1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Epistemonas
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:58 am UTC

1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Epistemonas » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:10 am UTC

Image

Title text: I'll be honest--the 1950s were a rough time for cycling.

I’d say the 1950s were a great time for cycling. The 1955 design appears to cause its user to move at a much greater speed than any of the others.

Psykar
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:32 am UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Psykar » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:15 am UTC

I kept expecting a reference to http://boxcar2d.com/

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby rhomboidal » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:18 am UTC

Counting out two wheels might seem simple from outside observation, but when you're immersed in the actual design process, it's surprisingly tricky.

User avatar
sfmans
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:09 am UTC
Location: High Peak, UK

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby sfmans » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:36 am UTC

I'd love this on a T shirt, if only for the fun of alternating it with one I already own ...

https://entertainment.guardianoffers.co.uk/i-dd-rm001789/the-evolution-of-bicycles/

Did the USA get an equivalent to the Raleigh Copper in the 1980s?

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby StClair » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:41 am UTC

Psykar wrote:I kept expecting a reference to http://boxcar2d.com/


Same, and came here to link it if it hadn't been already.

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5591
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Eternal Density » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:43 am UTC

I feel like I'm missing some important nuances in this. Or is it just plain silliness?
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:58 am UTC

It's funny because it's not far off the actual truth, although once you make the designs 'sane' you might also need to adjust the timeline a bit.

In reality, in the early days of cycling, nobody knew what a bicycle looked like (or, indeed, any form of cycle - with even up to five wheels in one famous case) but once they developed the 'safety bicycle' diamond-frame format (give or take different ideas about tube linkages, and necessary extrapolations for derived forms of tandems, trikes and tandem-trikes, especially) for quite a long time the design was merely 'twerked', in relatively minor ways.

Then, it seems, the '70s and the' 80s started to produce many weird and wonderful creations. From the modern form of the recumbant cycle (considered 'fringe' to some, still, but at least seen enough for a non-cyclist not to be too surprised to see one, deathtraps as they are on the open road) to frankly wierd designs like the Reverse Stoker Cycling1 (that sank without trace2... I hope!).

But then I long considered the Mountain Bike variation to be a 'fad', yet I have still to be proven correct on that assumption, so maybe I'm wrong about that... ;)

[This was written from scratch following the intro post only, but nicely follows on from Eternal Density's post, just above... serendipitously! ]


1 The rear rider is the steersman, by a linkage to the front forks, because the stoker is seated backwards to tbe front (seat pillar above forks, with hands on second, non-turning set of bars in the centre of the tandem frame...) Designed for aerodynamic reasons (sloped back of front rider acts as a 'legal' fairing) but not for common-sense/safety, IMO.

2Tried to find images of it... Nowhere to be seen, although other strange machines answer to a similar description.

User avatar
Echo244
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:49 am UTC
Location: Ping! Ping! Ping! Ping!

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Echo244 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:13 am UTC

The 1955 design may be best for speed, but Ponytail definitely looks like she's having more fun with the 1810 machine.
Unstoppable force of nature. That means she/her/hers.
Has committed an act of treason.

Ordinalade
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 10:20 pm UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Ordinalade » Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:36 am UTC

Some of those drawings remind me of Gianluca Gimini's "Velocipedia", where people draw bicycles from memory on little cards, and he mock up some of the more interesting ones. It's funny because he's based in Italy, and I imagine most of the people would have seen a bicycle that day. http://www.gianlucagimini.it/prototypes/velocipedia.html

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby cellocgw » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:00 am UTC

sfmans wrote:I'd love this on a T shirt, if only for the fun of alternating it with one I already own ...

https://entertainment.guardianoffers.co.uk/i-dd-rm001789/the-evolution-of-bicycles/

Did the USA get an equivalent to the Raleigh Copper in the 1980s?


Assuming you meant "Rayleigh Chopper," well, there were dozens of equivalent models in the 60s and 70s. The Sears Stingray was one of the more ubiquitous models. ..... Hey, I got to use a word with three "u"s in it! :)
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5591
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Eternal Density » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:05 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:It's funny because it's not far off the actual truth, although once you make the designs 'sane' you might also need to adjust the timeline a bit.

In reality, in the early days of cycling, nobody knew what a bicycle looked like (or, indeed, any form of cycle - with even up to five wheels in one famous case) but once they developed the 'safety bicycle' diamond-frame format (give or take different ideas about tube linkages, and necessary extrapolations for derived forms of tandems, trikes and tandem-trikes, especially) for quite a long time the design was merely 'twerked', in relatively minor ways.
Er... surely you mean 'twerked'.

[This was written from scratch following the intro post only, but nicely follows on from Eternal Density's post, just above... serendipitously! ]
Neat! And thanks, even though it wasn't intentional.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
bachaddict
Handel Played it Better
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:18 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby bachaddict » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:05 am UTC

cellocgw wrote: Hey, I got to use a word with three "u"s in it! :)

How unusual!
slinches wrote:Also, the OTC isn't a disease. In fact, it's the cure. As we all know, Time heals all wounds.

Thanks for the molpish wig ggh!
he/him/his

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:42 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:It's funny because it's not far off the actual truth, although once you make the designs 'sane' you might also need to adjust the timeline a bit.

In reality, in the early days of cycling, nobody knew what a bicycle looked like (or, indeed, any form of cycle - with even up to five wheels in one famous case) but once they developed the 'safety bicycle' diamond-frame format (give or take different ideas about tube linkages, and necessary extrapolations for derived forms of tandems, trikes and tandem-trikes, especially) for quite a long time the design was merely 'twerked', in relatively minor ways.
Er... surely you mean 'twerked'.
Exactly.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5591
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Eternal Density » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:51 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Exactly.
You aren't Soupspoon. Why are you replying to me?
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby HES » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:56 am UTC

cellocgw wrote:
sfmans wrote:Raleigh Copper
Rayleigh Chopper

Do you want to meet in the middle at Raleigh Chopper?
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
sfmans
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:09 am UTC
Location: High Peak, UK

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby sfmans » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:59 am UTC

cellocgw wrote:Assuming you meant "Rayleigh Chopper," well, there were dozens of equivalent models in the 60s and 70s. The Sears Stingray was one of the more ubiquitous models. ..... Hey, I got to use a word with three "u"s in it! :)


Well no, I come in peace, but actually I did mean the Raleigh Chopper :)

Rayleigh - village in Essex, mentioned in the Domesday Book but now subsumed into the sprawl of the glorious conurbation that is Southend-on-Sea, a town very seldom if ever referred to as the jewel in the heavily tattooed navel of the Thames Estuary

Raleigh - manufacturer of many fine bicycles, including the cool-looking-but utterly-impractical Chopper

And yes I do fully realise that I have just invoked the spirit of https://xkcd.com/386/ ...

Edit: Ninja'd

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:07 pm UTC

Eternal Density wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Exactly.
You aren't Soupspoon. Why are you replying to me?
To highlight the fact that you both used the same word.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby jewish_scientist » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:59 pm UTC

Ordinalade wrote:Some of those drawings remind me of Gianluca Gimini's "Velocipedia", where people draw bicycles from memory on little cards, and he mock up some of the more interesting ones. It's funny because he's based in Italy, and I imagine most of the people would have seen a bicycle that day. http://www.gianlucagimini.it/prototypes/velocipedia.html

I cannot see the problem with the bike at the top. The best I could come up with is that adding a metal piece connecting the pedals and gear to the back wheel's axis would make the bike more structurally sound; however, if the joint connecting the back wheel's metal connecter to the bike's main frame is strong enough then the bike would still function.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3104
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby orthogon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:03 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Exactly.
You aren't Soupspoon. Why are you replying to me?
To highlight the fact that you both used the same word.

I'm just surprised that ED has managed over 5000 posts* without falling into that particular bear trap. I seem to feel the need to twerk on every other post.

* Well, the bear trap may not have been in place for all that time.

ETA:
jewish_scientist wrote:I cannot see the problem with the bike at the top. The best I could come up with is that adding a metal piece connecting the pedals and gear to the back wheel's axis would make the bike more structurally sound; however, if the joint connecting the back wheel's metal connecter to the bike's main frame is strong enough then the bike would still function.

Yeah, normally the missing member would be in tension, so that job can be done by the chain. Fortunately it's not a dérailleur so there's no jockey wheel.

ETA2: ED has in fact twerked before: here and here.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Boilerplate
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Boilerplate » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:10 pm UTC

These are very "Suess-ian" designs.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3104
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby orthogon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:22 pm UTC

The 1810 design might almost be do-able now, using Segway/Hoverboard style servo control. Anyone for a kickstarter project?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

DanD
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby DanD » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:ETA:
jewish_scientist wrote:I cannot see the problem with the bike at the top. The best I could come up with is that adding a metal piece connecting the pedals and gear to the back wheel's axis would make the bike more structurally sound; however, if the joint connecting the back wheel's metal connecter to the bike's main frame is strong enough then the bike would still function.

Yeah, normally the missing member would be in tension, so that job can be done by the chain. Fortunately it's not a dérailleur so there's no jockey wheel.


The chain stay also provides lateral stability. jewish_scientist is correct that if you made the seat stays massively stiff, this design would probably work, there are monocoque frames that essentially do that, but as pictured, that back wheel will be wobbling all over the place, and crack or bend the seat stay on the first bump.

ETA: Not to mention, if you are counting on the chain as a tension member, you'd better have one on each side.

Carteeg_Struve
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:56 pm UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Carteeg_Struve » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:35 pm UTC

I'm kinda surprised the 2016 version wasn't just an iPhone with a bike app running on it.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3104
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby orthogon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:45 pm UTC

DanD wrote:ETA: Not to mention, if you are counting on the chain as a tension member, you'd better have one on each side.

This is xkcd. There is no third dimension!

ETA: Interesting that the majority (34/50) of the original sketches on Velocipedia have the bike pointing to the left, whereas his renderings all have the bike pointing to the right. I'm pretty sure I'd naturally draw a bike pointing to the right on the basis of speaking a LTR language, so I'm surprised at the result from his presumably Italian respondents. (I calculate that the bias is statistically significant: p=0.008; amiright?).

ETA2: Follow-up research question: is it correlated to the side of the road people drive on?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:00 pm UTC

While looking for something else, I came across https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideways_bike

Really?

The balancing explanation seems to ignore that 'front/back balancing' is only relative to the rider, not the bike. And the "Disadvantages" section seems to be mysteriously lacking a quite prominent related issue (beyond the 'neck strain' one).

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby HES » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:09 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:ETA2: Follow-up research question: is it correlated to the side of the road people drive on?

Interesting hypothesis, but I would expect it to produce the opposite effect: Standing on the footway and facing the road, as if you're about to mount a bike and cycle away, would put it RTL in drive-on-the-left countries and LTR in the less civilised world.

That is all dependant of reference frame, of course.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Archgeek
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 6:00 am UTC
Location: Central US
Contact:

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Archgeek » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:12 pm UTC

I love how what is defintely a boxcar2d-based gag has promptly veered into disucssions of actual bike design, complete with technical terms. This community is genuinely great. XD
"That big tube down the side was officially called a "systems tunnel", which is aerospace contractor speak for "big tube down the side."

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3104
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby orthogon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:20 pm UTC

HES wrote:That is all dependant of reference frame, of course.

Yes. Carbon fibre reference frames are the best.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:25 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:ETA2: Follow-up research question: is it correlated to the side of the road people drive on?
That was my first thought, but I don't know where this research was carried out, so my own bias to draw going-left (the bike being on my side of the road as I see it passing, on a UK road) might not apply to that sample.

[Ah, missed that it was Italy. Yeah, opposite to what I'd have expected, then. And drivers passing cyclists don't get much side-view, assuming they even give a little space in the first place.]

And doesn't apply much to bikes illegaly ridden on the pavement(/sidewalk, in case of confusion).

User avatar
svenman
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:09 pm UTC
Location: 675 km NNE of the Château d'If

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby svenman » Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:54 pm UTC

Archgeek wrote:I love how what is defintely a boxcar2d-based gag has promptly veered into disucssions of actual bike design, complete with technical terms. This community is genuinely great. XD

I think the actual gag is something else: among all those wacky designs from today's comic, the one labelled "1875" stands out for accurately depicting an actual stage in the real evolution of the bicycle. To someone not familiar with historical bikes, however, that one might perhaps seem just as absurd as the other ones that are merely products of Randall's whimsy. So maybe Randall just wanted to make fun of how absurd the penny-farthing style of bicycle appears to modern eyes?
Apart from Forum Games, mostly active on the One True Thread.
If you need help understanding what's going on there, the xkcd Time Wiki may be useful.

Addams thanks all of us who helped. Her life is much better now.

Randallspeed to all blitzers on the One True Thread!

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby ps.02 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:16 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:ETA: Interesting that the majority (34/50) of the original sketches on Velocipedia have the bike pointing to the left, whereas his renderings all have the bike pointing to the right. I'm pretty sure I'd naturally draw a bike pointing to the right on the basis of speaking a LTR language

I'd be more likely to draw a bike pointing to the right so that the drivetrain is in the foreground.

And I suspect the drivetrain is usually on the right so that:
a) The freewheel can use normal (clockwise-to-tighten) machine threading; and/or
b) The higher torque (for a majority of riders) comes from the pedal closer to the chainring.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby HES » Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:46 pm UTC

Ordinalade wrote:Some of those drawings remind me of Gianluca Gimini's "Velocipedia", where people draw bicycles from memory on little cards, and he mock up some of the more interesting ones

RocketJump put out a video today of the crew doing precisely this. Is Randal secretly FreddieW?

When I draw a bike, it looks like the thing on the left, because fuck drawing the one on the right fifteen times over.
Image
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:59 pm UTC

ps.02 wrote:I'd be more likely to draw a bike pointing to the right so that the drivetrain is in the foreground.

And I suspect the drivetrain is usually on the right so that:
a) The freewheel can use normal (clockwise-to-tighten) machine threading; and/or
b) The higher torque (for a majority of riders) comes from the pedal closer to the chainring.

As far as it goes for me: c) the chain being on the offside of the bike means that you don't brush it with your trouser-leg when wheeling it on foot, or in the process of mounting/dismounting to the curb. In this country and the other 'proper' road-chiralities, at least... ;)

The freewheel mechanism long postdates the (near) standardisation of chain-on-right, but your first argument also may apply to fixed-wheel bikes. (It was not unknown for riders to back-pressure the pedals in leiu of a rear brake and end up unscrewing something, mid-ride!)

Though I'm sure pedal-threads are commonly machined to be of opposite pitch to each other, anyway. This time so a jam always unscrews (either of) the pedals rather than attempts to wrap the rider's foot and leg around in ways that the person would like even less than finding their empedalled foot (toe-clipped or, these days, locked in with a shoe-plate) now unexpectedly disconnected and dangling... But it has been a while since I've undone/fastened my pedals...

The torque should be the same for identical (if 'cis'-phased) pedals, but there may be an element of springiness and hysteresis if the bottom-bracket is not a perfect linkage. But there's been all kinds of weird ideas about cranks, so I won't argue about this one... :P

User avatar
Archgeek
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 6:00 am UTC
Location: Central US
Contact:

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Archgeek » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:24 pm UTC

svenman wrote:
Archgeek wrote:I love how what is defintely a boxcar2d-based gag has promptly veered into disucssions of actual bike design, complete with technical terms. This community is genuinely great. XD

I think the actual gag is something else: among all those wacky designs from today's comic, the one labelled "1875" stands out for accurately depicting an actual stage in the real evolution of the bicycle. To someone not familiar with historical bikes, however, that one might perhaps seem just as absurd as the other ones that are merely products of Randall's whimsy. So maybe Randall just wanted to make fun of how absurd the penny-farthing style of bicycle appears to modern eyes?


True, that is the classic penny-farthing design as seen on woodcuts, encyclopiedias, and The Simpsons, but I think he was making fun of boxcar2d's shenanigans as well, as the designs from 1840, 1880, 1900, 1925, and 2016 all bear weird artifacts often seen in boxcar2d -- notably the complete uselessness of the 1880 and 1900 varieties, the extraneous wheels of of the 1900 and 1925 designs, and the weird spicules on the 1925 and 2016 designs. Plus the 1840 design is a shape that evolution likes to converge toward on a certain track in the game.
"That big tube down the side was officially called a "systems tunnel", which is aerospace contractor speak for "big tube down the side."

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby ps.02 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:00 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
ps.02 wrote:I'd be more likely to draw a bike pointing to the right so that the drivetrain is in the foreground.

And I suspect the drivetrain is usually on the right so that:
a) The freewheel can use normal (clockwise-to-tighten) machine threading; and/or
b) The higher torque (for a majority of riders) comes from the pedal closer to the chainring.

As far as it goes for me: c) the chain being on the offside of the bike means that you don't brush it with your trouser-leg when wheeling it on foot, or in the process of mounting/dismounting to the curb. In this country and the other 'proper' road-chiralities, at least... ;)

Huh, I always assumed you left-drivers spelled spelt it kerb.

Hey. Maybe we mount our bikes from the left because we mount our horses from the left?
Though I'm sure pedal-threads are commonly machined to be of opposite pitch to each other, anyway.

Correct.
The torque should be the same for identical (if 'cis'-phased) pedals

Well, if both your legs are equal strength. Mine are not. I often apply noticeably more torque with my right leg than my left. If one crank arm is to be directly bolted to the chainring (or even sometimes forged with it as a single piece) while the other is on an axle, I'd prefer the right side be directly connected.
But there's been all kinds of weird ideas about cranks

Oh now that's a fun page. Long ago I was given a road bike with elliptical chainrings - not sure if I ever noticed the difference - I was quite inexperienced. At any rate, the idiocy of bent crank arms is much more obvious.

I wonder if anyone has tried unequal crank lengths, to compensate for the power difference of the two legs? I bet that'd feel weird.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:08 pm UTC

The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Echo244
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:49 am UTC
Location: Ping! Ping! Ping! Ping!

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Echo244 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:16 pm UTC

Psykar wrote:I kept expecting a reference to http://boxcar2d.com/


OK, new addiction. It's reminding very much of Trials 2, except playing itself...
Unstoppable force of nature. That means she/her/hers.
Has committed an act of treason.

shinksma
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:53 pm UTC

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby shinksma » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:27 pm UTC

ps.02 wrote:Hey. Maybe we mount our bikes from the left because we mount our horses from the left?


That was my assumption. Now, why do we mount horses from the left? I suppose to train the horses it helps to be consistent, so one side had to win. Is it a right-handed preference?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:07 pm UTC

Either that or left handed roads came first and influenced the other. But yes, the majority of human beings are right handed, and thus tend to stand on a mount's left side, so horses were trained that way.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1673: “Timeline of Bicycle Design”

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:12 pm UTC

ps.02 wrote:
curb. In this country and the other 'proper' road-chiralities, at least... ;)

Huh, I always assumed you left-drivers spelled spelt it kerb.
I sometimes accidentally slip into colonial spellings take pity on those from abroad... :P

Hey. Maybe we mount our bikes from the left because we mount our horses from the left?
You do? You stand in the road (and not on the cerb kurb pavement edge? When I see a cyclist even with his right foot on the floor, here in the UK, I am puzzled.

(I am a timekeeper for cycle races, and so I get to see a lot of stationary/waiting cyclists when I'm the one starting them, and it's definitely become more common (say now maybe a handful of riders per 100 starters?) over the last three or so decades. I blame the scrapping of the Cycling Proficiency badge, in schools, for rearing "people on bikes" rather than "cyclists", even to the level of eventuallt taking part in amateur competitive cycling.)

The torque should be the same for identical (if 'cis'-phased) pedals

Well, if both your legs are equal strength. Mine are not. I often apply noticeably more torque with my right leg than my left.
Ah, leg strength. I thought you meant mechanical advantage (even though it's not the same as torque, exactly, I presumed it was that, sorry) and, apart from the give we both mention, that should be identical.
I find that I'm also stronger with the right foot, on the downstroke, but my left leg has been conditioned to be strongest on the upstroke because of this, meaning serious hill-climbing my power varies between half-cycles, as well as dipping during the 'over-the-top/under-the-bottom part.


Long ago I was given a road bike with elliptical chainrings - not sure if I ever noticed the difference - I was quite inexperienced.
Souns like the 'Egg Ring' (or a competitor, derivative or precursor) which I first saw in the '80s. That' s actually got logic behind it, as it is effectively a rotationally-varying gear that requires the most effort when the pedals are at the angle you can apply most effort (near-but-not-quite vertical) but making it easier when you're perpendicular and only have shin-pressure, not thigh-pressure, as yur leverage.

(I have seen unequal crank-lengths, but I think rhat was on a joke-bike/April Fool press release, apart from that one time I saw it as a temporary fix for someone who had broken a crank out in the wilds, and could only source an unmatching crank locally so that he had an easier time riding back to a proper repairshop than 'one-legging it'.)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 93 guests