CHAINLESS vs. CHAIN.
The possible changes in the future of cycling involve the shape of the
cycle as well as the mode of driving it. Indeed, the mode of applying
the power has influenced the shape of the structure more than the
shape of the structure has influenced the mode of driving. At present,
rear-driving has the field; will front-driving ever return? Possibly.
As bearing on this possibility, it may not be amiss to briefly describe
some of the most important attempts to make a safe and practical
bicycle (in nearly every instance out of the front-driver), without
trying to follow exact chronological order.
A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE PRINCIPAL “SAFETY” TYPES.
One of the most peculiar was the “Xtra-ordinary,” or “Xtra,” familiarly
dubbed the “Camel.” Taking the high Ordinary, it enlarged the back
wheel to 22 inches; then, as its main feature, sloped the front forks
back very much in a great “rake,” so that the rider’s weight rested
more on the rear, and he was thus much less liable to be pitched
forward over the front in a “header,” or a “cropper,” as it was called
in England. The cranks being thus out of direct reach, they were driven
by a pair of long bent levers, which were hinged by a short arm to the
front forks, and came back behind and below the wheel axle, bearing
pedals on their ends; this contrivance was effective as to safety, but
was heavy and clumsy. Other patterns used the usual “rake,” but had
swinging levers attached to the cranks, the idea being that the pedals
(and consequently the driving pressure) should always be behind the
axle. One of these was American—the “Springfield”—and this drove by
levers, bearing pedals behind the axle, but used ratchets, and had no
cranks. The “Star,” also American, drove by levers and ratchets, but
turned about and had the small wheel forward, being very distinctive.
Others had the small wheel first, driving the other by cranks thereon,
and worked by long swinging levers hinged to the extreme front of the
frame, thus going back to an early contrivance nearly half a century
before, and much like some children’s velocipedes of today. One of
the queerest of all was the “Otto,” a true bicycle in having only two
wheels, yet resembling the tricycle in having those side by side on a
long axle; the rider sat between, above and a little behind the axle,
swinging freely from it, driving by pedals and chains, and steering
somehow with great ease.
In smaller bicycles, then called “safeties” for distinguishing them,
the “Pony” was simply small sized, with secondary cranks jointed on the
first, so that leg-reach could be obtained, the two cranks being out at
full length at the bottom of the stroke and shut over like the blade of
a knife in its handle at the top of the stroke. The “Kangaroo” type,
which had for a time a great run, had their front forks prolonged down,
so as to carry pedals and cranks, working on the axle by sprockets,
and “gearing up.” The “Facile”—which was the pioneer of small-sized
bicycles in America, also had its front forks prolonged, but curved
well forward; to the ends of these were hinged levers which came
well behind and below the axle, having pedals on the ends, and being
attached by connecting-rods to very short cranks, thus working much
like the tread of the common foot lathe; it was extremely safe, but was
geared “level,” and therefore was not speedy, requiring rapid though
short movements of the foot. It was afterward “geared up” so as to be
faster, but was gradually displaced by various patterns of “Geared
Ordinary.” These used the familiar rotary action with direct cranks,
but employed spur gears—not bevel-gears as stated in a recent article
in a trade journal. Of this class, one distinctive pattern is the sole
present survivor of the front driving type. If reversion ever does
bring front driving wheels back on a general or even a comparatively
large scale, this seems likely to be the one. Yet prophecy is too
unsafe to be hazarded, sweeping though past changes have been.
As the illustrations in this chapter are of such a nature as to require
a more detailed description than can be given in a mere line of title,
the descriptive matter concerning them is placed together, as follows:
The original Humber—meaning by “original” merely the first bicycle of
the rear-driving type produced by the Humber factory—is interesting as
showing the beginnings of the “diamond” frame. The steering head was
as remarkably long as it afterward became short, but if the fork had
been carried forward in a curve instead of dropping straight down, the
wheel base would have been longer and the general outline more like the
construction of today.
The Golden Era is reproduced as a curiosity in frames and as
suggesting—since to illustrate them all would require too much space
and would not have sufficient interest—the number and variety of frame
shapes which have resulted in the familiar one of the present, although
it would be rash to affirm that finality in frames is reached even now.
[Illustration: FIRST HUMBER MODEL.]
The Victor of 1887 was the first of the type made in America. There may
be some question whether a bicycle with a drop frame was not produced
in Washington somewhat earlier, but it was not done commercially. The
wheels of the Victor were 30-inch, with a ⅞ solid tire on the rear
and a ¾ tire on the front. It was made in only one size. The gear
was 54; the weight was not stated; the price was $140. It had ball
bearings all over, including the steering, which was a “socket,” and
was in both these particulars rather advanced at that time. Its chief
peculiarity was that the entire front forks consisted of two pairs of
curved springs, attached to the frame by ingenious rocking joints,
which at first had cone bearings, but were changed to balls in the
next year. As more elastic tires came in, this peculiar fork went out,
the pattern being made in both ways for several years; but the Overman
Company is entitled to the credit of having been the first American
concern to make the now prevailing type of bicycle, and of having also
improved upon it as they found it. The frame shown in the cut, which
was a common one up to that date, was changed in the following year to
a stronger one of the early “diamond” type.
The Veloce of 1888 was the first rear-driver produced at the Columbia
factory, although a pattern of the Kangaroo had been for two years in
the company’s line. The Veloce had a 30-inch front wheel and a 31-inch
driver, both having ⅞ solid tires. The cranks were of the usual slotted
style, giving a throw of 5 to 6½ inches. The steering was cone, 4½
inches between centres. The handlebar was hollow, 28 inches long. One
size only was built, geared to 52, weighing 51 pounds, and selling
at $135. A peculiarity of the construction was that a single curved
cross-tube intersecting the straight “backbone” or “perch” formed the
support for the crank-axle and sprockets, and then was carried up over
the wheel, where it did duty as a mud-guard. The wheels had 40 and 36
spokes, which were “direct,” as against the tangent which the Victor
people had been using and insisting upon for several years. Referring
to the direct spoke, the Columbia catalogue of this year (1888) says:
“We have shown the desirability of this construction too often to make
a repetition necessary, particularly in the case of a small-wheel
machine for use at all times and places. It is a matter of satisfaction
to us to observe a growing recognition of our arguments on this point,
even in England, where, if in any part of the world, the roads are
suited to full tangent spokes.”
This shows how easily the best judges and prophets may sometimes be
mistaken.
[Illustration: THE GOLDEN ERA.]
The Defender Midget is an (page 34) illustration of all that is
extremely advanced and radical in bicycle construction for 1898. The
steering head is of the shortest, only 4 inches in length. The frame is
22-inch, with flush joints and stamped internal connections. The top
tube is horizontal. The crank-hanger has a 4-inch drop; the cranks are
7 inches, with a 4½-inch tread, these three particulars being extreme.
The cranks are the Fauber patent, a single piece forming both cranks
and axle, which are passed into place through the large opening in
bracket before putting in the bearings. The chain is adjusted at the
bracket by an eccentric, instead of at the wheel as usual. The rear
forks are a continuous piece of D-tubing, of ⅞ section tapered to ¾.
They are joined to the crank bracket by a single large oval stem, thus
allowing clearance, without cranking or offsetting the fork, for the
very large front Fauber “star” sprocket of 32 teeth. The rear sprocket
has 12 teeth, thus making a gear of only 74 2/3, notwithstanding the
large size of the front one. Front forks are of tapered D-tubing in one
piece, with an arched crown, and forks and crown are both nickeled.
The wheels have Thor patent hubs, and the saddle post is fastened with
the Thor expander, the saddle, of course, being a Brown. The handlebar
is extremely wide and light, made of octagon tubing on the Schinneer
patent, and the fastening is internal. The chain is 6 per cent. nickel
steel in the block, and tool steel in the side-plates. Rims are
laminated, and tires are light road Palmer.
This model is very striking in appearance, and includes the patented
specialties of half a dozen makers of component parts, thus indicating
clearly that it is the product of a small maker. This remark, however,
is not made in any derogatory sense.
[Illustration: THE VICTOR—FIRST AMERICAN SAFETY—1887.]
From the forward thrust on the old “boneshaker” velocipede of 1868,
which was compelled by its structure, the cyclist next went to the
nearly downward action on the “high ordinary” of 1878; this change was
made to get speed by a larger wheel, and he had to sit near its centre
in order to reach the pedal. The Facile, a lever-driving “safety,”
which soon followed, had as its distinctive feature the most vertical
position of driving ever obtained, and its maker was naturally very
strenuous for that position, contending that on the Facile the rider
was always and all the time “over his work,” with his pedal directly
under him, where the Ordinary rider always tried to get but could not.
This was strictly true, and although the same maker, under changed
trade conditions, has since argued for a position considerably “behind
the work,” this is not against his sincerity, for really there is
considerable to be said on both sides.
It will readily be seen that the lever favors the “over-the-work”
position, because the pedal can thus be placed at a distance from the
driven axle; but rotary pedaling, as against the peculiar stroke of a
lever, seems now fixed, if anything can be affirmed to be. With any
type using two equal-sized wheels and rotary action, the rider must sit
over the back wheel (as on the abandoned “Broncho” of a few years ago)
or else substantially as on the present type. Then he must have some
means of carrying his power back to the axle; what shall that means
be? The foregoing analysis is partly to lead up to the issue between
chain and no-chain, and partly to suggest how many and how important
considerations are involved in the relative position of the saddle in
the whole structure.
MODES OF POWER TRANSMISSION.
The crank-axle, and crank-bracket, the “heart” of the bicycle, is now
the place where the power is first exerted, and from this it must be
transmitted to the wheel. There are a number of possible methods of
transmission, thus:
1. A leather belt.
2. A metallic band with holes to engage
projections on the sprockets, or provided
with projections to enter holes therein.
3. A chain.
4. A wire rope, with or without projections.
5. Clutch or ratchet action, at one or both
ends, operated by a lever.
6. Lever and crank, with or without an
oscillating fulcrum.
7. A connecting-shaft, carrying bevel gears at
each end.
8. A connecting-shaft, working pin-and-roller
gears.
9. A connecting-shaft, with universal joints.
10. A row of spur gears to close the gap
between the two axles.
11. Cranks and connecting-rods, working
double, locomotive-fashion.
12. Friction wheels, with or without spur
gears.
13. Pneumatic or hydraulic transmission, with
some choice of fluids.
14. A combination of cams and rollers.
15. Balls working in spiral grooves on axles.
This does not exhaust the list of theoretical possibilities, nor
mention all the combinations which could be formed. A sufficiently
wild inventor could fix up a contrivance, beginning at one axle and
ultimately reaching the other, which involved the whole list, and he
might then be confident that he had met the long-felt want.
Nos. 2 to 4 are modifications of No. 1; No. 5 involves giving up
back-pedalling; No. 9 cannot “gear up;” Nos. 12 to 15 are not
practical. And the whole list—just as the large number of “mechanical
powers” named in old text-books are really only two—“boils down”
to five: the endless belt, the spur gear, the shaft with bevel or
pin-roller gears, cranks and connecting-rods, and the lever. The fourth
of these appears on only one make thus far; it involves practical
difficulties, is not strictly chainless, and hardly need be considered
as a rival to the chain. The lever is not seriously contesting now.
The spur gear is in market; yet it is offered in only two or three
patterns now, one of them the Hildick, which has distinctive claims of
its own—and so it can be passed. The third of these just named is the
contestant of the old chain, against which it has brought an action for
ejectment, to be tried, and probably sustained or dismissed, in this
year 1898.
THE STRESS OF THE CHAIN-PULL.
It is true, as alleged by the plaintiff in this action, that a severe
strain is put by the driving on the frame of a chain-driver, increasing
enormously as the load or resistance increases. It is true that by
the laws of materials the yield is always in the direction of least
resistance; this was understood by Autocrat Holmes’s old deacon, who
reasoned, when about to construct his “one-hoss shay,” that “it’s
mighty plain thet the weakes’ place must stan’ the strain” and if
that does not stand the whole construction goes. The trouble with the
bicycle frame is that it is a triangle, and (as shown in the small
sketch) the line of draught is not parallel to the line of resistance.
Suppose the resistance under trying conditions of grade and road is
represented by a weight of 100; then it’s pedal, or crank, or axle or
sprocket, or any piece in chain, or the spokes in the back wheel, or
the frame itself, had a strength below 100, instead of the bicycle’s
advancing along the road the rider’s power would expend itself in
breaking or bending such weak part. The pull is a one-sided pull,
necessarily tending to drag the frame around toward the side where the
chain is, and frames have not always been made strong enough to resist
entirely. Ten years ago, when the present type of bicycle was beginning
to come in, a dealer whose interests were opposed made the most of
this objection of side-drag, quoting the recent admissions of several
English makers, thus:
[Illustration: DIAGRAM SHOWING ONE-SIDED CHAIN PULL.]
“There is a great deal more strain between the two chain wheels than
is generally understood, and experience has proved the necessity of a
direct and rigid connection between these points.” (Starley & Sutton of
Coventry, 1888 catalogue.)
“We would draw the reader’s special attention to our pattern for this
year, as every one who has had experience in this type of machine knows
that the bearings are of the utmost importance, the wear and tear
being so much greater than on an ordinary bicycle. This has caused us
to discard the old pattern pin-and-cone ball bearing, in which the
cones and cups are continually going wrong, owing to the smallness
of the bearing surfaces and the enormous strain upon them. As in all
pin-and-cone ball bearings, the cone wears flat on the chain side, but
in the bearings we have introduced it is impossible to do so. They are
the same as fitted to the front wheel of our bicycles.” (Rudge Cycle
Company of Coventry, 1888 catalogue.)
This was quite true. Bearings have since been modified to meet the
case, and frames have been strengthened; yet a light frame may waste
power, under trying conditions, by springing out of line without
getting a permanent bend, and something more can probably be done in
frame strengthening.
The reader will observe, on referring again to the cuts of the first
Columbia, where it happens to show more distinctly, that the frame is
substantially two tubes crossing at right angles. Construction began
in this manner in England, and the reason was that makers followed
the “ordinary,” to which they were accustomed. They took the familiar
curved backbone, and made it straight, attaching it to the wheel in
the old way by mortise and tenon, with a bolt passed through, as the
cut clearly shows. They did not foresee the chain-pull, and (strange
as it seems) actually did not at first always put on even the single
tie-rod used in the Victor; later, a second tie-rod was carried to the
rear wheel, thus making a truss, and then a second pair were placed
above the backbone, thus further approaching the diamond. Now it was
this identical construction of frame, as shown in the Columbia most
distinctly, which caused Starley & Sutton (as just quoted above) to say
that “there is a great deal more strain between the two chain wheels
than is generally understood, and experience has proved the necessity
of a direct and rigid connection between these points.” This strain had
not only not been “generally understood,” but had apparently hardly
been thought of at all. Yet the direct fork which those old Coventry
makers called for was soon supplied, and the moral for which we
relate this bit of history is the fact that the present frame of the
chain-driver and the chain itself are the result of a long evolution
process, in which every step has been suggested and proved by practical
experience.
DEMANDS UPON CHAINLESS CONSTRUCTION.
From this tendency to draw the two axles toward each other—which has
to be resisted by the frame before there can be any effect to revolve
the wheel—the chainless is wholly free. In so much as this, its case is
proved at once. Yet, if it would be frank, it must repeat the common
remark: “I have troubles of my own.” Making bevel-gears is a detail and
may be waived; but when they are finished, other problems arise. These
problems cannot be better stated than in the five sentences following,
which come officially from the chief advocate of these gears and should
be carefully considered:
“The maker must place them in the machine with perfect exactness.
The front and the rear axle, with their gear attachments, should lie
precisely in the same plane and exactly parallel with each other.
Any failure to do this will result in binding, cramp, strain and
unsatisfactory work. Not only must these conditions exist in the wheel
as it comes from the workman’s hands, but they must be maintained under
load and shock, under the severest uses. The frame construction must be
so rigid that there will be no spring or yield under any strain.”
This is a statement of the contestant’s own advocate, who adds that the
extraordinary weight of the old “League” chainless (seventy-five pounds
at first, the reader will remember) was unavoidable because the makers
had no way of getting frame stiffness except by putting in metal;
he then argues that nickel steel now supplies the strength without
sacrifice of lightness. Another advocate—an over-zealous one whom it
is difficult to take seriously—declares that this make of chainless
will never get out of line, and that if it ever does the running will
remain unaffected. The jointed shaft of the Bayvelgere is designed to
meet just this contingency. We do not predict, save to say that if the
frame of any chainless with a rigid connecting shaft ever does get out
of line there will be serious trouble necessarily. Make the “if” as
emphatic as anybody pleases, and consider the danger of springing the
frame however remote; the chance of this occurring, under some sort of
conditions and usage, is one which the chainless, especially those of
the bevel class, must encounter.
[Illustration: FIRST COLUMBIA REAR-DRIVER—1888.]
As to any kind of construction, whether of frame or of driving parts,
there is no trouble when spinning on a stand without a load; the
question begins when power is put upon it against a heavy resistance
in actual use. A maker who has criticised the bevel chainless more
severely than any one else insists that bevel-gears are especially
wasteful by friction. In his factory, he says, a power drill working
with such gears will make only an inch hole through a certain piece
of metal, while a similar drill without the bevels and run from the
same shaft will make a 1⅜-inch hole through the same metal. But this
is not entirely conclusive, and the appeal to general practice in
machine shops does not count very much. It could just as well be taken
against the chain, and against the spur gear, for the fact is that no
gear is used there except when necessary. Whenever the shafts are a
considerable distance apart the belt is used, which is simple, cheap
and effective, developing a surprising amount of “bite” even on quite
smooth surfaces. When the shafts are close together the spur gear is
used, nothing else being available. When there is a distance and no
slippage can be permitted the chain is the thing. When power must
turn a corner it is a choice between belt or bevel gears. But to say
that a thing is not good on a bicycle because it is not used to drive
machinery in shops is poor reasoning. We might as well say that ball
bearings are not good because they are never used on locomotives.
THE PROBLEM OF “END-THRUST.”
The objection of “end-thrust” is raised against the bevel-driver. If
the reader will look at a cut showing the shaft in position with the
two axles, he will understand that the large beveled wheel on the
crank axle tries to push the pinion and shaft backward, so that it may
free itself and turn as the rider is forcing it to do. This backward
pressure is because the face of the tooth is sloping, and before
the load can be moved this pressure back must be resisted solidly
somewhere. So (it is said) the rear pinion of the shaft is liable to
be forced hard against the one on the hub, thus causing friction and
possibly “bind,” especially on hills and bad roads. But this peculiar
action between the interacting teeth at the crank shaft is necessarily
duplicated at the other end of the shaft, so that the backward thrust
at the front is met by a forward thrust at the rear, the two thrusts
thus counteracting each other.
It should be said here that the pin-roller gear, already described, as
used on the Monarch and others, is free from any possible objection
of “end-thrust,” as there is no tendency to shove the shaft either
backward or forward.
THE PROBLEM OF EFFECT UPON BEARINGS.
A question arises as to the effect upon the bearings and the balls in
them when any sort of shaft is used for chainless driving. Looking
again at the cut of the shaft and adjacent parts, the reader will see
that power applied on the pedal tends to roll the pinion directly
_away from_ the large gear, because if the pinion could roll clear
away the axle would then be left free to turn; similarly, pressure at
the back end tends to push apart those two pinions also. This pressure
to separate comes upon the balls and the bearing surfaces, there
being nothing else to take it. It is true that the draw of the chain,
already explained, is thrown at once directly on the balls and the
bearing surfaces, and that no large amount of trouble has been caused
thereby, in all the last six years of use of chain driving. But it
seems well settled that the old “League” bevel chainless did develop an
experience of breaking balls and cups and cones, and it is claimed that
bevel-gears produce a peculiar twisting strain on bearings. How much
there is in this claim, and what precautions have been or can be taken
by makers to meet the difficulty, time will show. Yet it should be said
that the pin-roller gear, while free from any exposure to “end-thrust,”
must take its chances with the other chainless models which have
connecting shafts in respect to “side-thrust” on the bearings.
EFFECT OF “SIDE-THRUST” UPON THE FRAME.
A question arises as to the effect of “side-thrust” as distinguished
from “end-thrust” upon the frame (as well as the bearings) in chainless
driving. This “side-thrust” is under new conditions and in a somewhat
different way; but it is not a new thing—it exists in chain driving,
because it always exists. When power is applied to any structure
consisting of several movable parts put together, the part to which the
impulse is directly applied pushes first on the parts next to it; they
pass the push to other parts, and so along the line (as if the several
parts were links in a chain) until at last, all the parts having
refused to either break or be shoved out of place, the load aimed at is
moved. In case of the bicycle this load is the moving of the structure
and its rider along the ground. If any of the parts involved could
break more easily than the movement along the ground is accomplished
that breakage would occur, instead of the movement intended. This is
only one example of the law, already stated, that the yield is always
in the direction, or at the place, of least resistance—the weakest
thing gives up.
It was said just now that the pinion on the forward end of the shaft
tries to roll away from the gear wheel which pushes it; the pinions at
the rear also try to roll away from each other. Thus they put a side
pressure on their bearings, as stated, but the same pressure comes on
the frame which holds the bearings. At the crank axle this tends to
crowd the fork sides toward or from each other, according as the teeth
on the large gear face in one direction or the other; at the rear the
tendency is to separate the forks. This tendency is to simultaneously
crowd upon the balls, to spread open the forks and to press the teeth
of the gears into closer contact.
Since the roller-geared and the bevel-toothed types must meet the
same pressure on the bearings, they are alike in this pressure on the
frames. As already remarked, each of them escapes entirely the heavy
pressure which the pull of the chain puts on the axles and their
bearings; in place of this they get other and different strains, as
just described.
Observe that we do not say these strains will not be successfully
resisted—that would be prediction. Some further strengthening of the
frame might perhaps be had, and in fact the doubling of the fork on
the chain side of chain-drivers, to get additional stiffness, is not
unknown in present English practice. It might even be suggested as a
fair question, whether a new or somewhat modified form of frame ought
not to have been devised for chainless driving instead of applying it
to a form never intended for it.
THE QUESTION OF THE GEAR TEETH.
The endurance of the gear teeth is also a question to be decided
by use. It has been said that “the teeth are so designed as to be
relatively stronger than the cranks and under excessive strain the
cranks will break first;” also that “the individual parts are stronger
than the elementary parts of the chain.” We have seen cranks tested,
in regular shop routine, by samples taken out of each small lot,
under a measured load of 1,000 pounds, and have seen them show their
quality by returning to the straight line when the load was removed.
The cross-section of an average crank is three to five times that of
a bevel or radial tooth. In practice, cranks do not break; some other
part, less strong, breaks when something must, and so the statement
that the bevel tooth is stronger than the crank which is to be measured
against it under load seems rather too forcible. The comparatively
slight tooth must bear the same strain which comes on other parts and
the very small though real bit of elasticity or “give” which the chain
possesses, by virtue of being made up of many parts joined together,
is lacking in gears of any kind; the strain on those is “solid” and
unrelieved. The fact that breakage of a sprocket (unless by some
collision or extraordinary fall) is a mishap almost unheard of does not
insure the gear tooth in the least—the two are not the same case. The
sprocket tooth is very thick in the direction of the strain, and the
pull of the chain comes on not less than five teeth at once on the rear
sprocket and twice as many on the front, thus dividing the load; the
gear teeth, on the contrary, are thin, and the strain is concentrated
on not more than two at a time, practically upon one. Yet we must
distinguish here the bevel and the spur-gear tooth from the peculiar
teeth on the pin-roller gear; the latter are so thick that no doubt of
their strength need be raised.
[Illustration: DEFENDER MIDGET—1898.]
The last paragraph is not to affirm or to imply that the teeth will
not prove equal to their task. But such gearing has never been used on
cycles; the bevel wheels of the tricycle “balance-gear” were larger and
were not common enough to constitute an exception. Spur gears have been
successfully used for many years on the Crypto gear already described,
but four pinions are employed on that instead of one, for the express
purpose of dividing the strain. So it is fair and well to note that
when we resort to gearing as an escape from the chain we are going from
the long-tried to the untried.
Here it may be in point to quote from the current advertisement of one
of the oldest concerns in the English trade, the Centaur Company of
Coventry:
“The pioneers in the cycle trade can afford to view with equanimity the
appearance of the faddist who, from time to time, tries to resuscitate
some obsolete and exploded notion which, in the early days, has already
been thoroughly tested and abandoned. The Chainless Safety, with which
we have been threatened during the past two years, is an example of
this. Bevel-gears, spur-gears, roller-gears, rod-and-piston-gears,
intermediate wheels, and every conceivable form of gearing were
experimented with by ourselves and many of the older makers in the
early ’80’s, for the purpose of dispensing with the chain. If, as a
medium for transmitting power, they were then found to be inferior to
the crude and imperfect chain available at that period, it must be
manifest to everyone who is familiar with cycle construction that, with
the perfect chain of today, the comparison must be still less favorable
to the chainless methods.”
This is not quoted as endorsing it, nor do we regard the experimenting
mentioned as conclusive; the point lies in the last sentence. For
while it is true that the cutting of bevel or radial gears has been
so much improved that the results of trials long ago do not signify
(as is frankly admitted by not over-friendly English trade journals in
commenting on the Columbia), it is equally true that the chain also is
greatly improved.
THE CHARGES AGAINST THE CHAIN.
In the action for ejectment, which we have supposed the chainless to be
bringing, the worst counts which can be brought against the chain are
that it is “lubricated” with grit, being left exposed; that it clogs
with mud and is a fair-weather device only; that it is very dirty and
troublesome to keep clean, and that chain and sprockets wear rapidly.
All this is thus far quite true, and yet quite answerable. The chain
very rarely breaks, and whenever it does the reason is that it has
been so neglected that the joints could no longer bend. A great deal
is said about “backlash,” or the back-and-forth looseness of moving
parts between themselves. A little slack is necessary in a chain, and
if it is excessive that is by the rider’s fault, as it is a matter
entirely within his control. If the rider “jerks up” the slack of his
chain when passing over the centre that only shows that he does not
pedal properly, or perhaps that his chain needs a little tightening.
If a chain does break, chain parts are fast becoming staple goods,
procurable anywhere almost as readily as nails; a temporary repair on
the road is not difficult, and there are also spare pieces which can be
carried in a vest-pocket and applied almost without tools. On the other
hand, repair on a chainless cannot be made on the road, and will in
any case be very much greater, in cost and trouble, than any which are
called for on a chain or a sprocket.
Every mechanic knows that a shaft “out of line” cannot operate
properly, if at all, on any construction, from an ocean liner down
to delicate machinery for watchmaking. A chainless bicycle—although
this requirement is not quite so severe on those with the roller gear,
since that has a semi-flexibility—must have its shaft and gears laid in
exactly right at first, and then they must stay so. The chain-driver
is the opposite in this respect. The frame may be considerably sprung
out of line, and the front sprocket may even have quite a twist, and
yet the driving not be noticeably affected. The reason is that the
chain, instead of being rigid and unyielding, is jointed and can bend,
accommodating itself to any little irregularity. This is the reason why
bicycles have been able to run, even when not in very good condition,
all these years, while frames have been undergoing tests and have been
having their weak places strengthened. It is said that “the weak part
of a chain-and-sprocket bicycle is the chain,” and that the chain is
“the one serious source of danger that every bicycler realizes.” Yet
it is the last thing about which the average rider troubles himself,
either to be anxious for or to take care of, and dealers and repairmen
will almost unanimously testify that the chain and the sprockets have
figured less frequently and less importantly in their repair shop than
any other part of the bicycle.
GEAR CASES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN CHAINS.
English makers think Americans slow and dull in not using a gear case,
which is a regular part of the cycle with them; but the difference in
climate accounts for that—it has not been thought needful here. The
strongest point for the chainless (those with spur gear excepted) is
the ease and neatness of inclosing its driving parts; yet the case
to inclose the chain is coming, and when the chain is covered the
objections to it above noted and admitted are substantially removed.
There is little experience of the case here as yet, but we can testify
to an instance in which the case was taken off for examination, after
some months’ use, and the oil and graphite were found apparently as
fresh and unimpaired as when applied.
As further defence against the ejectment action it should be noted
that comparatively little attention has been given to improvement
in sprockets and chains, but that now these parts are no longer
neglected. The quality, accuracy and finish of chains have been greatly
improved of late years, and this is especially noticeable on the 1898
product. New patterns of chain are coming into market, and new shapes
of sprocket tooth as well. These will be considered later in their
place; we can only say now that these changes are not mere alterations
for “talking-points,” but are veritable improvements. Of course, the
chainless movement stimulates and requires these improvements, and will
be met and opposed by them.
THE OUTLOOK FOR THE CHAINLESS.
When we come to consider the trade outlook for the chainless, and the
trade outlook as affected by the chainless (for these are different
things and in some degree opposed to each other) the first point
observable is that every maker of a chainless, with the exception of
the Bayvelgere people, proposes to market chain wheels as formerly;
even the powerful concern which has started the chainless movement
and has carried enthusiastic praise of its new product so far as to
dispraise chain drivers, by natural implication and almost by direct
statement, is preparing to market the chain wheel just as before. It
is also a peculiar feature of the situation that only one or two of
the other makers who are bringing out the chainless have much to say
for it; on the contrary, most of them seem to regard it as a doubtful
experiment, and two have openly pronounced against it, one of them
announcing that “notwithstanding these stubborn facts, however, we have
decided to meet the demand on the part of some riders for chainless
bicycles, although we do not recommend them.”
The first price announced, $125, seemed to be prohibitory of any large
sale for the chainless in 1898 as against the chain drivers at current
market values. But the later announcement of models at $100, at $75,
and even at $60, puts a different face upon that, and the chainless
will make its way as it can, in the market, and will find its place
according to its comparative merits or demerits.
EFFECT OF THE CHAINLESS UPON THE CYCLE TRADE.
The probable effect of the newcomer upon the trade in general is a
puzzling factor in the outlook. “The chainless is an inspiration; it
is a piece of folly; it will induce people to buy; it will hold people
back from buying; it is and has been a trade disturber; it is just the
tonic the trade needs”—one can take his choice of these opinions, for
it is a matter of the point of view. Perhaps the real truth and the
best course, as usual, lie somewhere between the extremes. This seems
the more likely to be so, because the bicycle has been suffering from
extremes in the form of a large overdose of “boom;” it might be more
euphemistically put by saying that the industry has been fostered and
stimulated too fast. The “pace” of competition has been too hot, and
the result is a part of the evolution through which this marvellous
product of skill must pass.
EVOLUTION IN THE TRADE.
Evolution works not only in the cycle itself, but in the methods of
production and sale, in the ranks of the producers themselves, and in
all included in the term “the trade.” The swift rise of the bicycle
as an article of merchandising importance, together with sensational
attempts by uninformed press writers to expose the alleged exorbitant
profits, has produced a natural effect within the last three years.
To make a bicycle for $20 and sell it for $100 was so sure and easy a
method of amassing a fortune within, say, five years’ time, that the
imagination of our ever-quick Americans was fired.
It is not necessary just now to point out the defects of this picture,
sketched and held up; the most serious defect was that it was untrue to
fact. There was, however, a rush to get into “the swim” while there was
time. People without capital, without experience, without mechanical
training, without even any knowledge of the materials of which bicycles
are constructed, hastened to advertise themselves as bicycle makers,
and for a full year the news columns went on announcing the building
of new factories. Thus the bargain counter got its supplies, and the
natural reaction followed, the news columns soon having items of quite
another character.
It must not be supposed, however, that recent reductions in price mean
simply relinquishment of former profit margins, whether those were
large or small; some of the decline in price does mean a lower rate
of profit, partly atoned for by larger sales, but a great deal is
covered by economies in handling and marketing, and notably by reduced
costs of production, which are made possible by various means as above
suggested, one of the chief of these being automatic machinery. The
disturbed condition of the bicycle market has been adjusting itself and
will continue to do so—all the sooner and better for all concerned if
volunteer assistants will remember that “it is better not to know so
much than to know so much that isn’t so.”
[Illustration]