Fearlessly right-wing bicycle

Quoted message said:

The whole gallery:
http://pie.touny.free.fr/vtt/vieux_velos/index_vv.htm

And in the ongoing "nothing is new" category - an apparent precursor
to "Slingshot" bikes

http://pie.touny.free.fr/vtt/vieux_velos/vvi_i.htm

DR

In article
<[email hidden]>,

DirtRoadie said:

Quoted message said:

The whole gallery:
http://pie.touny.free.fr/vtt/vieux_velos/index_vv.htm

And in the ongoing "nothing is new" category - an apparent precursor
to "Slingshot" bikes

And, if my sight can be trusted, contoured seattubes as well.

Quoted message said:

http://pie.touny.free.fr/vtt/vieux_velos/vvi_i.htm

DirtRoadie said:

Quoted message said:

The whole gallery:
http://pie.touny.free.fr/vtt/vieux_velos/index_vv.htm

And in the ongoing "nothing is new" category - an apparent precursor
to "Slingshot" bikes

http://pie.touny.free.fr/vtt/vieux_velos/vvi_i.htm

DR

Dear DR,

Yes, that's a typical cross-frame, which became briefly popular after
the first safety appeared.

The earliest safety was the 1886 Starley Rover on the left in the
picture below, with its roughly modern frame and handlebar (the first
Rover had a weird remote steering design, which was quickly replaced):
http://i4.tinypic.com/6t59q46.jpg

On the right in the picture above is the Starley Psycho, an 1889
cross-frame design.

Starley may have thought that the Psycho's cross-frame was stronger or
lighter. Another theory is that the cross-frame braced the bottom
bracket better than the original Starley Rover's frame, which had at
most a feeble seat post and in many models just a gaping hole.

(The name "Psycho" itself had nothing to do with our modern "Psycho"
and meant "thought" as in "psychology"--the thinking man's bicycle.)

Lots of cross-frames appear in Sharp's 1896 "Bicycles and Tricycles."
Page down from the link below, and you can see thin tension struts
being added to strengthen the basic cross-frame:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gFMN3-srupsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:archibald+inauthor:sharp&as_brr=1&ei=qK8vR5ezL4GktAPMvqiwCQ#PPA278,M1

But Sharp's 1896 illustrations are more a fascinating gaggle of
oddball designs than an accurate view of typical bicycles of the time.

By 1894, manufacturers had pretty much settled on the modern bicycle
frame, as this 1894 Western Wheel Works catalogue of dull modern-style
men's and women's frames shows:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1894-CRESCENT-BICYCLE-catalog-WESTERN-WHEEL-WORKS-Exc_W0QQitemZ260173952317QQcmdZViewItem

The chief differences between the Western Wheel Works bikes and our
modern fixies are inch-pitch chain and sprockets, big balloon tires,
and a frame and fork combination that provided a road-smoothing
46-inch wheelbase, about 4 inches more than our bikes. You could add
the rear-facing dropouts, too, I suppose, but the 1894 Wheel Works
bikes just aren't going to startle anyone in 2008.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:11:38 -0500, Luke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

DirtRoadie said:

Quoted message said:

The whole gallery:
http://pie.touny.free.fr/vtt/vieux_velos/index_vv.htm

And in the ongoing "nothing is new" category - an apparent precursor
to "Slingshot" bikes

And, if my sight can be trusted, contoured seattubes as well.

Quoted message said:

http://pie.touny.free.fr/vtt/vieux_velos/vvi_i.htm

Dear Luke,

Yes, that's what you see. Lots of old bikes curved the seat-tube along
the rear wheel. Page down in Sharp's book from here, and you'll see
examples:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gFMN3-srupsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:archibald+inauthor:sharp&as_brr=1&ei=qK8vR5ezL4GktAPMvqiwCQ#PPA278,M1

A vague memory that Canadian posters can't see google books gives me
an excuse to add a link to this gallery:

http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/hardtired/hardtired1.asp

Here are few typical early tire-hugging seat tubes from the Wheelmen:

http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/hardtired/regviews/hardtired11v.jpg

http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/hardtired/regviews/hardtired14v.jpg

http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/hardtired/regviews/hardtired3v.jpg

http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/hardtired/regviews/hardtired4v.jpg

http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/hardtired/regviews/hardtired9v.jpg

Notice that the curved-seat-tube bikes are all early hard-tired
models.

If you look at the Wheelmen's pneumatic-tire gallery, you'll see how
quickly frames went straight:

http://www.thewheelmen.org/sections/photographs/pneumatic/pneumatic1.asp

Nothing but straight seat-tubes in those photos after inflatable tires
appeared in 1889. (Oddball frames persisted for years, but they were
oddballs, not the mainstream.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

For a moment I thought this was going to be a joke about a Nazi Raleigh ;-)

Quoted message said:

The Cannondale Lefty meets more than its match in an uncompromisingly
right-wing French bicycle:
 http://pie.touny.free.fr/vtt/vieux_velos/vvi_d.htm

Ignore the truss and note that neither wheel has left-hand support (I
have no idea why).

Yes, the rear triangle does have an extra reinforcing tube, but
everything is on the right.

Alas, I can't find anything else about this oddball. Googling "Cycles
Labor" just leads to hundreds of poster sites selling the company's ad
showing monkeys vainly trying to copy a normal Cycles Labor bicycle
(well, normal with a truss):
 http://www.parisposters.com/Anonymous/Cycles-Labor.html

That bike will never last! It doesn't have a chainstay bridge!

Ben

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

By 1894, manufacturers had pretty much settled on the modern bicycle
frame, as this 1894 Western Wheel Works catalogue of dull modern-style
men's and women's frames shows:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1894-CRESCENT-BICYCLE-catalog-WESTERN-WHEEL-WORKS-Exc_W0QQ
itemZ260173952317QQcmdZViewItem

The chief differences between the Western Wheel Works bikes and our
modern fixies are inch-pitch chain and sprockets, big balloon tires,
and a frame and fork combination that provided a road-smoothing
46-inch wheelbase, about 4 inches more than our bikes. You could add
the rear-facing dropouts, too, I suppose, but the 1894 Wheel Works
bikes just aren't going to startle anyone in 2008.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

The 'Crescent Scorcher', weighs in at very respectable 25 LBS. Swap out
the bars for Al equivalents, install a lighter seat, wheels and
clipless pedals and you're off to the races -- even in 2008!

Here's a question for ya Carl: Ninety 1894 dollars equates to how many
Bush Bucks?

Per Luke:

Quoted message said:

Here's a question for ya Carl: Ninety 1894 dollars equates to how many
Bush Bucks?

This isn't Carl, but
http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/
comes up with $1875 converting 1913 dollars (the earliest it goes
back to) to 2007 dollars.

IMHO the other shoe won't drop on Bush bucks until well into the
next administration.

Worked all your life for a modest fixed pension?

Oh well...
--
PeteCresswell