Earlier Bicycles?

[Mark E.]

Weight is your problem. Look at a bicycle from the fifties or sixties. It was heavy by any of today's standards. In many ways, the precision bicycle of today evolved only over the last 35 years.

Go back before steel was perfected in the 1870's and not readily available for decades. Iron parts might work, with brass bushings. You had animal fat for grease. Wood and bone parts were available for construction. Your end result is a product that is too labor intense to be marketed except as a toy for the wealthy.

But then, the toy can become the prototype for something better.

 

[CanadianGoose]

Roads aren't important. Bike doubles one's speed on level or moderately hilly ground not covered with snow/ice. Basically, if pedestrian can walk (not crawl) along the road, bike can do it at twice the speed. I spent my childhood riding German bike of 1930-s vintage ("liberated" during WWII) on dirt-packed country roads, so this is spoken from experience. It is technology which kills the whole idea. One needs steel pipes to build frame and air-filled tires for moderately bearable ride. Both technologies are not very likely to appear before 1970s.

 

[oberdada]

velocipedes? THey fall over half the time, you get lousy energy efficiency and can't go over even slightly rogh ground. We're not talking bicycles here, we're talking about whast the Romans could have built - no ball bearings, no metal spokes, wooden frame, no chain or pedals. Vintage 1810.

but once they get started, and realise the possibilities of a good bike, the produkts will improve, even if this means the development of new technology and industries.

so, in the end:

The bycicle might have saved the roman empire!

 

[SRT]

The bycicle might have saved the roman empire!

At the very least, it would've been good for messengers.

I don't know too much about the speed of horses vs. bicycles, but it seems a good bicyclist could keep up a much faster speed on good roads than a messenger on foot.

 

[ChucK Y]

John Barnes' wrote Caesar's Bicycle, the third book of his Timeline Wars series. IIRC, the bicycles were wooden, with knotted rope in place of a chain.

 

[SRT]

John Barnes' wrote Caesar's Bicycle, the third book of his Timeline Wars series. IIRC, the bicycles were wooden, with knotted rope in place of a chain.

That seems really frail.

Alternatively, that seems really easy to repair with local materials. You wouldn't need expensive, hard to get parts. But I'm not sure you could even get one to work in the first place.

 

[TheBluenoser]

I don't know too much about the speed of horses vs. bicycles, but it seems a good bicyclist could keep up a much faster speed on good roads than a messenger on foot.

Speed of horses vs. bicycles? Someone riding a modern bike on say... crushed gravel (there's an idea for the sorts of paths/roads that could be used - finely crushed gravel isn't to harsh to ride on. Though how the Romans could crush it... Anyway.) could quite likely outpace a walking horse and keep pace with one at a jog/trot. But once a horse got going at a canter (maybe even a really good, fast trot) I'll estimate that only a really good, fast bike racer sort could keep up the pace. And horses would cover more ground than a bike in one stride vs. wheel rotation anyway. And a well-trained horse would probably have more endurance than even some sort of professional message-biker. This just guessing combined with personal experience on both bike and horse. No official speeds or anything here. xP

Although a bike messenger wouldn't need to feed his bike...

And all that's going on in comparison to an average rider on a modern geared bike.

Just my two cents. ^^ And pardon the rambling.

 

[Thande]

The advantage of bicycles, even not-very-good ones, would be a bit like the advantage of muskets over bows. Just as a good bowman is more effective than a musketman, but you can train a musketman in a couple of months yet it takes years to train a good bowman. Similarly, a cyclist is probably slower over long distances than a horseman, but you don't have to either be or work for a rich bastard in order to own a bike if they're made cheaply - unlike a horse. So the advantage of bicycles would be that they would make the world a smaller place and allow more people to travel, like car ownership in OTL. In fact this did begin to happen in OTL with the bicycle, but the car was invented so soon afterwards that it was eclipsed.

 

[MrP]

The advantage of bicycles, even not-very-good ones, would be a bit like the advantage of muskets over bows. Just as a good bowman is more effective than a musketman, but you can train a musketman in a couple of months yet it takes years to train a good bowman. Similarly, a cyclist is probably slower over long distances than a horseman, but you don't have to either be or work for a rich bastard in order to own a bike if they're made cheaply - unlike a horse. So the advantage of bicycles would be that they would make the world a smaller place and allow more people to travel, like car ownership in OTL. In fact this did begin to happen in OTL with the bicycle, but the car was invented so soon afterwards that it was eclipsed.

The military was quite keen on them as a way of producing cheaper recon units than cavalry. Unfortunately, cycling for several hours makes one a bit too tired to fight a battle at the end of it. They ought to have recruited the Zulus, I suppose.

There's an article in a Wargames Illustrated about bicycles (mainly in WWII) but it's also got a great little pic of a bicycle zareba made by some turn of the century bicycle unit.

 

[alt_historian]

There's an article in a Wargames Illustrated about bicycles (mainly in WWII) but it's also got a great little pic of a bicycle zareba made by some turn of the century bicycle unit.

... do you mean a zebra?

 

[Thande]

... do you mean a zebra?

P's words have been infected by Wiki-itis!

 

[MrP]

... do you mean a zebra?

P's words have been infected by Wiki-itis!

I'm just regurgitating the caption of the picture. It's probably misapplied technically speaking.

 

[Thande]

I'm just regurgitating the caption of the picture. It's probably misapplied technically speaking.

You mean like John Wayne? "Put all the bikes in a circle with the women and children on the inside!"

 

[CanadianGoose]

Speed of horses vs. bicycles? Someone riding a modern bike on say... crushed gravel (there's an idea for the sorts of paths/roads that could be used - finely crushed gravel isn't to harsh to ride on. Though how the Romans could crush it... Anyway.) could quite likely outpace a walking horse and keep pace with one at a jog/trot. But once a horse got going at a canter (maybe even a really good, fast trot) I'll estimate that only a really good, fast bike racer sort could keep up the pace. And horses would cover more ground than a bike in one stride vs. wheel rotation anyway. And a well-trained horse would probably have more endurance than even some sort of professional message-biker. This just guessing combined with personal experience on both bike and horse. No official speeds or anything here.

If my memory serves me well, sustainable speed for a light infantry without wartrain is about 20 miles a day. Anything more is pushing it. Cavalry unit can easily cover 50 miles a day. Biker unit is about 40 miles a day. But you guys tend to forget about logistics. You don't need to feed a bike (horse feed was the single bulkiest item in supply chain until age of motors). You also don't need to lose 20% of your unit as horse handlers when unit goes into action. So bikes are slightly losing in terms of speed, but offer numerous advantages in terms of organization.

 

[AirshipArmada]

What about China?

You could have a bamboo frame like this:

Chariot wheels like this:

And use a treadle instead of a drive chain.

The earliest you could get a bike up and running would be the 2nd century BC - not bad.

 

[CanadianGoose]

What about China?

Frame looks Photoshopped. And try to run bike on solid tires over any road short of tarmac for a longer period of time...

 

[AirshipArmada]

Frame looks Photoshopped. And try to run bike on solid tires over any road short of tarmac for a longer period of time...

Ahh . . . a cynic. That is a real bamboo bike. Others can be found here:http://www.calfeedesign.com/bamboo.htm
They show how they are made here: http://www.calfeedesign.com/Ghana2008.htm

They used lots of epoxy on this one, but the idea is the same:

And they did ride chariots with those non-rubber wheels on unimproved roads. They did it for centuries. They weren't softies like kids are today. But you might want a design where you don't sit - maybe sort of stand on the pedals at all times.

 

[MrP]

You mean like John Wayne? "Put all the bikes in a circle with the women and children on the inside!"

Yeah, it was a thoroughly odd picture. I can't see it having much impact except against an enemy armed only with close combat weapons, as they'd have to jump over a bike to stab one. I'd not be surprised if it was just a handy way of dismounting swiftly and tidily.

 

[rewster]

And use a treadle instead of a drive chain.

How would that work? My mental picture makes it seem rather unwieldy.
Alternatively, could they use a drive shaft?
Or how about something like the coupling rods on steam locomotives?

 

[carlton_bach]

How would that work? My mental picture makes it seem rather unwieldy.
Alternatively, could they use a drive shaft?
Or how about something like the coupling rods on steam locomotives?

None of those effectively. All pre-steel, pre-ball-bearing, pre-rubber tyre bicycle designs will suffer from low speed, poor cross-country mobility and either be fragile or too heavy. The frame is not the issue - you can make frames out of just about anything - the wheels and drivetrain are.

What could be more interesting in technological terms would be large, well-balanced long-range wheelbarrows. They could replace mules on roads and can move at the speed of infantry.