventry Machinists' Co bike catalogue tonight while working in the loft of our church. The catalogue appears to be from either 1890 or 1891, which would tie in with when the church was built. Funny to think it's been sitting up there undisturbed all those years!
The first part was found a few weeks ago and narrowly avoided being lost in a bonfire - I'll scan it too, if anyone is interested.
AJ
Prices are interesting given that the average weekly wage at that time was 75p in funny money and in 2004 was just over £500. That puts the suspension forks at around £500 in today's terms.
Excellent, I presume the spring fits on top of the fork crown in the same style as a cannondale headshok? Thanks for taking the time to scan these in. Steve.
As far as I can see, the bottom part of the fork legs swivel forwards and upwards in an arc when hitting a bump, and the spring mounted behind the fork leg (one one or both sides?) is pulled into compression.
Might be wrong though - the picture isn't that clear and >100 years of dust/dirt don't make it any sharper!
The others are great - I would love to see the missing parts.
I'll see if I can find what happened to the other page and I'll scan it if I can find it. It was literally saved from the flames as it were, so suffered a little bit of scorching.
I'd love to know if the whole catalogue is up there or not; so far it's only two sheets we've found on different occasions - I wondered if they perhaps blew out from a cranny they were stuffed into. It's a big place though, and probably no more than a handful of people have ever been up there (it's a long way up!)
"AJ MacLeod" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Found another part of a Coventry Machinists' Co bike catalogue tonight while working in the loft of our church. The catalogue appears to be from either 1890 or 1891, which would tie in with when the church was built. Funny to think it's been sitting up there undisturbed all those years!
Surely these bikes weren't really 20lb lightweights - were they just as innovative with their published weights as the manufacturers of today? I can see that there isn't much by way of drivetrain etc, but still...
That's brilliant! A bit worrying that up to this, the "side play of the wheels" was a limiting factor in introducing suspension forks...!
I imagine all cycling was fairly "exciting" at that time! It's always interesting to see any field of engineering near its beginning - the variety of ideas can be fantastic!
Quoted message said:
I'm sure Sheldon Brown would love to see this as he has pages on his website about old bike designs. Perhaps you could post this to rec.bikes.tech or send an email via his website at http://www.sheldonbrown.com/
Unfortunately my current server doesn't seem to carry that newsgroup, but feel free to repost the links there.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:56:33 +0000, Jeremy Collins wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I'm sure Sheldon Brown would love to see this as he has pages on his website about old bike designs. Perhaps you could post this to rec.bikes.tech or send an email via his website at http://www.sheldonbrown.com/
Unfortunately my current server doesn't seem to carry that newsgroup, but feel free to repost the links there.
AIUI he has regular scans for his name. You have only to utter the word "Sheldon" in a cycling newsgroup and he will see the posting. Jobst Brandt would probably also be interested. He loves pointing out 100 year old implementations of "new" ideas.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:56:33 +0000, Jeremy Collins wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I'm sure Sheldon Brown would love to see this as he has pages on his website about old bike designs. Perhaps you could post this to rec.bikes.tech or send an email via his website at http://www.sheldonbrown.com/
Unfortunately my current server doesn't seem to carry that newsgroup, but feel free to repost the links there.
AIUI he has regular scans for his name. You have only to utter the word "Sheldon" in a cycling newsgroup and he will see the posting.
I have two pictures of an 1890 Raleigh Path Racer with telescopic front suspension on my hard drive. I've uploaded them to a Fotopic gallery here: http://jamesthomson.fotopic.net/c482841.html
Excellent, I presume the spring fits on top of the fork crown in the same style as a cannondale headshok?
The headshok spring is completely inside the head tube. The only thing which sticks out the bottom is a square steerer tube with a rubber gaiter around it. Otherwise you'd not get the same amount of travel. It's square because it moves up and down on roller bearings in the head tube which is 1.5" wide internally.
The Headshok doesn't pretend to be a new idea though I'd guess the implementation is patented in some if not many ways. Moultons had internal head shocks earlier as well as this Raleigh.
Surely these bikes weren't really 20lb lightweights - were they just as innovative with their published weights as the manufacturers of today? I can see that there isn't much by way of drivetrain etc, but still...
Not much in the way of frame either. Most of the weight is probably the saddle!
