Talk:History of the bicycle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Addition of fixie trend to recent history of bicycles?[edit]

The recent surge in the use of fixed gear or 'fixie' bicycles should be included in this article.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-gear_bicycle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.93.212 (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

celerifere[edit]

There was a speedy stage-coach service in France around 1800 called Velocifere or Celerifere. One Jean Sievrac of Marseille obtained an import brevet on a Celerifere in 1817. In Louis Baudry's 1891 booklet "Histoire de la Vélocipédie" this turned out as a rigid two-wheeler called celerifere just hundred years earlier, i.e. 1791 ... -- Lesseps 05:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on this invention is confusing. I don't know if really exists or if it was just impractical. It insinuates both. This should be cleared up.

New information, but where should it go?[edit]

According to the museum of science and technology (Ottawa) (Today: November 15 2005) the display indicates:


http://www.sciencetech.technomuses.ca/english/collection/bikes1.cfm


The story of bicycle begins with the "hobby-horse" (another name for dandy-horse?), the first commercially sucessful two-wheeled, steerable, human-propelled machine. Patented by the German Baron, Karl von Drais, in 1817. Initially produced in France where it enjoyed considerable popularity among fashionable members of the middle class. --CyclePat 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

milestones?[edit]

Would it be appropriate to create a list of bicycle technology milestones for this page? I was wondering what year the following innovations were introduced, and thought they would appear here, things like:

  • introduction of 5/7/9/10 speed gears
  • introduction of double and triple front chainsets
  • first use of carbon/magnesium/titanium/berylium frames
  • manufacturing techniques and alloys which allowed "breakthroughs"207.178.98.52 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • introduction of alloy/carbon rims
  • introduction of carbon forks/chainstays/stems/seatposts
  • history of frame tubing (Reynolds 521/652/753/853/953 etc)

(please note that the re-introduction of larger tired bicycles as mountain bikes may not be an encyclopedic event....)207.178.98.52 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make a start? --Richardb20 15:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems too biased toward the more recent developments. The introduction of the nine-speed, carbon fibre, or berylium frame might not be that important in the grand scheme of things. Alx xlA (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICHC[edit]

I notice these letters, and no definition or internal or external link for them. Will someone explain, either in the present article or another? Jim.henderson 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalistic claims[edit]

It would be interesting to highlight the way that the history of the bike was distorted for nationalistic reasons in the early 20th century, and related claims that early bikes were non-steerable. See [1] Earthlyreason (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

long history?[edit]

"Vehicles for human transport that have two-wheels and require balancing by the rider have a long history." whats the meaning of long history? "The earliest confirmed example dates back to the early 19th century." Is it a long history!!!!? or it wanted to say bicycles were used long before 1860s. If so, is there any proof? no. so the sentence long history must be removed. we use long history for more than at least 1000 years! Iranway (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recumbent?[edit]

Reading this article you would be forgiven for thinking that no significant advances were made during the 20th century. What about the recumbent bicycle?

Perhaps this article should be renamed "History of the {Upright} Bicycle", or else have the absolute focus on one frame geometry corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.141.158 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, only about a quarter of the article is about the diamond frame majority, but those seem well covered elsewhere and if they needed more it could go in the Starley biographies and other relevant articles. The present article also doesn't mention delivery bikes or my Brompton Bicycle and several other rare modern types, which unfortunately are not widespread enough for their own paragraphs here, but parhaps their history sections should get a pointer from See Also. Jim.henderson (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a recumbent qualifies as a "rare modern type". Delivery bikes and folders are variations on the upright riding posture. Recumbent are a type of bicycle in their own right, that have been around for over 100 years, and have unique advantages (and disadvantages) over the upright riding posture. They most definitely constitute a significant "development" of the bicycle concept and as such warrant their own mention in this page's chronology. Or is the argument that recumbents lack the notability for a mention? 78.150.159.148 (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caster, gyroscopic forces, and stability[edit]

"Unlike the penny farthing the safety bicycle does not use gyroscopic forces for stability at every moment. The caster of the front wheel removed the reliance on gyroscopic forces for stability. The improved caster allows the riders balance to correct steering, and steering is self correcting in that if the bike leans over out of balance, the front wheel then rotates to steer the bicycle in such a way that centrifugal force holds the bicycle and rider up."

I can find no source that confirms this reason for the difference between ordinary and safety bicycles. I have seen the counter claim that the drive wheel of ordinaries was enlarged simply to gain a faster cruising speed. For example,
  • The Wheelman, an orgianization "Dedicated To The Enjoyment And Preservation Of Our Bicycling Heritage", says on their FAQ "Why did they make the wheel so big? The short answer is to go faster! The larger the wheel the more ground covered with each rotation. A taller person had an advantage over a shorter person simply because the taller person could ride a larger wheel and outpace his counterpart."
  • Britannica Online says "The ordinary’s cranks were directly connected to the front wheel, and its speed was limited by pedaling cadence and wheel diameter. Larger front wheels went faster and handled better on bad roads."
  • Exploratorium says "The pedals were attached directly to the front wheel of the high-wheelers. The larger the front wheel on an "Ordinary," the farther the cyclist would travel with each turn of the pedals."
  • Sheldon Brown says "Before the use of chain drive, bicycles had direct drive. The cranks were directly attached to the hub of the drive wheel. The larger the wheel, the farther the bicycle would move with each turn of the pedals. The diameter of the drive wheel determined the gear of the bicycle. The larger the wheel, the higher the gear. With a chain-driven "safety" bicycle, you can have any gear you want by selecting appropriate sprockets. With a high-wheel bicycle, the limiting factor is how long your legs are, because you can only pedal a wheel that is small enough for your legs to straddle and reach the pedals throughout the pedal revolution." And "back in the high-wheeler era (1870s through early '90s) long legged riders had an advantage, because they could straddle a larger diameter wheel, effectively giving them a higher "gear." By pedaling on the balls of their feet, they could get a bit more leg extension, permitting a given rider to straddle a larger, faster machine. The development of the safety bicycle rendered this concern obsolete, but the habit (and advice) persisted."
Anyone have anything definitive one way or the other?-AndrewDressel (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess not. Out it comes. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

"further lowering prices increasing the range of consumers"? Wouldn't "increasing the range of consumers" improve business? Or were there other factors? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absent explanation, I deleted. In another vein, "gave women unprecedented mobility, contributing to their larger participation"? Norcliffe suggests the importance of the bicycle is overstated, & the movement toward "larger participation" was merely reflected by the bicycle, not significantly aided by it. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dandy horse"[edit]

The article seems to contradict itself about the term "Dandy Horse," saying at the beginning that it is just another nickname, while towards the middle, it is apparently very derogatory.

Alx xlA (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's a derogatory nickname; the lead isn't designed to explain everything, just introduce the subject. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed captioning[edit]

Can somebody clarify the dating of the "1493"? Did it take that long to make, or is the date uncertain? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 17:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:SamWhittingham.jpg[edit]

The image File:SamWhittingham.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racer date[edit]

Perhaps this numbered version, not claiming an invention date and with a suitable caption added, would be more acceptable than the one deleted last month? Jim.henderson (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tires[edit]

Since Dunlop is said to have invented the pneumatic tire for his son's tricycle, the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company didn't produce automobile tires for the first 10 years of its existence, and the current pneumatic tire article is almost entirely about automobile tires, it seems that Bicycle tire is a more appropriate article for this article to link to in the sentence "John Dunlop's reinvention of the pneumatic bicycle tire in 1888 had made for a much smoother ride on paved streets." Sure, it was later applied to other vehicles, but when it was invented, it was a bicycle tire. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... As it was the first use of pneumatic tires for any purpose, I objected to the narrow usage. However, you make an interesting argument. I don't completely agree with it, ;p but it is persuasive enough I'll leave it be. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pope[edit]

This person seems very imporatnt to the history of bikes but there is no first name in the article and he kinda apears out of no where. Can someone who has inof on this expand on him?Darrell Wheeler (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stoke Poges window[edit]

This window was not installed in the 16th century. It's from a window installed to celebrate the war dead of World War 2. I went there on 13/4/11 to have a look. But it's unclear whether the sentence means that the depiction in the window came from the drawing by Leonardo's pupil or whether they are unrelated. If the first, then it could stand (albeit misleadingly) - but if they are unrelated then it is just plain wrong! I've not made any edits here before so some guidance on what to do would be gratefully received. Ds charles (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the earlier sketch takes precedence anyhow, I've removed it. If you've got a pamphlet or something with a date of installation, or a photo of a plaque dating it, you can add here. Thx for bringing it up. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On further research, part of the window has been dated to 1643. Whether this is the 'bicycle' bit is unclear. The information comes from Stoke Poges Parish Council website: http://www.stokepogesparishcouncil.gov.uk/stoke-poges-history/st-giles-church/. The image is probably not a bicycle either and could be a "one-wheeled contraption that was often associated with cherubims and seraphims in mediaeval iconography" according to this website http://www.jimlangley.net/ride/bicyclehistorywh.html. David Charles (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx for looking. Either way, it's too late a design to be added IMO. A unicycle would disqualify it, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recumbent section not even remotely NPOV[edit]

"[C]lear superiority"? "[D]evelopment[...] truncated"? That's not even trying. I've flagged the section since I cannot fix it at this time. 66.162.212.34 (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sentence from 'The clear superiority of this frame geometry for level races...' to 'The aerodynamical advantage of this frame geometry for level races...'? Recumbent bicycles have roughly a 50% aerodynamic advantage above 20km/h compared to regular bicycles. The rule of thump is that recumbent riders use 30% of their effort while upright bicycle riders have to use 80% of their effort to overcome the aero drag above 20km/h. Since the power necessary to overcome aero drag quadruples when doubling speed that advantage even grows with speed. Also edited the part on Sam Whittingham a bit to include the little fact that his record vehicle (a Varna Tempest) is a faired recumbent streamliner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.19.118.75 (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to historian David V. Herlihy, in his Bicycle The History (Yale University Press),
  • Faure's "success against conventional racers ... prompted the UCI to ban recumbents from sanctioned competitions." - pg 389.
  • "Some say that the competitive sport has even obstructed progress by its longstanding ban on low-slung recumbent bicycle and other radical designs." - pg 376.
According to author David Gordon Wilson, in the 3rd edition of his Bicycling Science (MIT Press,
  • "the UCI, at the urging of the cycle trade, banned unconventional types from organized competition." - pg 31.
  • "This decision denied novel ideas the opportunity of being tested and publicized through racing and thereby deterred experimentation and development." - pg 31.
Thus, I think the claim that the UCI banned recumbents, at the behest of the conventional bicycle industry, because they beat conventional bikes is supported by reliable sources. The claim that this ban has stunted bicycle development, however, perhaps should be listed under "some authors assert". -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo's Bicycle[edit]

I created a user page about Leonardo's Bicycle. There was an almost unknown German paper on it. I think the sketch and the controversy is worth a WP article of its own. There are enough images and facts to present. But it must be selected by someone else because I have an opinion point too. -- Portolanero (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice weasel words in every paragraph, almost every other sentence, of your draft. Leonardo's bicycle is well understood by real historians to be a hoax. Giving a separate article to it is a POV fork. Wikipedia:Fringe theories explains the right way to handle fringe theories, such as this improbable belief. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion by historians is not that clear. After the 1997 fraud supporting paper of Lessing the Scientific American (and in Germany Spektrum der Wissenschaft) published an article that supports the authenticity of the bicycle sketch. As you see in my article the evidence supporting a fraud is very weak. Have I neglected something or do you know new ones? The fraud opinion got more spread on the internet and therefore is more in the public mind. I hope my presentation of sources to WP will help to correct this. About my wording, keep in mind I'm no native English speaker and my WP experience is limited. -- Portolanero (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It fails NPOV in the lede, for a start. It also fails credibility IMO, when the obvious question, how did Leoni fail to see it, remains unanswered. I also agree, this is a fork for a POV page on a subject of sketchy (at best) historical accuracy. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to pile on, the draft utterly distorts the evidence of Carlo Pedretti. Pedretti examined the manuscript and said unequivocally that there was no bike. Later, lo and behold, a bike appeared. It was obviously doctored, and experts that came after overwhelmingly agreed. Pedretti thinks it is bunk, and you've presented it as if Pedretti somehow supports the case for Leonardo's bicycle. The whole article is written in the classic style of conspiracy-mongering, using cherry picked evidence and loaded language, and by misrepresenting the sources.

History of the bicycle as it is currently written covers this issue very poorly. It should be called what it is: a discredited hoax, with a handful of diehard adherents who are not taken seriously any more. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leoni around 1590 ignored it because it was obviously by a kid and not by Leonardo. He could not recognize a bicycle because they were not known then. Pedretti claimed he saw parts of the bike in 1961, the parts I presented in the graphic. He did not recognize a bike then. But it was in translucent light and parts were covered by the fortification from the other side.
How heavy weights the claim that the lines he saw were later supplemented by a frauder to present a bike? Main parts of the bike (both wheel circles, front steering, saddle, main girder) Pedretti saw in right proportion and right places. An explanation is that he did not expect a bike and therefore could not see it. Over all his claim relied on 14 years old memory only. I call that evidence very weak and would not accuse the restaurateurs of fraud by that.
Add to this that a frauder would have drawn in a HCS type bike that was unknown to almost all historians. Had Leonardo scholar Marinoni in his presentation in 1974 known the HCS principle the sketch would have found much more acceptance. His suggestion instead that it was none steerable raised the doubt by Lessing and others. The HCS issue, although in two papers, is still not well known in this discussion. -- Portolanero (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Possibility[edit]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262026759/pschemp | talk 13:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that History of cycling be merged into History of the bicycle. I think that the content in the History of cycling article can easily be explained in the context of History of the bicycle, and the History of the bicycle article is of a reasonable size that the merging of History of cycling will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Darrelljon (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the two topics not be merged. History of hunting is different than history of the gun- likewise history of cycling is different than history of the bicycle. P.Osborne 18 July 2017

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the bicycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precursors[edit]

One of the problems with this article is the implication that suddenly the concept of a vehicle with two wheels just popped into existence, with no precursors. This is unlikely. If you look at the history of the Tricycle, a seated vehicle with hand cranks for movement was invented in 1655 (or perhaps 1680). I guess it would be "original research" to add that without authoratative support (citation) but since wheels had been around since roughly 6000 BCE, it is really unlikely that the first use of two wheels occurred in the early 1800's. IMHO, the History section is glaringly incomplete. Also, the term "safety bicycle" is NOWHERE defined! This article claims it is the most important advance and yet isn't described (except its anything that is not a penny-farthing bike???). Clearly, the history of the bike should include the evolution of wheels (size, inflated tires), gearing (chain, multiple gears), brakes (hand, disc, front/rear, coaster) and frame (diamond, suspension).Abitslow (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 Firsts - Annie London-derry Cohen Kopchovsky (1870–1947)[edit]

The article could be improved on the actual years that the first woman travelled around the world, i.e., intermodal with bicycles included. The article states 1880's and 1895. The article should give her double the credits for being the first, two times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of the bicycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

big wheel bicycle because it is as high as a horse?[edit]

Were the big wheel bicycles invented so that the rider was on the same level as a horse rider? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.223.20 (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what you mean by "big wheel bicycles", but if you mean high-wheel bicycles, then the article already explains "the front wheel enlarging to enable higher speeds," although the wording is perhaps not as clear as it could be. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest unverified bicycle[edit]

Should 黄履庄 be added here under "Earliest unverified bicycle"? According to 《清朝野史大观》, it is said that he invented the "bicycle" during the Qing Dynasty during the reign of Kangxi Emperor.

《清朝野史大观》记载：“黄履庄所制双轮小车一辆，长三尺余，可坐一人，不须推挽，能自行。行时，以手挽轴旁曲拐，则复行如初，随住随挽日足行八十里。” Qhwans (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Schubert[edit]

This shows a cartoon illustration of the composer Franz Schubert having a bicycle (velocipede) collision. It would make an interesting illustration here. 2603:8000:F201:2879:645B:1FBA:3A5F:AF9C (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Schubert#/media/File:Kaleidoskop&Draisine.tif

Work Bikes[edit]

The concept of a Bicycle in its design has been advanced to be able to accomplish duties and labors normally handled by horse-drawn carriages and wagons, and motor vehicles, and has been a crucial part of the integration of alternative vehicles into the working practices of a number of utility services and commercial enterprises. From the development of accesory Bike Trailers, to the addition of Passenger Seats, Cargo Containers and even the creation of Electric-Assisted Motors to accentuate the performance of the Bicycle, Work Bikes have been produced for many years, and should be included in this page under its own heading. If the members of this group are interested in developing a documentation of these types of Bicycles, Accessory Trailers, or if they are made with three or four wheels, in Tricycle or Quadricycle form, we should work to gather as much information from the archives available to create a timeline and show examples of the advancements made. There are also other advancements made in pioneering pedal powered tram lines that are based on the creation of transportation models, and have the potential for revolutionizing travel throughout congested cities if integrated in the right fashion. I hope to work with the group in setting up this topic for discussion in the near future. James Simpson, Founder and Owner, Pedal Power Work Bikes. 70.167.213.119 (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_bicycle&oldid=1204623898"