The Modern Bicycle and Its Accessories

by Alex Schwalbach; Julius Wilcox

A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE PRINCIPAL “SAFETY” TYPES.

One of the most peculiar was the “Xtra-ordinary,” or “Xtra,” familiarly dubbed the “Camel.” Taking the high [Ordinary], it enlarged the back wheel to 22 inches; then, as its main feature, sloped the front forks back very much in a great “rake,” so that the rider’s weight rested more on the rear, and he was thus much less liable to be pitched forward over the front in a “header,” or a “cropper,” as it was called in England. The cranks being thus out of direct reach, they were driven by a pair of long bent levers, which were hinged by a short arm to the front forks, and came back behind and below the wheel axle, bearing pedals on their ends; this contrivance was effective as to safety, but was heavy and clumsy. Other patterns used the usual “rake,” but had swinging levers attached to the cranks, the idea being that the pedals (and consequently the driving pressure) should always be behind the axle. One of these was American—the “Springfield”—and this drove by levers, bearing pedals behind the axle, but used ratchets, and had no cranks. The “Star,” also American, drove by levers and ratchets, but turned about and had the small wheel forward, being very distinctive. Others had the small wheel first, driving the other by cranks thereon, and worked by long swinging levers hinged to the extreme front of the frame, thus going back to an early contrivance nearly half a century before, and much like some children’s velocipedes of today. One of the queerest of all was the “Otto,” a true bicycle in having only two wheels, yet resembling the tricycle in having those side by side on a long axle; the rider sat between, above and a little behind the axle, swinging freely from it, driving by pedals and chains, and steering somehow with great ease.

In smaller bicycles, then called “safeties” for distinguishing them, the “Pony” was simply small sized, with secondary cranks jointed on the first, so that leg-reach could be obtained, the two cranks being out at full length at the bottom of the stroke and shut over like the blade of a knife in its handle at the top of the stroke. The “[Kangaroo]” type, which had for a time a great run, had their front forks prolonged down, so as to carry pedals and cranks, working on the axle by sprockets, and “gearing up.” The “Facile”—which was the pioneer of small-sized bicycles in America, also had its front forks prolonged, but curved well forward; to the ends of these were hinged levers which came well behind and below the axle, having pedals on the ends, and being attached by connecting-rods to very short cranks, thus working much like the tread of the common foot lathe; it was extremely safe, but was geared “level,” and therefore was not speedy, requiring rapid though short movements of the foot. It was afterward “geared up” so as to be faster, but was gradually displaced by various patterns of “[Geared Ordinary].” These used the familiar rotary action with direct cranks, but employed spur gears—not bevel-gears as stated in a recent article in a trade journal. Of this class, one distinctive pattern is the sole present survivor of the front driving type. If reversion ever does bring front driving wheels back on a general or even a comparatively large scale, this seems likely to be the one. Yet prophecy is too unsafe to be hazarded, sweeping though past changes have been.

As the illustrations in this chapter are of such a nature as to require a more detailed description than can be given in a mere line of title, the descriptive matter concerning them is placed together, as follows:

The [original Humber]—meaning by “original” merely the first bicycle of the rear-driving type produced by the Humber factory—is interesting as showing the beginnings of the “diamond” frame. The steering head was as remarkably long as it afterward became short, but if the fork had been carried forward in a curve instead of dropping straight down, the wheel base would have been longer and the general outline more like the construction of today.

The [Golden Era] is reproduced as a curiosity in frames and as suggesting—since to illustrate them all would require too much space and would not have sufficient interest—the number and variety of frame shapes which have resulted in the familiar one of the present, although it would be rash to affirm that finality in frames is reached even now.

FIRST HUMBER MODEL.

The [Victor of 1887] was the first of the type made in America. There may be some question whether a bicycle with a drop frame was not produced in Washington somewhat earlier, but it was not done commercially. The wheels of the Victor were 30-inch, with a ⅞ solid tire on the rear and a ¾ tire on the front. It was made in only one size. The gear was 54; the weight was not stated; the price was $140. It had ball bearings all over, including the steering, which was a “socket,” and was in both these particulars rather advanced at that time. Its chief peculiarity was that the entire front forks consisted of two pairs of curved springs, attached to the frame by ingenious rocking joints, which at first had cone bearings, but were changed to balls in the next year. As more elastic tires came in, this peculiar fork went out, the pattern being made in both ways for several years; but the Overman Company is entitled to the credit of having been the first American concern to make the now prevailing type of bicycle, and of having also improved upon it as they found it. The frame shown in the cut, which was a common one up to that date, was changed in the following year to a stronger one of the early “diamond” type.

The Veloce of 1888 was the first rear-driver produced at the Columbia factory, although a pattern of the [Kangaroo] had been for two years in the company’s line. The Veloce had a 30-inch front wheel and a 31-inch driver, both having ⅞ solid tires. The cranks were of the usual slotted style, giving a throw of 5 to 6½ inches. The steering was cone, 4½ inches between centres. The handlebar was hollow, 28 inches long. One size only was built, geared to 52, weighing 51 pounds, and selling at $135. A peculiarity of the construction was that a single curved cross-tube intersecting the straight “backbone” or “perch” formed the support for the crank-axle and sprockets, and then was carried up over the wheel, where it did duty as a mud-guard. The wheels had 40 and 36 spokes, which were “direct,” as against the tangent which the Victor people had been using and insisting upon for several years. Referring to the direct spoke, the Columbia catalogue of this year (1888) says:

“We have shown the desirability of this construction too often to make a repetition necessary, particularly in the case of a small-wheel machine for use at all times and places. It is a matter of satisfaction to us to observe a growing recognition of our arguments on this point, even in England, where, if in any part of the world, the roads are suited to full tangent spokes.”

This shows how easily the best judges and prophets may sometimes be mistaken.

THE GOLDEN ERA.

The Defender Midget is an ([page 34]) illustration of all that is extremely advanced and radical in bicycle construction for 1898. The steering head is of the shortest, only 4 inches in length. The frame is 22-inch, with flush joints and stamped internal connections. The top tube is horizontal. The crank-hanger has a 4-inch drop; the cranks are 7 inches, with a 4½-inch tread, these three particulars being extreme. The cranks are the Fauber patent, a single piece forming both cranks and axle, which are passed into place through the large opening in bracket before putting in the bearings. The chain is adjusted at the bracket by an eccentric, instead of at the wheel as usual. The rear forks are a continuous piece of D-tubing, of ⅞ section tapered to ¾. They are joined to the crank bracket by a single large oval stem, thus allowing clearance, without cranking or offsetting the fork, for the very large front Fauber “star” sprocket of 32 teeth. The rear sprocket has 12 teeth, thus making a gear of only 74 ²⁄₃, notwithstanding the large size of the front one. Front forks are of tapered D-tubing in one piece, with an arched crown, and forks and crown are both nickeled. The wheels have Thor patent hubs, and the saddle post is fastened with the Thor expander, the saddle, of course, being a Brown. The handlebar is extremely wide and light, made of octagon tubing on the Schinneer patent, and the fastening is internal. The chain is 6 per cent. nickel steel in the block, and tool steel in the side-plates. Rims are laminated, and tires are light road Palmer.

This model is very striking in appearance, and includes the patented specialties of half a dozen makers of component parts, thus indicating clearly that it is the product of a small maker. This remark, however, is not made in any derogatory sense.

THE VICTOR—FIRST AMERICAN SAFETY—1887.

From the forward thrust on the old “[boneshaker]” velocipede of 1868, which was compelled by its structure, the cyclist next went to the nearly downward action on the “[high ordinary]” of 1878; this change was made to get speed by a larger wheel, and he had to sit near its centre in order to reach the pedal. The Facile, a lever-driving “safety,” which soon followed, had as its distinctive feature the most vertical position of driving ever obtained, and its maker was naturally very strenuous for that position, contending that on the Facile the rider was always and all the time “over his work,” with his pedal directly under him, where the [Ordinary] rider always tried to get but could not. This was strictly true, and although the same maker, under changed trade conditions, has since argued for a position considerably “behind the work,” this is not against his sincerity, for really there is considerable to be said on both sides.

It will readily be seen that the lever favors the “over-the-work” position, because the pedal can thus be placed at a distance from the driven axle; but rotary pedaling, as against the peculiar stroke of a lever, seems now fixed, if anything can be affirmed to be. With any type using two equal-sized wheels and rotary action, the rider must sit over the back wheel (as on the abandoned “Broncho” of a few years ago) or else substantially as on the present type. Then he must have some means of carrying his power back to the axle; what shall that means be? The foregoing analysis is partly to lead up to the issue between chain and no-chain, and partly to suggest how many and how important considerations are involved in the relative position of the saddle in the whole structure.