CFRP drawbacks

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [email hidden] akaCarlFogel wrote:
>> ...
>> As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.
Tom Sherman wrote:
> However, the Swiss Army used to havebicycles. I recall that Andrew Muzi
> had one in the shop (Yellow Jersey) for sale ca. 1999, when I stopped in
> to purchase a Saris Bones.

A Muzi said:

If you can find the excellent but out of print "Bicyclesin War", nearly
all nations, including USA, usedbicyclesmilitarily from the bicycle's
inception through mechanized warfare in the 1940s. After that, only
isolated cases remained. Notably, communist forces in Indochina used
bicycleseffectively as we tried to interrupt mythical truck convoys.
Other great stories abound. The Swiss, who still have a Roman style
military service system, efficiently patrolled by bike until the program
was discontinued recently.

Quoted message said:

Curse you, another $15 down the drain on out of print bicycle books!
And cursewww.bookfinder.comfor making it so easy!
And ditto for MartinCaidin, who wrote it, and whose books I like.

You'll love the center all-too-brief photo section. Ain't the net grand?
--
Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Andrew

I particularly liked this picture of bicycles being repaired under
artillery fire:

http://i21.tinypic.com/2dh5mh4.jpg

I always enjoy pictures of bicycles being turned upside-down for
easier repair. The explosion puts my goathead problem in its proper
trivial place.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> [email hidden] akaCarlFogel wrote:
>>> ...
>>> As far as I can tell, West Point never had bicycling classes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> However, the Swiss Army used to havebicycles. I recall that Andrew Muzi
>> had one in the shop (Yellow Jersey) for sale ca. 1999, when I stopped in
>> to purchase a Saris Bones.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A Muzi <[email hidden]> wrote:
> If you can find the excellent but out of print "Bicycles in War", nearly
> all nations, including USA, used bicycles militarily from the bicycle's
> inception through mechanized warfare in the 1940s. After that, only
> isolated cases remained. Notably, communist forces in Indochina used
> bicycles effectively as we tried to interrupt mythical truck convoys.
> Other great stories abound. The Swiss, who still have a Roman style
> military service system, efficiently patrolled by bike until the program
> was discontinued recently.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Curse you, another $15 down the drain on out of print bicycle books!
And cursewww.bookfinder.comfor making it so easy!
And ditto for MartinCaidin, who wrote it, and whose books I like.

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

You'll love the center all-too-brief photo section. Ain't the net grand?

Quoted message said:

I particularly liked this picture of bicycles being repaired under
artillery fire:
http://i21.tinypic.com/2dh5mh4.jpg
I always enjoy pictures of bicycles being turned upside-down for
easier repair. The explosion puts my goathead problem in its proper
trivial place.

Any LBS wrench has stories as harrowing I'm sure.
Check out the Viet Cong use of Peugeots!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

I always enjoy pictures of bicycles being turned upside-down for
easier repair.

I'm not sure what people have against it, really. It's not absolutely
necessary, if you have a good hoist or stand, but it's one heck of a lot
quicker and more universally applicable, all you need is a fairly straight
and solid surface soft enough that it doesn't scratch the thing more than
you find acceptable.

My LBS does most of their work on upside down bikes, despite the pulleys
in the ceiling.

Jasper

Jasper Janssen said:

Quoted message said:

I always enjoy pictures of bicycles being turned upside-down for
easier repair.

I'm not sure what people have against it, really. It's not absolutely
necessary, if you have a good hoist or stand, but it's one heck of a lot
quicker and more universally applicable, all you need is a fairly straight
and solid surface soft enough that it doesn't scratch the thing more than
you find acceptable.

My LBS does most of their work on upside down bikes, despite the pulleys
in the ceiling.

I strongly suspect that "Dear Carl" turns his bicycle upside down just
so he can photograph it and then post the picture to annoy Jobst.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:55:16 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:39:23 GMT, Jasper Janssen <[email hidden]>
> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >But as soon as
> >motorcars appear and then start becoming affordable (ie, starting with
> >the
> >T-ford), thebikegets phased out.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> [snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Dear Jasper,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Actually, the U.S.bikeboomof the 1890's faded long before cars
> became widely used. Mass public transportation is usually considered
> the culprit, not the gradual appearance of tinynumbers of extremely
> expensive and unreliable automobiles, which usually required a
> mechanic to drive and maintain.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If you browse around old newspapers and magazines, you'll find regular
> bicycle columns simply vanishing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> A quick count of my links to curious bicycling articles from "Outing"
> magazine, which began as abikemagazine in the 1880's, shows how the
>bikeboomcollapsed:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 1897 20
> 1898 15
> 1899 14
> 1900 5
> 1901 3
> 1902 1

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Searches show that by 1900 bicycles simply lost much of their enormous
> early appeal, many bicycle companies went bankrupt, and sales dropped
> disastrously.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "Colonel Albert Pope and his American Dream Machines" makes the point
> on page 184 with a picture of Teddy Roosevelt as the first American
> president to ride in a car, which looks exactly like an open landau*
> that hasn't been hitched to a team, with the driver up behind the
> passengers, who enjoy the forward view of a landau:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> http://i20.tinypic.com/wjj2ph.jpg

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That was in 1902, after thebikeboomhad already burst. Here's a
> landau to show the similarity:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elizabethboweslyonandkinggeorgeinc....
> jpg

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> How far cars were from being popular enough to displace bicycles is
> shown by the vehicle's silly appearance, the fact that it was used for
> a presidential parade rather than normal transportation, and by the
> quartet of Secret Service men still riding bicycles next to the
> horseless carriage. (The two bikes on the left are clearly
> Hartford-made Pope-Columbia chainless shaft-drive models.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> At that point, presidents and wealthy enthusiasts were willing to ride
> in cars, but most people couldn't dream of such expensive
> contraptions. Instead, they took trains and streetcars instead of
> buying bicycles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Karl Hodges wrote an interesting article with detailed graphs and data
> "Did the Emergence of the Automobile End the BicycleBoom?" for the
> 4th International Cycle History Conference, which shows that "Between
> 1895 and 1902, the bicycle industry ground to a halt, yet the growth
> of the automobile industry in this same period is unremarkable."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "Unremarkable" is a wild overstatement of the tiny sales of
> automobiles. There were probably more ocean liners docked in U.S.
> harbors than automobiles in U.S. cities after the bicycle industry
> collapsed:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "During this interregnum [1902-1905] between the bicycle and
> automobile eras, the ratio of autos to population went from just one
> auto for every million and a half Americans, to one for every
> thousand. In contrast, bicycle sales declined from a peak of one for
> every fifty citizens in 1897 to one for every 330 by 1904."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> To put that in table form per thousand population:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> cars newbike
> owned sales
> ----- -------
> 1897 20
> 1902 0.00067
> 1904 3
> 1905 1

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Hodges points out that it was only in 1909, years after thebikeboom
> imploded, that the Model T reduced the entry price for an automobile
> to $850, still far out of reach for most people, who could afford a
> 1909 bicycle at $40, but preferred not to buy one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Cheers,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>CarlFogel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Carl: I think the missing link here might be motorcycles.

Dear Ryan,

Quoted message said:

It's a nice idea to consider, but unfortunately it turns out that
motorcycles were no more responsible for thebikeboomcollapsing than
cars.
Here are the sales figures for Harley-Davidson and Indian, early and
successful motorcycle manufacturers:

Quoted message said:

bicycles Harleys Indians
sold sold sold
1897 1,400,000
1898
1899
1900
1901 3 3 [home-made]
1902 143 [by 1902bikeboomhas collapsed]
1903 150 376 [Harley-Davidson actually founded]
1904 240,000 596

Quoted message said:

In other words, motorcycles had about as much effect on thebikeboom
collapse as recumbents are having on U.S. bicycle sales.

Quoted message said:

Cheers,

Quoted message said:

CarlFogel

Alas, another good theory shot down by actual data. Stupid data!

I think we are asymptotically approaching the truth. My suspicion is
that the first reason thebikeboomstopped was because thebikebuyers
all had bikes, and they don't need replacing that often.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden]://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos-

Dear Ryan,

While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
it into a graph:

http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg

Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
1899.

The details of the revised estimate indicate that the market was
flooded or the fad simply faded after about 4 million bicycles had
been manufactured, roughly one bike per ten people at the time.

"In Both Britain and the U.S., the bicycle booms ended and sales
plummeted after just a few years. This resulted in numerous
bankruptcies of bicycle companies and much lower bicycle prices."

"The end of the bicycle boom is incorrectly blame don the automobile,
but there were not enough cars at that time to have a significant
effect. A more likely reason was the dynamic growth of early mass
transit systems, such as electric streetcars and electric inter-urban
railways, which provided an attractive alternative to bicycle travel--
especially in poor weather. By 1902, there were 22,000 miles of street
railways in the U.S., nearlly all electrified. These trolleys were
carrying 5 billion passengers a year."

--"Dancing Chain," p.40

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

[data snipped]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, motorcycles had about as much effect on thebikeboom
collapse as recumbents are having on U.S. bicycle sales.

Quoted message said:

Cheers,

Quoted message said:

CarlFogel

Alas, another good theory shot down by actual data. Stupid data!

I think we are asymptotically approaching the truth. My suspicion is
that the first reason thebikeboomstopped was because thebikebuyers
all had bikes, and they don't need replacing that often.

Quoted message said:

Dear Ryan,

While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
it into a graph:

http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg

I notice that in the post-boom era, production settles down around the
400,000/a mark, still a respectable quantity in a nation of 40 million
people.

Quoted message said:

Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
1899.

The details of the revised estimate indicate that the market was
flooded or the fad simply faded after about 4 million bicycles had
been manufactured, roughly one bike per ten people at the time.

"In Both Britain and the U.S., the bicycle booms ended and sales
plummeted after just a few years. This resulted in numerous
bankruptcies of bicycle companies and much lower bicycle prices."

"The end of the bicycle boom is incorrectly blame don the automobile,
but there were not enough cars at that time to have a significant
effect. A more likely reason was the dynamic growth of early mass
transit systems, such as electric streetcars and electric inter-urban
railways, which provided an attractive alternative to bicycle travel--
especially in poor weather. By 1902, there were 22,000 miles of street
railways in the U.S., nearlly all electrified. These trolleys were
carrying 5 billion passengers a year."

--"Dancing Chain," p.40

Interesting. Thanks for charting that out.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] 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

-snip much-

Quoted message said:

While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
it into a graph:

http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg

Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
1899.

-snip-

I wonder if the curves fit Hula Hoop or White GoGo Boots or Pet Rock sales?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:41:31 -0600, A Muzi <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

-snip much-

Quoted message said:

While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
it into a graph:

http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg

Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
1899.

-snip-

I wonder if the curves fit Hula Hoop or White GoGo Boots or Pet Rock sales?

Dear Andrew,

Well, yes, to a first approximation.

Practically nothing for quite a while (50 bikes per year in 1878), a
steep rise, and then a steep fall back to low level (low, but still
above the original rate).

Meanwhile, the population of potential customers was steadily
increasing.

Just as most U.S. bikes are sold today for recreation, so were most
bikes sold for pleasure rides back then, not for commuting. In
contrast, hardly anyone paid to ride the trolleys for the fun of it.

The rise and fall of the bicycling articles in "Outing" magazine
reflect the fad aspect of the early bicycle. The magazine was
originally a purely bicycling rag that changed its name, expanded to
other outdoor activities, and dropped bicycling almost completely by
1901.

In the early "Outing" magazine, the ideal article was fiction about
two-wheeled romance or an account of pedaling across Canada, with a
carefully rhymed ode to chains and sprockets at the end, with columns
full of helpful tips about bicycling.

The ideal article eventually became a cheerful piece on how to shoot
birds or otters with either a shotgun or a bow-and-arrow from your
canoe or sailboat while wearing ice or roller skates, with handy tips
on how to retrieve the carcasses by snagging them with your handy
fly-rod.

The same thing can be seen in the NYT archives. There's a flood of
regular articles with endless details about bicycling up to about
1900, and then everyone got bored with bikes and moved on to other
stuff.

The London Times archives are a terrible disappointment. There's
hardly anything about bicycles at all, compared to the NYT, and the
reporting is astonishingly bad.

It's hard to even find articles on the annual bicycle shows in the
London Times. Here's the LT on the 1897 Stanley Show:

infotrac.galegroup.compurl=rc1 TTDA 0 CS135192948&dyn=4!xrn 17 0 CS135192948&hst 1Open ↗

Poor reporting, hardly any details, never any pictures or drawings,
few articles.

In contrast, the NYT was running the "Gossip of the Cyclers" (a
roughly monthly full-page article, often with drawings) and lots and
lots of other bicycle pieces. This installment mentions the British
Stanley show:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E6D71630E132A25756C0A9649D94669ED7CF

A day or two of browsing convinced me that the London times didn't
cover bicycles any better than the Pueblo Star Journal & Sunday
Chieftain. You can go here and use the secret password "trial" to see
if I missed something:

http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/free4_tda

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:41:31 -0600, A Muzi <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

-snip much-

Quoted message said:

While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
it into a graph:

http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg

Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
1899.

-snip-

I wonder if the curves fit Hula Hoop or White GoGo Boots or Pet Rock sales?

Dear Andrew,

Well, yes, to a first approximation.

Practically nothing for quite a while (50 bikes per year in 1878), a
steep rise, and then a steep fall back to low level (low, but still
above the original rate).

Meanwhile, the population of potential customers was steadily
increasing.

Just as most U.S. bikes are sold today for recreation, so were most
bikes sold for pleasure rides back then, not for commuting. In
contrast, hardly anyone paid to ride the trolleys for the fun of it.

The rise and fall of the bicycling articles in "Outing" magazine
reflect the fad aspect of the early bicycle. The magazine was
originally a purely bicycling rag that changed its name, expanded to
other outdoor activities, and dropped bicycling almost completely by
1901.

In the early "Outing" magazine, the ideal article was fiction about
two-wheeled romance or an account of pedaling across Canada, with a
carefully rhymed ode to chains and sprockets at the end, with columns
full of helpful tips about bicycling.

The ideal article eventually became a cheerful piece on how to shoot
birds or otters with either a shotgun or a bow-and-arrow from your
canoe or sailboat while wearing ice or roller skates, with handy tips
on how to retrieve the carcasses by snagging them with your handy
fly-rod.

The same thing can be seen in the NYT archives. There's a flood of
regular articles with endless details about bicycling up to about
1900, and then everyone got bored with bikes and moved on to other
stuff.

The London Times archives are a terrible disappointment. There's
hardly anything about bicycles at all, compared to the NYT, and the
reporting is astonishingly bad.

It's hard to even find articles on the annual bicycle shows in the
London Times. Here's the LT on the 1897 Stanley Show:

infotrac.galegroup.compurl=rc1 TTDA 0 CS135192948&dyn=4!xrn 17 0 CS135192948&hst 1Open ↗

Poor reporting, hardly any details, never any pictures or drawings,
few articles.

Stanley Show, 1897:

"If the show this year has any 'features' that claim special attention,
these must be sought in the latest makes of chainless bicycles and the
most improved examples of aluminum machines."

Interbike, 2007:

Chainless bicycle:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/index.php?i
d=/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/interbike0718/JD_vegasbits002

A most improved example of aluminum machines:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/index.php?i
d=/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/interbike072/Jamis_Supernova_full_v
iew

Quoted message said:

In contrast, the NYT was running the "Gossip of the Cyclers" (a
roughly monthly full-page article, often with drawings) and lots and
lots of other bicycle pieces. This installment mentions the British
Stanley show:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E6D71630E132A25756C0A9649D94669ED7CF

A day or two of browsing convinced me that the London times didn't
cover bicycles any better than the Pueblo Star Journal & Sunday
Chieftain. You can go here and use the secret password "trial" to see
if I missed something:

http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/free4_tda

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] 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

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:10:02 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:41:31 -0600, A Muzi <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

-snip much-
[email hidden] wrote:
> While looking for chain-stay bridges, I stumbled across some year-by-
> year U.S. bicycle production data in Berto's "Dancing Chain" and put
> it into a graph:
>
> http://i3.tinypic.com/7yhekci.jpg
>
> Bruce Epperson did the original estimates and then revised them,
> cutting the original boom estimates roughly in half. Either way, U.S.
> bike production dropped sharply after rising wildly and peaking in
> 1899.
-snip-

I wonder if the curves fit Hula Hoop or White GoGo Boots or Pet Rock sales?

Dear Andrew,

Well, yes, to a first approximation.

Practically nothing for quite a while (50 bikes per year in 1878), a
steep rise, and then a steep fall back to low level (low, but still
above the original rate).

Meanwhile, the population of potential customers was steadily
increasing.

Just as most U.S. bikes are sold today for recreation, so were most
bikes sold for pleasure rides back then, not for commuting. In
contrast, hardly anyone paid to ride the trolleys for the fun of it.

The rise and fall of the bicycling articles in "Outing" magazine
reflect the fad aspect of the early bicycle. The magazine was
originally a purely bicycling rag that changed its name, expanded to
other outdoor activities, and dropped bicycling almost completely by
1901.

In the early "Outing" magazine, the ideal article was fiction about
two-wheeled romance or an account of pedaling across Canada, with a
carefully rhymed ode to chains and sprockets at the end, with columns
full of helpful tips about bicycling.

The ideal article eventually became a cheerful piece on how to shoot
birds or otters with either a shotgun or a bow-and-arrow from your
canoe or sailboat while wearing ice or roller skates, with handy tips
on how to retrieve the carcasses by snagging them with your handy
fly-rod.

The same thing can be seen in the NYT archives. There's a flood of
regular articles with endless details about bicycling up to about
1900, and then everyone got bored with bikes and moved on to other
stuff.

The London Times archives are a terrible disappointment. There's
hardly anything about bicycles at all, compared to the NYT, and the
reporting is astonishingly bad.

It's hard to even find articles on the annual bicycle shows in the
London Times. Here's the LT on the 1897 Stanley Show:

infotrac.galegroup.compurl=rc1 TTDA 0 CS135192948&dyn=4!xrn 17 0 CS135192948&hst 1Open ↗

Poor reporting, hardly any details, never any pictures or drawings,
few articles.

Stanley Show, 1897:

"If the show this year has any 'features' that claim special attention,
these must be sought in the latest makes of chainless bicycles and the
most improved examples of aluminum machines."

Interbike, 2007:

Chainless bicycle:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/index.php?i
d=/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/interbike0718/JD_vegasbits002

A most improved example of aluminum machines:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/index.php?i
d=/photos/2007/tech/shows/interbike07/interbike072/Jamis_Supernova_full_v
iew

Quoted message said:

In contrast, the NYT was running the "Gossip of the Cyclers" (a
roughly monthly full-page article, often with drawings) and lots and
lots of other bicycle pieces. This installment mentions the British
Stanley show:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E6D71630E132A25756C0A9649D94669ED7CF

A day or two of browsing convinced me that the London times didn't
cover bicycles any better than the Pueblo Star Journal & Sunday
Chieftain. You can go here and use the secret password "trial" to see
if I missed something:

http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/free4_tda

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Dear Ryan,

If you're into aluminium (-nium produces more hits than -num) and old
bicycles . . .

http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=bicycles+aluminium&d=&o=&v=&c=&n=10&dp=0&daterange=period&srcht=a&year1=1851&mon1=09&day1=18&year2=1910&mon2=12&day2=31&srchst=p&sort=oldest

And see the whole chapter on aluminum beginning on page 180 of
"Cycling Art, Energy and Locomotion":

http://books.google.com/books?id=rZQ1AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bicycle+%22aluminum+bronze%22+subject:%22Cycling%22+date:1878-1910&as_brr=1&ei=C5g-R76CH4bktAPp1eTkBg#PPA180,M1

Cheers,

Carl Fogel