Re: scans from bike book
- From: carlfogel@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:14:06 -0700
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:39:05 -0700, carlfogel@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:30:29 -0700, carlfogel@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 6 Dec 2007 14:45:39 -0800, gillies@xxxxxxxxx (Donald Gillies)
wrote:
A Muzi <am@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
carlfogel@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Weight weenies, eat your hearts out:
http://i10.tinypic.com/87m2g3t.jpg
Eight pounds fourteen ounces is 4.034 kg. I've seen another reference
to this lightweight wonder, but can't find it.
Could there be a misunderstanding someplace? Looks like a reasonably 8-9
pound frameset in carbon steel tube.
For a complete bike of that style, with steel bars and crank, wide
tires, carbon steel frame, under nine pounds seems improbable.
Well, the bike frame might have been very small and flexy. If that is
the case, I can easily see someone welding together a 4 lbs
frame/fork. Wooden rims could weigh about 1.5 lbs (700 grams), tires
could be almost arbitrarily thin, just by using fine cloth and
skimping on rubber, maybe 1 lbs total, in those day all tires were
tubular. Then you need hubs, cranks, bars, stem, and saddle. If that
was 4 lbs, I get a weight of 10.5 lbs ~ pretty close to the claimed
wait of 8 lbs 14 oz.
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
Dear Don & Andrew,
Still no luck finding the article that I half-remember about the light
bike, but groveling through the NYT and Outing magazine is tedious and
their searches often miss things.
The ultra-light bike was probably made just for the exhibition,
meaning that the manufacturer had no intention of actually selling the
thing, much less having anyone get on it and see how far it could be
ridden before it broke.
A) It will turn out that I'm mis-remembering the article.
B) I'll find that it was the frame alone, not a complete bicycle.
C) Someone will have written a different article, explaining that the
8 lbs 14 oz was a mis-print for eighteen pounds and fourteen ounces
(or 14 lbs 8 oz).
D) I'll never find anything and give up.
E) I'll stumble over unrelated points of interest, like this article
in which Murphy details his mile-a-minute ride, apparently an earlier
version of the better-known article. It mentions lots of things left
out in the pages that I found, so I was quite startled when I realized
that my extensive searching a few months ago never turned the damn
thing up:
http://www.phys.uri.edu/~tony/bicycle/murphyli/lirrsky.htm
Maybe this guy hadn't put that page up on the internet when I was
looking:
http://www.phys.uri.edu/~tony/
He looks like a promising recruit for RBT.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
F) Found it in "Bicycling Science," 2nd edition, Rowland and Wilson,
figure 10.16 on page 267. But it's just the same picture, credited to
"Riding High." So I saw the 8 lb 14 oz claim and picture reproduced
there years before I bought the original book it was taken from.
Unfortunately, I still half-remember seeing something about the
ultra-light bike at the show, which isn't mentioned in "Bicycle
Science," so I have to grovel through the NYT archives, having found
nothing in "Outing" magazine.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Aaargh!
I should have looked closer at "Riding High" instead of running off to
the internet to search for details of the lightweight Tribune.
The photo and caption that I scanned are on the right-hand side of the
right-hand page 125. The text on that page doesn't seem to mention the
bike.
But the left-hand page 124 says:
"But we were talking about lightness. The limit in this seems to have
been reached at the National Bicycle Exhibition at Madison Square
Garden in February, 1895, where a Tribune bicycle weighing eight
pounds, fourteen ounces was shown to an almost unbelieving public. It
was a full size adult bicycle in every respect, with 28-inch wheels
and a 43 3/4-inch wheel base, and had been thoroughly tested by an
average-weight rider. For some reason unknown at this time, this
featherweight never attained the popularity it would seem to have
warranted."
So it was a full-size, rideable bike at 8 lbs 14 oz. Despite the
allegedly thoroughly testing, I'd be afraid to ride anything that
light very far.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
.
- References:
- scans from bike book
- From: carlfogel
- Re: scans from bike book
- From: A Muzi
- Re: scans from bike book
- From: Donald Gillies
- Re: scans from bike book
- From: carlfogel
- Re: scans from bike book
- From: carlfogel
- scans from bike book
- Prev by Date: Re: stiff yet compliant
- Next by Date: Re: Looking for info on slow-speed bicycle handling
- Previous by thread: Re: scans from bike book
- Next by thread: Re: scans from bike book
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
