Bicycles & Tricycles (and tandems)



Archibald Sharp, author of the 1896 "Bicycles & Tricycles," tried his
hand at designing bicycles in 1888:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=wKhtAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=415740

Sharp's patent is for putting every frame member in "direct tension or
compression" in his odd bicycles.

He duplicated the rear frame on the front wheel, replacing the two
blades of a normal fork with a strong diamond frame.

He called the front and rear diamonds half-frames, explaining that
each was an "irregular tetrahedron or triangular pyramid."

Figure 1 is a front-driving safety, with the chain going to the front
wheel, while figure 2 is a rear-driver. It was 1888, only a few years
after Starley's 1885 Rover appeared, and they weren' quite sure yet
which way was best.

As an aside, figure 4 illustrates a common problem in viewing
"bicycle" patents. Given the dead side view, it's easy to mistake the
thing for a bicycle, but the overhead view of figure 5 shows that it's
a tricycle. (Sometimes the overhead view reveals a quadricycle.)

The second tandem, figure 10, with the rear rider perched behind the
tire, became popular in pacing tandems because the rider drafting the
tandem could get closer to the shelter of the big guy who always sat
last.

Sharp included only a single reduced line drawing of his two
half-frames design in "Bicycles & Tricycles," with a rueful admission
that it was a failure:

"In a bicycle designed by the author in 1888, with the object of
eliminating, as far as possible, all bending stresses on the frame
tubes, the steering-head was behind the steering-wheel, and
consequently the latter could be supported by a trussed frame. The
complete frame (fig. 286 [figure 2 in the patent]) had a general
resemblance to a queen-post roof-truss. This design answered all
requirements as regards lightness and strength; but as an expert rider
experienced almost as much difficulty in learning to ride this machine
as a novice in learning to ride one of the usual type, it was
abandoned."

(Actually, Sharp was wrong about lightness--replacing the front fork
with a rear diamond was obviously a heavier design. But many early
bicycle designs were so heavy that Sharp's design was actually fairly
light in comparison, so we can give him his claim to lightness.)

Back then, you could pick any two: strong, light, or rideable.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
G

G.fried

Guest
[email protected] schrieb:
> Archibald Sharp, author of the 1896 "Bicycles & Tricycles," tried his
> hand at designing bicycles in 1888:
>
> http://www.google.com/patents?id=wKhtAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=415740
>
> Sharp's patent is for putting every frame member in "direct tension or
> compression" in his odd bicycles.
>
> He duplicated the rear frame on the front wheel, replacing the two
> blades of a normal fork with a strong diamond frame.
>


Hi ,

I wonder what you want to say us - are there modern concepts solving the
issue?

And what about this?

http://www.hyperbike.cc/docs/original/nachrechts.jpg


cheers

Efried
 
A

Andre Jute

Guest
Thanks, Fogel. You're doing good, but try to make it pithier, eh? --
AJ

<[email protected]> wrote:

> Andre Jute wrote:
> Yo, Fogel, gofer Google. Bring me a > symmetrical bike or the nearest you can
> find. Chop, chop. -- AJ


<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Archibald Sharp, author of the 1896 "Bicycles & Tricycles," tried his
>> hand at designing bicycles in 1888:
>>

http://www.google.com/patents?id=wKhtAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=415740
>>
>> Sharp's patent is for putting every frame member in "direct tension or
>> compression" in his odd bicycles.
>>
>> He duplicated the rear frame on the front wheel, replacing the two
>> blades of a normal fork with a strong diamond frame.
>>
>> He called the front and rear diamonds half-frames, explaining that
>> each was an "irregular tetrahedron or triangular pyramid."
>>
>> Figure 1 is a front-driving safety, with the chain going to the front
>> wheel, while figure 2 is a rear-driver. It was 1888, only a few years
>> after Starley's 1885 Rover appeared, and they weren' quite sure yet
>> which way was best.
>>
>> As an aside, figure 4 illustrates a common problem in viewing
>> "bicycle" patents. Given the dead side view, it's easy to mistake the
>> thing for a bicycle, but the overhead view of figure 5 shows that it's
>> a tricycle. (Sometimes the overhead view reveals a quadricycle.)
>>
>> The second tandem, figure 10, with the rear rider perched behind the
>> tire, became popular in pacing tandems because the rider drafting the
>> tandem could get closer to the shelter of the big guy who always sat
>> last.
>>
>> Sharp included only a single reduced line drawing of his two
>> half-frames design in "Bicycles & Tricycles," with a rueful admission
>> that it was a failure:
>>
>> "In a bicycle designed by the author in 1888, with the object of
>> eliminating, as far as possible, all bending stresses on the frame
>> tubes, the steering-head was behind the steering-wheel, and
>> consequently the latter could be supported by a trussed frame. The
>> complete frame (fig. 286 [figure 2 in the patent]) had a general
>> resemblance to a queen-post roof-truss. This design answered all
>> requirements as regards lightness and strength; but as an expert rider
>> experienced almost as much difficulty in learning to ride this machine
>> as a novice in learning to ride one of the usual type, it was
>> abandoned."
>>
>> (Actually, Sharp was wrong about lightness--replacing the front fork
>> with a rear diamond was obviously a heavier design. But many early
>> bicycle designs were so heavy that Sharp's design was actually fairly
>> light in comparison, so we can give him his claim to lightness.)
>>
>> Back then, you could pick any two: strong, light, or rideable.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel