THE WEIGHT OF BICYCLES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2467, 26 June 1901, Page 56

THE WEIGHT OF BICYCLES.

There is a fairly general idea among wheelmen that modern bicycles are too heavy. It is no uncommon thing to find machines which are scheduled as light roadster* scaling 361b. with free wheel, two biakes, mud guards, and gear case, even though the tyres are only lAin in, diameter, the saddle of light type, and the pedals rattraps Even if the ridei be content to lide \vith fixed wheel, no brake, guards, ov geai case, and with racing !-addk and roadracing tyres, he find* it difficult to nrocure a bicycle under 281b, unle-s he buys an actual path lacei. Fo» a rider of 12st and upwards these weights are hardly ereeosive, but mer ot 9st oi 10st complain, not without reason, of the absence of any special provision for their very numerous class. That weights have for the past four or five seasons shown a distinct increase is beyond doubt. In 1893 bicycles fai lesr mechanically designed than those at present in use were built down to about 241b or 251b for road-iacers, and road-racing tyres in tho o e day? certainly weighed at leasfr 21b a ijair more than the meagre cover= of 10-day.

The official explanation of this increase of weight is that the powerful brakes which the fiee wheel has brought into use necc&Vitate the ike of heavier tubing in the fiames to stand the additional strecses. Eut the way in which the»e have been discounted in the direction of extra weight is undoubtedly libeial. Powerful brakes were used long before the advent of the free wheel, and so fai as front whee 1 brakes are concerned, recent tests go far to show that an efficient tyre brake is little if at all in-

ferior in power to the rim brake. Even it» the cape of back wheel brakes it is diflicul to agree that the stresses imposed upon the chaiu stays by the ordinary back-pedal-ling rim brake are more severe than the stresses caused by vigorous hill climbing. The only real need for special strengthening of the tubes seems to arise in the ca^e ot braker which act from the back stays— a method of braking which seems much inferior to the attachment of the brake lr> the already reinforced chain-s-tays. Even here I have seen many cases in which the fitting of tho powerful Bow den brake to the hack stays of a road-racer not specially strengthened to withstand its strain has resulted iii no ill effects. Haif a pound at tiio highest seems a sufficient allowance to make in this direction.

I am inclined to think, then (sayp a writer in London Field), that in attributing the prevalent increase of weight to the free wheel we are distinctly being misled. Moreovei. thi>- theory does not account for the increase in weight of the fixed wheel road-racor Another theory of some ingenuity ib to the effect that it is due tc the influx of unskilled riders during tiiG boom of 1896. These men had not the skill to 'nurse' a light bicycle, and the result was a severe cop of breakdowns. To avoid this the makers, in the interest"; of then customers' necks, increased the weight all round, s-o that any bicycle would stand a* much knocking about as the clum>ie«t ot novices could give it. The makers, in fad, levelled down to the full roadster.

The one bound point in this theory seems to me to lie in the fact that it i-yiichronise.-the increase in weight with the boom. .Beyond this I cannot agree with it. For (.he light and carefully-built bicycles of earlier days did not habitually crumple up, even when ridden b3 r novices The true explanation seems rather to lie in the indecent haute with which, in the unfortunate year 1896 bicycles were rushed through the factories. Money was to be made by almost anyone who could put bicycles on the market, nnd not content with straining the resources of their own factories, great firms did not always disdain to farm out the building oi their machines to houses of humbler repute, and to place upon the products their own trade marks. It would be cruel at this date to add to the misfortunes of historic firms which have since come into evil days, but there was some curious litigation in the days of the boom between the nominal makers aud their unrecognised understudies. The fact remains that the bicycles of 1896 were largeiv scamped. Now abundance of metal will covei many sins in the way of faulty building. Bad work in a light machine betrays itself, and therefore many makers were compelled to increase the weight of these machines. The obvious economy of this course commended itself no less in the days of slump than in the days of boom, and has continued to the present day. Many experienced riders, especially those of light weight, go by choice to small makers or repute, because in this way only they find it possible to get their requirements in the way of weight duly studied.

I do not wish to be understood as at - voeating' tho "indiscriminate cutting down of weight, or as not being fully alive to tlirnecessity for maintaining the rigidity of t 1 p frame. But the modern wheelman is not sufficiently critical in these matters. Rigidity of frame was appreciated in the early nineties, but in those days the tire faith was held to be that whereas any respectable maker could turn out a heavy bicycle- which would stand up and wear well, the real test of first-class form vas the ability to make a light bicycle which was rigid and durable. This is why in tho s e days most bicyclists would agree in naming a handful ot makers as being a little above the ruck. It is to be regretted that few, if firms of to-day have had the -foresight or the ability to secxire for themselves like Binnacles of fame, and it is to be hoped that the keen competition of the future will bring the good and really light bicycle into the prominence which it deserves.