Readers letters
Since I retired from ‘paid work’ I have learned much about the history of cycling. It all started as a local history project when, as an active cyclist and member of the local racing club, I was asked whether there was any written material available concerning the Elswick-Hopper company. I knew there had been a bicycle manufacturer of that name in the town and that the large factory had become an industrial estate, but little more. However, I decided it was a worthwhile project and ten years later, in 2010, Elswick-Hopper of Barton-on-Humber, was published. As Fred Hopper started work in the 1870s as an apprentice whitesmith and with a continuous thread of ownership through to Falcon Cycles today, the book covers some 140 years of cycle company history. Fortunately I had access to many years of company papers through the North-East Lincolnshire Archive Office in Grimsby and discovered the existence of the Veteran-Cycle Club and of many books on cycling history written by historians in the UK, USA, Germany and France etc. I soon learned that a sound knowledge of the history of bicycle manufacture was a prerequisite to interpreting the vast amount of information available within the archives.
I was delighted to spot Karyn Stuckey’s article in the November 2013 edition of Professional Engineering, but delight quickly turned to disappointment. Frankly, it is full of misinformation and plain mistakes and is far below the standard I have come to expect in PE. I should not need to remind you that the written word is often taken as gospel by the average reader and that writers have an obligation to do their ‘homework’ thoroughly, especially for a technical journal such as this. You will not have the space for a complete list of corrections, but, please, Raleigh does not contain a ‘y’. For readers who may be interested in the early history of the bicycle I suggest The Origins of the Bicycle by Andrew Ritchie, but really, it just takes a look at
Wikipedia to get the main facts right.
One basic omission in the article was that ‘the first verifiable claim for a practically used bicycle belongs to German Baron Karl von Drais, a civil servant to the Grand Duke of Baden in Germany. Drais invented his Laufmaschine (German for ‘running machine’) in 1817… von Drais patented this design in 1818, which was the first commercially successful two-wheeled, steerable, human-propelled machine, commonly called a velocipede, and nicknamed hobby-horse or dandy horse.’ [Wikipedia.]
Karen’s third paragraph is just wrong – the development of the Michaux velocipede is a complicated story – 1860 is incorrect (by a couple of years or so), as is the ‘steering had been absent’ comment, and James Starley was responsible for developing the high bicycle, or penny farthing – never called a boneshaker – this was the soubriquet awarded to the Michaux velocipede.
It is also worth noting that:
1. Grout's machine was never advertised as 'folding'. 'The Portable Bicycle', Patent 3749, September 1878 was supplied with a 'Wonderful' bag and won the highest award at the Great Bicycle Contest held at the Agricultural Hall in November 1878.
2. Folding tricycles were not designed in 1884 for transportation, as implied in the text, but to narrow them for negotiating doorways and for stowage.
3. Markham's 'Champion' folder for 1884 was of course a high wheel tricycle whereas Brompton make bicycles.
Perhaps Karen’s efforts to précis the history of the bicycle into a single page were doomed from the start, but I also disagree with her analysis of the recent past, since 1980. I struggle to think of any worthwhile ‘evolutions’ in the bicycle since 1980, apart from the mountain bike, perhaps, though it is largely still a recognisable diamond frame machine. As for materials? Carbon fibre is light, yes, but durable and environmentally acceptable? Aluminium? First used in the 1890s and lots of problems today with fatigue cracking. No, apart from clipless pedals I can’t think of any ground breaking developments in the last 30 odd years. No one actually needs 33 gears – it’s all about marketing and one-upmanship! As for ‘the increased popularity of cycling as a sport’, compared with when?
Nigel Land, Barton-on-Humber Next letter: Criticism of modern van technology