this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
44 points (92.3% liked)

Bicycles

3110 readers
49 users here now

Welcome to !bicycles@lemmy.ca

A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!

Community Rules

Other cycling-related communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Evkob@lemmy.ca
44
130-year-old bicycle vs brand-new modern bike (www.youtube.com)
submitted 6 months ago by vividspecter@lemm.ee to c/bicycles@lemmy.ca
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've often wondered why, after a century of innovation, modern bicycles look so similar to the ones that people rode in the 1890s. After all the innovations in the world since that time, why haven't we improved on the bicycle?

That question drove me to compare a brand-new, just-out-of-the-box bike to one that was built in 1895. And maybe you'll be as surprised as me at the similarities and the differences between them.

A big thanks to the Reynolds Museum, particularly to Juanita Voth, who shared her time and knowledge. You should visit the museum: https://reynoldsmuseum.ca/

The modern bike is a 2024 Priority Eight (and it's super fun to ride). The old bike is an 1895 Singer Ladies' Safety Bicycle (and it's fascinating).

all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Part of the reason they look so similar is because UCI banned recumbents as soon as they were invented

[–] Dearth@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Not just recumbents. In the late 90s Kestral unveiled some super cool and aero road bike frames that did away with the classic dual triangle frame design entirely. UCI banned those as well and i will never not be salty about it

[–] Jojowski@sopuli.xyz 9 points 6 months ago

Take a full-suspension carbon mtb with electric shifting, hydraulic brakes, tubeless tyres etc and compare it to 1895 Singer safety bike. A lot has changed! But of course with more simple designs there aren't that many bits to develop, yet probably every part has changed to some extent since those times.

[–] John_McMurray@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't even know what to say about people scared of a pennyfarthing. I guess they never saw a guy push a motorcycle fast as he can in 3rd gear clutch disengaged, and jump on when the engine fires after he dumps the clutch. (They took away kickers before electric start was reliable)

[–] Philharmonic3@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Weight

[–] SternburgExport@feddit.de 3 points 6 months ago

Well they have changed a lot. Just the general form of the frame and position of the components hasn‘t. You can see this in a lot of technology (especially mechanical)

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

Cool video, fellow Albbertan! (And at the end, I thibk you were riding along beside Deerfoot north of 32nd, so fellow Calgarian.)

I'd love to see a breakdown of the true innovations that draw the line from Singer to modern day. Surr materials have improved, but that's incremental. The freewheel and the derailleur are fundamental new innovations. Rim brakes improved over a century, but weren't really new. Disc brakes might qualify as a true innovation. And of course, pneumatuc tires - every few years an attempt to replace them fails once again, because they were an absolute miracle.

I'd also love to see a discussion of what might be, if it weren't for the UCI's punitive rules.