THE “ENGLISH” CHAINLESS.
The lever measures 4⅝ inches between its fulcrum and the point of attachment to the crank, and 14 inches between the crank pin and the pedal. The crank itself is only 1⅞ inches long, being singularly short as compared with usual crank lengths in direct driving. The pinion on the crank is 1 inch in diameter, with 14 teeth; the central pinion is 1½ inches in diameter, with 21 teeth; the fixed rack is 3½ inches in diameter, with 49 teeth, all the teeth used thus being of “14 pitch.” The stroke of the pedal is 7¼ inches in each direction. Having a rocking movement necessarily, the path of the pedal is not an arc of a circle, but is peculiar, being somewhat like a bow and its string in shape, the down stroke being in the “bow” and the return stroke in the “string,” as shown in the [accompanying cut]. The pedal also has the somewhat irregular motion and the “quick return” characteristic of the old Facile, and of all levers which are attached to cranks. The fulcrum of this lever, as appears in the cut, and as evidently must be the case, is not fixed in all directions, but slides back and forth, giving the pedal a part of the peculiar motion of the latter.
Summing up this device, we must say that its disadvantages are in the direction of some complexity of structure, weight, and what seems at present view insufficient crank throw, with the inseparable drawbacks of lever-driving. On the other hand, the lever has some good points, among them all that is in the vertical position of the rider, the gear construction supplies its own enclosure against dirt, and the [gears] are of the simple spur variety, thus escaping any distinctive troubles of the bevel-gear. Arguing from the full trial on the [Bantam], this gear may be expected to run well and have good endurance if properly made.
CHAINLESS EVOLUTION IN ENGLAND.
As already remarked, England has thus far taken little interest in the present movement to revive chainless driving. One of the leading trade journals (the first one founded after the cycle era really began, some twenty years ago) hardly conceals its contempt of the movement, especially of bevel-gears; another, in a paragraph quoted further on, admits that such gears have not yet had a conclusive practical test, and that there may be a future for them in cycling, now that their construction is so much improved. The reason why so little interest has been taken in the subject is that England, in common with other cycling countries of Europe, has been, on the whole, satisfied with chain-driving. As an illustration, one maker now takes occasion to advertise “The English Sunbeam—eight years ahead of American cycles,” and then he proceeds to explain thus:
“A leading American firm have just issued their 1898 Catalogue, giving reasons why their new Chainless Cycle is an improvement on all existing American machines. They say the new mechanism is easier to keep clean—has no backlash—no teeth to catch—is thoroughly lubricated—is weather-proof—does not wear—does not lose pitch. Now the Sunbeam, thanks to its little oil-bath dust-proof gear case, has had all these advantages since 1890. Now you know why Sunbeams go!”