Thus our rider has been gradually getting up and over the work. Various devices have been used in order to facilitate this operation, but, unfortunately for our power-development theory, many of the changes have been coupled with the safety feature so prominently that, in efforts by makers to place the rider in the best possible position for work, the safety feature is all that the casual observer has been able to see; therefore it is that in several machines, such as that called the “Extraordinary Challenge,” the sales have been made more on the strength of safety than on their other great point of real merit, the advantage in power. In such machines, the rider has often been surprised to find that he had more power than he supposed, but having bought his mount with a view to safety, and it being still found to contain almost as great an element of risk as he before incurred, considerable disfavor has been the result. Had the element of increased power been thoroughly understood and appreciated, such machines would, in spite of the great deterioration in appearance, have been regarded more kindly.
No better illustration in other arts of the desire and tendency of the operator to get over his work can be had than in that of the ordinary foot-lathe. No maker of lathes would think of attaching a treadle in such a manner that the workman could not perch himself directly over it. In some experiments on foot-lathes, the writer found that he could run at a given speed and resistance three times as long when over the work as when standing some twelve inches back and he had to reach out for it; in fact, it seems quite evident that our theoretical conclusion is fully established in actual practice.
Granting then that the direct vertical application of power by the rider is a desirable acquisition, let it be called a fundamental requirement. It must not, however, be supposed, in this connection, that the foregoing in any way justifies the swimming position, or kicking back, which some experimenters have of late been prone to adopt. We must approach but never get beyond the vertical limit.
Since this manuscript has been ready for the publisher, articles in the Bicycling News by “Warrior” and “Semi-Racer” have come under my notice, from which I clip sections, appertaining to this subject, as follows:
“If, as ‘Crawler’ says, it is a very great improvement to have the saddle well over the pedals, how comes it that the contrary is now so universally advised, and as much as four inches recommended between the line of saddle-peak and the line of crank-axle? There never was a greater mistake made than when the saddle was generally placed in advance of the crank-axle. Apart altogether from its effect on the steering or easy running of the machine, there are two very strong reasons why the saddle should be kept well back. In the first place, it is quite impossible to sit upon the tuberosities designed by nature to carry the weight of the body unless the legs are flexed at the hip-joints. The parts resting upon the saddle are, otherwise, soft and delicate structures, liable to injury from the violence of the saddle. Were it for no other reason, this is enough to determine the position well to the rear of the crank-axle. But another reason: it is not a fact that one has greater power with the saddle, as suggested by ‘Crawler.’ One may certainly throw his weight alternately upon either pedal readier, because he is nearer a standing position; but, on the other hand, with the saddle well back and the handles well forward, the purchase so obtained gives far greater power from muscular contraction than the mere weight of the body gives, and, indeed, many more muscles are called into action when the saddle is kept back.—Warrior.”
“With regard to gearing, I consider that the position of the rider has much to do with this also. A rider sitting well back can use his ankles much more effectively than one right over the pedals, and can consequently exert a driving force through a considerably greater part of the stroke, whereas the vertical rider depends chiefly upon the weight of his body during a comparatively short portion of the down stroke for propulsion, and upon the momentum of the machine to carry him over the dead centre. It will be found, therefore, that the rider using his ankles properly will be able to drive at least three inches higher with the same amount of force, and, at the same time, there is much more equable strain on the machine.—Semi-Racer.”
The quotations show one great trouble in writing a book: such a long time elapses between writing and publishing, that new facts and opinions come up in the mean time which demand attention and suggest alteration, as, for instance, my former paragraph in regard to the swimming attitude should have been expanded.
“Warrior” carries his theory to extremes. He is all right in cautiously avoiding an unduly-forward saddle, but when he places the front tip back of the vertical through the crank-axle, he goes too far and is utterly wrong.
The cause for such diversity of opinion in this matter is that it is tested under different circumstances. In riding over an easy, slightly rolling country, the tendency to get back on the saddle is indisputable, for reasons noted by “Warrior” and fully treated of in my chapter on “Saddles and Springs in Relation to Health;” but notice how we slip forward, almost off the saddle, when we have any work to do, as in mounting a difficult hill; and also notice that the farther forward we get, and the less the angle at the pedals between the saddle and the vertical, the less will be the pull on the handle-bar. (See early part of this chapter.)
In this connection the very long saddles, largely adopted in America, are of great advantage, since, when not working hard, the rider can sit well back and then slide forward when occasion demands. What “Warrior” means by “greater power from muscular contraction” is rather ambiguous. I may admit that more power can be consumed when the saddle is back, but I deny that more effective power to turn the wheel can be maintained. The rider may get more exercise from “muscular contraction” than from the effect of his weight, but he will cover less distance with equal fatigue.
As to “Semi-Racer,” his statement, that more ankle-motion is available when sitting back, is absurd. Will he not lose in “clawing” force below what he gains above?