Cycling art, energy, and locomotion : $b A series of remarks on the development of bicycles, tricycles, and man-motor carriagesScott, Robert P. (Robert Pittis)
History
Cycling art, energy, and locomotion : $b A series of remarks on the development of bicycles, tricycles, and man-motor carriages
Scott, Robert P. (Robert Pittis)
Bicycles; Cycling; Tricycles
In this connection let me call particular attention to a cardinal
distinction with reference to the action in rolling upon and from an
obstruction. If the wheels in descending hold the man back in order
to remain in contact and thus roll off, it will, of course, result
in a check of momentum exactly equal to that which would occur in
such advance upon an obstacle, as would be shown by a similar curve
in the opposite direction; but, as a matter of fact, the momentum
being a certain amount, the effect is to cause the wheel to leave the
obstruction entirely and not roll, but jump off, which result causes
a great loss of energy and is sure to occur in rapid running. In this
case the forward momentum gets no benefit from the potential energy
acquired in mounting the obstacle, which shows the great necessity of
proper springs such as will enable a man to swing forward slightly
without rigidly drawing the machine after him. The object of the
springs in this connection should be to hold the wheel in contact and
permit it to roll instead of forcing it to jump off; if it rolls and is
not carried off by the force of momentum, the energy will be given out
in driving the machine forward instead of being lost in the vibration
caused by impact when the machine strikes the common level. That is
to say, the machine should roll off, but not hold the man back in
order to do so; by proper springs the wheels remain in contact, while
the man goes on at the regular pace of momentum. The liability of the
rear wheel to jump off is a serious difficulty in the present Rover
type of rear-driver; there is no reversion of the momentum, nor such a
tendency to drop perpendicularly, as in the Ordinary, yet it drops a
greater distance and is charged with more weight. This objection cannot
be entirely remedied by any springs we now have in use; it requires
a lively vertical as well as a horizontal amplitude in the motion of
the springs, and they should be placed at the hub of the rear wheel in
a manner similar to those used of late in connection with the front
wheel. It will be seen from the diagrams that the curves shown by the
front wheels leaving the obstructions are never such as would show any
liability to jump off; advancing _upon_ the obstruction must, in them,
be mostly provided for.
In Fig. 8 we have a machine provided with a thirty-inch front and
twenty-four-inch rear driving-wheel. This is a modification of the
Rover type recently favored by some English makers. The drop of the
rear wheel is more radical than that of a full thirty-inch.
In Fig. 9 appears a Dennis Johnson machine, with two wheels of the
same size, having the seat low down and exactly midway between them.
This is perhaps the easiest riding contrivance in so far as vibration,
jolt, and shock are concerned. Observe the equable motion it displays.
This machine was patented in England, as spoken of in an early chapter,
seventy years ago.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account