Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
apparently 1925.

Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and hydraulics
and electronics and so on.

Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.

Roger Merriman

On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
> apparently 1925.
>
> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and hydraulics
> and electronics and so on.
>
> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>
> Roger Merriman
>

Something like this?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg

In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of very
different appearance from modern styling. Mid 1930s models
are more like our current touring designs.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
>> apparently 1925.
>>
>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and hydraulics
>> and electronics and so on.
>>
>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
> Something like this?
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>
> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of very different
> appearance from modern styling.  Mid 1930s models are more like our
> current touring designs.

Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it would generate a
large amount of wheel flop. But I guess that geometry was considered
good in those days.

I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry. I wonder about
the specific motivation for that design trend, and for the trends that
followed it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/4/2024 1:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with
>>> wing nuts
>>> apparently 1925.
>>>
>>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with
>>> disk and hydraulics
>>> and electronics and so on.
>>>
>>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived
>>> as we left.
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>
>> Something like this?
>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>>
>> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of
>> very different appearance from modern styling.  Mid 1930s
>> models are more like our current touring designs.
>
> Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it would
> generate a large amount of wheel flop. But I guess that
> geometry was considered good in those days.
>
> I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry. I
> wonder about the specific motivation for that design trend,
> and for the trends that followed it.
>

Well, you didn't like 1-meter wheelbase either.

Times change, fashion changes. Now we at least have wider
range of choice.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
>> apparently 1925.
>>
>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and hydraulics
>> and electronics and so on.
>>
>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
> Something like this?
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>
> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of very
> different appearance from modern styling. Mid 1930s models
> are more like our current touring designs.

Not as slack more similar to the Gravel bikes in geometry. Looks very
pretty as you expect!

Roger Merriman

On 2/4/2024 3:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 1:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
>>>> apparently 1925.
>>>>
>>>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and
>>>> hydraulics
>>>> and electronics and so on.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>
>>>
>>> Something like this?
>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>>>
>>> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of very different
>>> appearance from modern styling.  Mid 1930s models are more like our
>>> current touring designs.
>>
>> Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it would generate a
>> large amount of wheel flop. But I guess that geometry was considered
>> good in those days.
>>
>> I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry. I wonder
>> about the specific motivation for that design trend, and for the
>> trends that followed it.
>>
>
> Well, you didn't like 1-meter wheelbase either.
>
> Times change, fashion changes.  Now we at least have wider range of choice.

But you have no comments on the reasons for the changes? Really? Were
road surface conditions perhaps different then, so as to make that
geometry more practical?

It seems increasingly difficult to talk about actual bike technology in
this group!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/5/2024 10:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 3:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 1:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with
>>>>> wing nuts
>>>>> apparently 1925.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with
>>>>> disk and hydraulics
>>>>> and electronics and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only
>>>>> arrived as we left.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Something like this?
>>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>>>>
>>>> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of
>>>> very different appearance from modern styling.  Mid
>>>> 1930s models are more like our current touring designs.
>>>
>>> Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it
>>> would generate a large amount of wheel flop. But I guess
>>> that geometry was considered good in those days.
>>>
>>> I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry.
>>> I wonder about the specific motivation for that design
>>> trend, and for the trends that followed it.
>>>
>>
>> Well, you didn't like 1-meter wheelbase either.
>>
>> Times change, fashion changes.  Now we at least have wider
>> range of choice.
>
> But you have no comments on the reasons for the changes?
> Really? Were road surface conditions perhaps different then,
> so as to make that geometry more practical?
>
> It seems increasingly difficult to talk about actual bike
> technology in this group!
>

Could be 'road conditions', but the hardwood board track
bikes of that era are similar, which leads me to think that
the general format suited riders' conception of "proper
bicycle design" at that time.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/560909328560096177/

Having read quite a bit in the realm of 'history of
science', across millenia, it's sometimes difficult to
embrace thoughts from another era and to evaluate their
decisions within their current paradigms, not ours.

c.f. Eugenie Christophe, a man of the era on the latest
technology of his times:

https://www.grandsudinsolite.fr/2682-65-hautes-pyrenees-eugene-christophe--premiere-legende-du-tour-de-france.html
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 11:00:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/4/2024 3:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 1:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
>>>>> apparently 1925.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and
>>>>> hydraulics
>>>>> and electronics and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Something like this?
>>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>>>>
>>>> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of very different
>>>> appearance from modern styling.  Mid 1930s models are more like our
>>>> current touring designs.
>>>
>>> Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it would generate a
>>> large amount of wheel flop. But I guess that geometry was considered
>>> good in those days.
>>>
>>> I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry. I wonder
>>> about the specific motivation for that design trend, and for the
>>> trends that followed it.
>>>
>>
>> Well, you didn't like 1-meter wheelbase either.
>>
>> Times change, fashion changes.  Now we at least have wider range of choice.
>
>But you have no comments on the reasons for the changes? Really? Were
>road surface conditions perhaps different then, so as to make that
>geometry more practical?
>
>It seems increasingly difficult to talk about actual bike technology in
>this group!

Nobody is hindering you from talking about actual bike technology.
Have at it.

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 10:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 3:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 1:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with
>>>>>> wing nuts
>>>>>> apparently 1925.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with
>>>>>> disk and hydraulics
>>>>>> and electronics and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only
>>>>>> arrived as we left.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Something like this?
>>>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of
>>>>> very different appearance from modern styling.  Mid
>>>>> 1930s models are more like our current touring designs.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it
>>>> would generate a large amount of wheel flop. But I guess
>>>> that geometry was considered good in those days.
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry.
>>>> I wonder about the specific motivation for that design
>>>> trend, and for the trends that followed it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you didn't like 1-meter wheelbase either.
>>>
>>> Times change, fashion changes.  Now we at least have wider
>>> range of choice.
>>
>> But you have no comments on the reasons for the changes?
>> Really? Were road surface conditions perhaps different then,
>> so as to make that geometry more practical?
>>
>> It seems increasingly difficult to talk about actual bike
>> technology in this group!
>>
>
> Could be 'road conditions', but the hardwood board track
> bikes of that era are similar, which leads me to think that
> the general format suited riders' conception of "proper
> bicycle design" at that time.

That was my feeling as well looks like it would give rather slow handling,
much more so than Gravel bikes say, perhaps only as slack as Downhill MTB?
But I’d need to find a geometry chart than just eyeballs!

Ie fashion.
>
> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/560909328560096177/
>
> Having read quite a bit in the realm of 'history of
> science', across millenia, it's sometimes difficult to
> embrace thoughts from another era and to evaluate their
> decisions within their current paradigms, not ours.
>
> c.f. Eugenie Christophe, a man of the era on the latest
> technology of his times:
>
> https://www.grandsudinsolite.fr/2682-65-hautes-pyrenees-eugene-christophe--premiere-legende-du-tour-de-france.html

Roger Merriman

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 8:43:57 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 10:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/4/2024 3:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 2/4/2024 1:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >>>>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with
> >>>>> wing nuts
> >>>>> apparently 1925.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with
> >>>>> disk and hydraulics
> >>>>> and electronics and so on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only
> >>>>> arrived as we left.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Roger Merriman
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Something like this?
> >>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
> >>>>
> >>>> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of
> >>>> very different appearance from modern styling. Mid
> >>>> 1930s models are more like our current touring designs.
> >>>
> >>> Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it
> >>> would generate a large amount of wheel flop. But I guess
> >>> that geometry was considered good in those days.
> >>>
> >>> I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry.
> >>> I wonder about the specific motivation for that design
> >>> trend, and for the trends that followed it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, you didn't like 1-meter wheelbase either.
> >>
> >> Times change, fashion changes. Now we at least have wider
> >> range of choice.
> >
> > But you have no comments on the reasons for the changes?
> > Really? Were road surface conditions perhaps different then,
> > so as to make that geometry more practical?
> >
> > It seems increasingly difficult to talk about actual bike
> > technology in this group!
> >
> Could be 'road conditions', but the hardwood board track
> bikes of that era are similar, which leads me to think that
> the general format suited riders' conception of "proper
> bicycle design" at that time.
>
> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/560909328560096177/
>
> Having read quite a bit in the realm of 'history of
> science', across millenia, it's sometimes difficult to
> embrace thoughts from another era and to evaluate their
> decisions within their current paradigms, not ours.
>
> c.f. Eugenie Christophe, a man of the era on the latest
> technology of his times:
>
> https://www.grandsudinsolite.fr/2682-65-hautes-pyrenees-eugene-christophe--premiere-legende-du-tour-de-france.html
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Let's not forget that most of the track records were set by Major Taylor and some of them still stand so bicycle design really hasn't strayed far from the 100 year old bike.

On 2/5/2024 11:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 10:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/4/2024 3:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 1:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
>>>>>> apparently 1925.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and
>>>>>> hydraulics
>>>>>> and electronics and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Something like this?
>>>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of very
>>>>> different appearance from modern styling.  Mid 1930s models are
>>>>> more like our current touring designs.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it would generate
>>>> a large amount of wheel flop. But I guess that geometry was
>>>> considered good in those days.
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry. I wonder
>>>> about the specific motivation for that design trend, and for the
>>>> trends that followed it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you didn't like 1-meter wheelbase either.
>>>
>>> Times change, fashion changes.  Now we at least have wider range of
>>> choice.
>>
>> But you have no comments on the reasons for the changes? Really? Were
>> road surface conditions perhaps different then, so as to make that
>> geometry more practical?
>>
>> It seems increasingly difficult to talk about actual bike technology
>> in this group!
>>
>
> Could be 'road conditions', but the hardwood board track bikes of that
> era are similar, which leads me to think that the general format suited
> riders' conception of "proper bicycle design" at that time.

I think you've got a good point. But it's really a statement that in
cycling, fashion ("conception") seems to matter to people as much as
physics - a point I've made repeatedly.

> Having read quite a bit in the realm of 'history of science', across
> millenia, it's sometimes difficult to embrace thoughts from another era
> and to evaluate their decisions within their current paradigms, not ours.

Doubtlessly true. And sometimes it turns out that the values of past
eras were more valid than modern ones.

For example, Jan Heine of _Bicycle Quarterly_ seemed to get his start by
test riding French randonneur bikes of the 1950s or so, and finding that
they were in many ways better than the racing bikes of our era. He
claims their softer, wider tires roll easier than 18mm 160 psi racing
tires, that some level of frame flex is valuable, etc.

(Of course, YMMV. I agree with some of his ideas but disagree with others.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 11:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/5/2024 10:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/4/2024 3:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 1:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
>>>>>>> apparently 1925.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and
>>>>>>> hydraulics
>>>>>>> and electronics and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something like this?
>>>>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of very
>>>>>> different appearance from modern styling.  Mid 1930s models are
>>>>>> more like our current touring designs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it would generate
>>>>> a large amount of wheel flop. But I guess that geometry was
>>>>> considered good in those days.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry. I wonder
>>>>> about the specific motivation for that design trend, and for the
>>>>> trends that followed it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, you didn't like 1-meter wheelbase either.
>>>>
>>>> Times change, fashion changes.  Now we at least have wider range of
>>>> choice.
>>>
>>> But you have no comments on the reasons for the changes? Really? Were
>>> road surface conditions perhaps different then, so as to make that
>>> geometry more practical?
>>>
>>> It seems increasingly difficult to talk about actual bike technology
>>> in this group!
>>>
>>
>> Could be 'road conditions', but the hardwood board track bikes of that
>> era are similar, which leads me to think that the general format suited
>> riders' conception of "proper bicycle design" at that time.
>
> I think you've got a good point. But it's really a statement that in
> cycling, fashion ("conception") seems to matter to people as much as
> physics - a point I've made repeatedly.
>
>> Having read quite a bit in the realm of 'history of science', across
>> millenia, it's sometimes difficult to embrace thoughts from another era
>> and to evaluate their decisions within their current paradigms, not ours.
>
> Doubtlessly true. And sometimes it turns out that the values of past
> eras were more valid than modern ones.
>
> For example, Jan Heine of _Bicycle Quarterly_ seemed to get his start by
> test riding French randonneur bikes of the 1950s or so, and finding that
> they were in many ways better than the racing bikes of our era. He
> claims their softer, wider tires roll easier than 18mm 160 psi racing
> tires, that some level of frame flex is valuable, etc.
>
> (Of course, YMMV. I agree with some of his ideas but disagree with others.)
>

You can buy them new still or more or less.

https://www.pashley.co.uk/products/guvnor

Reviews are mixed would seem bit like the Brompton being some folks agile
and others twitchy, the Guv’nor is calm or ponderous!

Roger Merriman

On 2/5/2024 3:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2024 11:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2024 10:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2024 3:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 1:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
>>>>>>>> apparently 1925.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and
>>>>>>>> hydraulics
>>>>>>>> and electronics and so on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something like this?
>>>>>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of very
>>>>>>> different appearance from modern styling.  Mid 1930s models are
>>>>>>> more like our current touring designs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it would generate
>>>>>> a large amount of wheel flop. But I guess that geometry was
>>>>>> considered good in those days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry. I wonder
>>>>>> about the specific motivation for that design trend, and for the
>>>>>> trends that followed it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you didn't like 1-meter wheelbase either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Times change, fashion changes.  Now we at least have wider range of
>>>>> choice.
>>>>
>>>> But you have no comments on the reasons for the changes? Really? Were
>>>> road surface conditions perhaps different then, so as to make that
>>>> geometry more practical?
>>>>
>>>> It seems increasingly difficult to talk about actual bike technology
>>>> in this group!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could be 'road conditions', but the hardwood board track bikes of that
>>> era are similar, which leads me to think that the general format suited
>>> riders' conception of "proper bicycle design" at that time.
>>
>> I think you've got a good point. But it's really a statement that in
>> cycling, fashion ("conception") seems to matter to people as much as
>> physics - a point I've made repeatedly.
>>
>>> Having read quite a bit in the realm of 'history of science', across
>>> millenia, it's sometimes difficult to embrace thoughts from another era
>>> and to evaluate their decisions within their current paradigms, not ours.
>>
>> Doubtlessly true. And sometimes it turns out that the values of past
>> eras were more valid than modern ones.
>>
>> For example, Jan Heine of _Bicycle Quarterly_ seemed to get his start by
>> test riding French randonneur bikes of the 1950s or so, and finding that
>> they were in many ways better than the racing bikes of our era. He
>> claims their softer, wider tires roll easier than 18mm 160 psi racing
>> tires, that some level of frame flex is valuable, etc.
>>
>> (Of course, YMMV. I agree with some of his ideas but disagree with others.)
>>
>
> You can buy them new still or more or less.
>
> https://www.pashley.co.uk/products/guvnor
>
> Reviews are mixed would seem bit like the Brompton being some folks agile
> and others twitchy, the Guv’nor is calm or ponderous!

I'd love a chance to ride one just to see how it behaves. I have no
experience (that I remember*) with geometry like that.

I don't consider myself an expert on bike geometry, but I'm guessing
(TM) that the large amount of trail would give high stability on the
generally rougher riding surfaces of the early 1900s, and perhaps at
speed. And I'm guessing a negative side effect would be a wheel flop
tendency which could be a bit troubling at very low speed. But I really
don't know, and I'd like to hear from someone with experience.

About *remembering: It's possible I've done a very short ride on a bike
of that type, but it wouldn't be enough experience to remember or judge
the handling. Back in the late 1970s through the early 1990s we attended
quite a few LAW National or Regional Rallies. Many of those featured
demonstrations of antique bicycles, and I got brief test rides on quite
a few antique machines. Some notable examples were "ordinaries" or high
wheelers, a Spacelander fiberglass framed bike (very rattly!) and an
upright racing tricycle (very twitchy!).

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 3:46 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2024 11:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 2/5/2024 10:00 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 3:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 1:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2024 5:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
>>>>>>>>> apparently 1925.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and
>>>>>>>>> hydraulics
>>>>>>>>> and electronics and so on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry can’t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something like this?
>>>>>>>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/37/ec/9437ecaee11750d4252e5d4356fcb36f.jpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the twenties, geometries were quite slack and so of very
>>>>>>>> different appearance from modern styling.  Mid 1930s models are
>>>>>>>> more like our current touring designs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like a tremendous amount of trail, and that it would generate
>>>>>>> a large amount of wheel flop. But I guess that geometry was
>>>>>>> considered good in those days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't recall ever riding a bike with similar geometry. I wonder
>>>>>>> about the specific motivation for that design trend, and for the
>>>>>>> trends that followed it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you didn't like 1-meter wheelbase either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Times change, fashion changes.  Now we at least have wider range of
>>>>>> choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you have no comments on the reasons for the changes? Really? Were
>>>>> road surface conditions perhaps different then, so as to make that
>>>>> geometry more practical?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems increasingly difficult to talk about actual bike technology
>>>>> in this group!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could be 'road conditions', but the hardwood board track bikes of that
>>>> era are similar, which leads me to think that the general format suited
>>>> riders' conception of "proper bicycle design" at that time.
>>>
>>> I think you've got a good point. But it's really a statement that in
>>> cycling, fashion ("conception") seems to matter to people as much as
>>> physics - a point I've made repeatedly.
>>>
>>>> Having read quite a bit in the realm of 'history of science', across
>>>> millenia, it's sometimes difficult to embrace thoughts from another era
>>>> and to evaluate their decisions within their current paradigms, not ours.
>>>
>>> Doubtlessly true. And sometimes it turns out that the values of past
>>> eras were more valid than modern ones.
>>>
>>> For example, Jan Heine of _Bicycle Quarterly_ seemed to get his start by
>>> test riding French randonneur bikes of the 1950s or so, and finding that
>>> they were in many ways better than the racing bikes of our era. He
>>> claims their softer, wider tires roll easier than 18mm 160 psi racing
>>> tires, that some level of frame flex is valuable, etc.
>>>
>>> (Of course, YMMV. I agree with some of his ideas but disagree with others.)
>>>
>>
>> You can buy them new still or more or less.
>>
>> https://www.pashley.co.uk/products/guvnor
>>
>> Reviews are mixed would seem bit like the Brompton being some folks agile
>> and others twitchy, the Guv’nor is calm or ponderous!
>
> I'd love a chance to ride one just to see how it behaves. I have no
> experience (that I remember*) with geometry like that.
>
> I don't consider myself an expert on bike geometry, but I'm guessing
> (TM) that the large amount of trail would give high stability on the
> generally rougher riding surfaces of the early 1900s, and perhaps at
> speed. And I'm guessing a negative side effect would be a wheel flop
> tendency which could be a bit troubling at very low speed. But I really
> don't know, and I'd like to hear from someone with experience.
>
> About *remembering: It's possible I've done a very short ride on a bike
> of that type, but it wouldn't be enough experience to remember or judge
> the handling. Back in the late 1970s through the early 1990s we attended
> quite a few LAW National or Regional Rallies. Many of those featured
> demonstrations of antique bicycles, and I got brief test rides on quite
> a few antique machines. Some notable examples were "ordinaries" or high
> wheelers, a Spacelander fiberglass framed bike (very rattly!) and an
> upright racing tricycle (very twitchy!).
>
Seen them and older at the fair they used to hold with all sorts of old
bikes and trikes from the turn of last century and so on.

But never ridden one!

Roger Merriman

On Sun Feb 4 11:24:50 2024 Roger Merriman wrote:
> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
> apparently 1925.
>
> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and hydraulics
> and electronics and so on.
>
> Sorry can?t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>
> Roger Merriman
>

You notice that they got the bike to ride relatively smoothly by using a long wheelbase. All bikes then were gravel bikes.

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun Feb 4 11:24:50 2024 Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Saw a rather beautiful bike at the cafe yesterday, with wing nuts
>> apparently 1925.
>>
>> Stuck by how similar was still even to our bikes with disk and hydraulics
>> and electronics and so on.
>>
>> Sorry can?t remember its name or details as only arrived as we left.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
>
>
> You notice that they got the bike to ride relatively smoothly by using a
> long wheelbase. All bikes then were gravel bikes.
>

Indeed number of roads hadn’t been paved or even some built! Seems to have
only been latter went for narrow tight clearances for bikes/tires.

Roger Merriman