WI: Bicycle developed earlier?

What you see above is a precursor to the modern bicycle, the Draisine. Upon first look, this vehicle is a bicycle, only lacking a chaindrive and pedals. The Draisine was propelled by running, and enjoyed some popularity after Napoleon's defeat. Then it faded to obscurity, with true bikes emerging in 1860.

While the chaindrive solution seems obvious to us, in 1820 it was unknown that a two inline wheel configuration was stable, and the design relied on its users feet to remain balanced. Some people noticed that you could keep your feet off the ground at high speeds while descending a hill, but it was believed to be something that required expertise to accomplish.

What if an inventive draisine driver realised that balance was possible as long as it kept moving, and devised some sort of drive to keep it moving? What if, by 1821, a pedal propelled draisine was invented, marketed by 1823, and became more than just a fad?
How would history change with an earlier introduction of human powered vehicles?

Of course, pneumatic tyres won't be available for some time, and the design should evolve along the lines of OTL bikes.

ScorchedLight said:

Of course, pneumatic tyres won't be available for some time, and the design should evolve along the lines of OTL bikes.

Click to expand...

I seem to remember that the early boneshakers were without rubber tyres so this wont be a problem.

My feeling is it would become more popular and probably lead to cycle lanes in cities. All in all I think it will lead to a healther population (no worries by the British in the late 1890's about an unfit population) and therefor prehaps no Boy Scout movement!

I have actually think about this myself resently and while the chain cogs would be fairly straight forward bearings would be an issue. Metal on metal axles with the weight of a person would grind and heat up even if lubricated on a constant basis when traveling at speed.

Bicycles also paved the way so to speak, for decent roads. Roads smooth that dont turn muddy. So no gravel or cobblestone.

But without the ability to weld frames I cant see them.

There is a lot of fairly advanced technology that goes into making a working a bicycle. For the middle of the nineteenthc century, these things were cutting edge. While I could see pedals fitted to draisines, I don't think they would become terribly popular because you cannot really accelerate that kind of frame to safe speeds reliably except on paved roads. Modern bicycles havve all kinds of features that allow them to travel swiftly and reasonably safely even over bad ground, but they are later developments.

I imagine that the first step would be a draisine with pedals on its front wheel, similar to a boneshaker, but even more primitive:



These machines should be marginally faster than, or at least easier to obtain, running speed. That draisines were able to sustain running speeds should indicate that even without ball bearings it's possible to at least run with the contraption. Pedals would make them less tiresome than conventional draisines, even if they aren't necessarily faster.

In a quest to make the machines more comfortable and faster, increasing the front wheel size (something that's happening again, with the appearance of 29er wheels, BTW), becoming like Penny Farthings.
How much would these machines (assume they're popular among the upper and middle classes of Europe) drive innovation of bearing technology? Could ball bearings make an early appearance with 1830-40ish tech?

Cars would have probably been made by 1870.

I did a scenario similar to this where bicycles were invented a decade or two early and followed something like their historic trajectory, though they became popular mainly in the deep south in the decades before the civil war. That led to the south having a lot of experienced riders for the "Confederate Highwheeler Dragoons" who played a major role in the early civil war. (Spoiler: the north still wins, swamping the south in mass-production bikes)

As to how bikes would have developed had they come earlier: Probably about the same way they did historically: An initial surge of popularity in urban areas, followed by a realization that without rubber tires they were not at all fun to ride. This would be followed by a few years of obscurity before someone added first rubber tires and then air-filled rubber tires to the basic idea. Then there would be a decade or two when biking took a side-trip into the era of high-wheelers--bikes with gigantic front tires and the pedals attached directly to them. The big front tires gave a mechanical advantage, making the bike go faster, but it also meant that you had to be a pretty good athlete to even get on the thing. Eventually, metallurgy would get good enough for chain drives and gear shifting, which would remove the need for the big front wheels and lead to the modern configuration.

It's hard to believe now, but in the late 1800s bikes were actually a technology driver on quite a few fronts. An earlier bike debut might have meant a longer high-wheeler period. I don't think it would have aborted or delayed the advent of cars, because bikes created a lot of the tech and infrastructure for cars. Earlier bikes might lead to a longer era for steam-powered and/or battery-powered cars, assuming that internal combustion engines weren't ready for prime time any earlier than they were historically.

DaleCoz said:

It's hard to believe now, but in the late 1800s bikes were actually a technology driver on quite a few fronts.

Click to expand...

The Wright Brothers' work on aviation was partly inspired, and largely financed, by their bicycle repair business...

The one thing I don't get about the comfort of riding is that wagons had the same problem with their wheels and people used wagons all the time. Is it because of the lighter wieght of the bike and the position you ride it in? I'm just thinking if that's the problem maybe you could have some one come up with a 'poor man's wagon,' a ticycle or bicycle with a more wagon like seat. In a trike configuration it might also be a more stable ride. Maybe it doesn't give you a earlier popular bicycle, but it might give you earlier popular pedal powered vehicles.

I've wondered what would have happened if Rome had developed some type of bicycle (like the Draisine). Combined with their road system I'd thought that they would at least double their legions daily marching distance. Although the roadbed would give a bumpy ride, some extra padding on the seat should smooth things out.

rudebadger said:

I've wondered what would have happened if Rome had developed some type of bicycle (like the Draisine). Combined with their road system I'd thought that they would at least double their legions daily marching distance. Although the roadbed would give a bumpy ride, some extra padding on the seat should smooth things out.

Click to expand...

Ever tried riding a bicycle with 40 kilos of luggage on your back? Now take the tyres off and turn onto a cobblestone road. That.

Let's say that bikes follow the same technological path than OTL, and by the late 1850s we see something that we recognize as a modern bike (chain drive, diamond frame, rubber tyres of equal size). How would this affect urban development and what impact would it have on society?

How much can a person on a bike reasonable pull?
That would help answer how many jobs bikes can take from horses in cities. You might still need some horses for heavy carts and carriages(or could you get upscale enclosed pedal rickshaws?)

If you can either get something like a mountain bike, or just keep to good roads, how likely is the foot soldier to become more bike mobile?

Pesterfield said:

How much can a person on a bike reasonable pull?

Click to expand...

That depends on far too many factors to be reasonably answered, but even on good roads, with pneumatic tyres and ball bearings for axles, a bicycle hanger won't take more than 200kg, much less if you try to go uphill. "Practical" loads for delivery bicycles used to be in the 50kg range.

As to rigged terrain, when the Viet Minh used bicycles to carry supplies, they had the riders dismount and push. That way, between 70 and 100kg of supplies could be transported by a single person at roughly walking speed. If carrying such a load in a trailer had been practical, I'm sure they would have done it.

If you can either get something like a mountain bike, or just keep to good roads, how likely is the foot soldier to become more bike mobile?

Click to expand...

Cycle infantry filled a tactical niche between ca 1880 and WWII quite effectively. The problem is that you don't need that many cycle troops if you can't exploit their strength. Put a whole army on bikes, and you can only advance where there are decent roads. Then, you will need trucks with reasonable road speed to resupply them, because they will outrun horse-drawn supply trains. At that point, why not put the bulk of your infantry on trucks?

At that point, why not put the bulk of your infantry on trucks?

Click to expand...

So the experiment's probable tried, obvious flaw noted, and it's dropped.

Of course getting your troops around less tired than walking is useful. Maybe large scale will be mostly internal transfers, where supplies can be prepositioned at stops and the other end of the journey.

Pesterfield said:

So the experiment's probable tried, obvious flaw noted, and it's dropped.

Of course getting your troops around less tired than walking is useful. Maybe large scale will be mostly internal transfers, where supplies can be prepositioned at stops and the other end of the journey.

Click to expand...

The real advantage of bicycle troops is speed, which is why they were used whenever that was needed. In WWI, the Germans used cycle infantry to make quick tactical moves in the rear of the enemy (on the eastern front - not much of that happening in the west). Bicycles were also landed with the Allies in Normandy, and when motor transport dried up for the Wehrmacht, they put entire divisions on bikes to exploit mobility on the inner line (it didn't work, but that's another story).

The Western Allies did not use bicycle troops regularly, simply because they had motorised already. That is also what killed the concept in most post-WWII militaries, though the Swiss, with their more homemade, cottage-industry approach to war, retained them till the 1990s. The problem is, anything that a bike can give you in terms of speed, range and lack of exhaustion, a jeep can do better. That means the window for the technology is roughly from 1880 to between 1945 and 1980, when the last serious militaries in the world motorised. The only reason to keep bikes is to be prepared for a situation where fuel supples could be a critical issue.