CAN WE IMPROVE UPON THE CREATOR’S METHODS?
“We find in a great number of standard treatises a sort of
accusation brought against nature for having entirely wasted a
great part of the force of our muscles by causing them to act under
a disadvantageous leverage.”—+E. J. Marey.+[1]
À propos of fundamental principles, what are the requirements needful
for the most successful means of man-motor locomotion? In more homely
phrase, how can a man, without calling upon the storage of energy other
than that inherent in his own body, propel himself from place to place
with the least amount of physical exertion? It is evident now, that
under very many circumstances the means provided us by the Creator
for such purposes are not the most economical; that is to say, it has
been found that if we employ a medium through which to transmit our
energy, the energy will be more economically expended, in carrying our
bodies from place to place, than if we apply the force directly to the
work as nature seemed to intend in presenting us with a pair of legs.
The writer cheerfully concedes, for one, that for almost all purposes
the legs are very practical; as, for instance, in climbing a tree or
a pair of stairs, a rail fence, or even a very steep hill, or when,
as in some of our early travels, we are compelled by an embarrassing
paucity of funds to take to the cross-ties of a poorly ballasted
railroad. And further, we admit that the invention of a pair of legs,
if properly claimed in a patent, would, with perfect justice, have
entitled the inventor to all uses to which they could be put, including
the pumping of a bicycle. But we are perfectly willing to infringe the
leg patent, provided we can improve upon it even for certain purposes,
as we have in adopting the modern bicycle, in its use, for instance,
upon a reasonably smooth level road. Why we have been able to thus
improve upon nature’s device is not quite clear. Undoubtedly, however,
there is some unnecessary friction in the leg method; it cannot be on
account of impact with the air, because a man on a bicycle certainly
catches as much air himself, in addition to that of the machine, as
he would do in walking. Evidently, then, there must be more motion or
extra friction or both in the body, in the leg method, than is really
essential in conveying one over a good road. Probably the main cause
of this friction is that the rider’s body is supported differently; it
requires less muscular strain to sit than to stand. We not only know
this from experience, but it is proved by the fact that the temperature
of the body is lower while sitting than while standing; also still
lower when lying down, showing that less energy is being expended and
less muscle consumed. Since the spirit of the writer began to wrestle
with the foregoing leg versus cycle controversy, by happy chance he
fell upon an estimable work[2] of which a careful perusal would almost
make us think that nature really had an embryo cycle or wheel method
in view when we were planned for legs. The great interest attaching to
the above-mentioned work arises from the fact that the book was written
before the cycle was at all broadly known to be of any assistance to
the self-propulsion of man under any circumstances. This work must be
read to be appreciated. I give some quotations, the application of
which shows that, in the minds of some, the Creator had an idea of a
wheel within a wheel; in short, that nature seemed to want to roll.
Let us quote from page 51, “Animal Locomotion.”
“When the right leg is flexed and elevated, it _rotates_ upon its
iliac portion of the trunk in a forward direction to form the
_arch_ of a _circle_ which is the converse of that formed by the
right foot, if the _arcs_ alternately supplied by the right foot
and the trunk are placed in opposition, a more or less _perfect
circle_ is produced, and thus it is that the locomotion of animals
is approximated to the wheel in mechanics.”
Hence we _roll_,—but not far enough,—we approximate in nature, but
reach the goal by man’s genius; shown in the full circular wheel.
It will be seen from the following (p. 51) that the bones in man are
not arranged for high speed; hence we must make up for this deficiency.
“The speed attained by man, although considerable, is not
remarkable; it depends on a variety of circumstances, such as
height, age, sex, and muscular energy of the individual, the
nature of the surface to be passed over, and the resistance to
forward motion due to the presence of air whether still or moving.
A reference to the human skeleton, particularly its inferior
extremities, will explain why the speed should be moderate.”
Page 52. “Another drawback to great speed in man (as distinguished
from animals) is, ... part of the power which should move (serve as
a motive power) ... is dedicated to supporting the trunk.”
Now, in the cycle method we support the trunk all right, but should
apparently make more use of the arms,—inventors take notice.
Page 56. “In this respect the human limbs, when allowed to
_oscillate_, exactly resemble a _pendulum_.”
Here is the trouble with nature; there is too much oscillation instead
of continuous rotation; nature does not go far enough.
Page 58. “The trunk also _rotates_ in a forward direction on
the foot which is placed on the ground for the time being; the
_rotation_ begins at the heel and terminates at the toes.”
Thus the rotation is all right so far as it goes.
Page 60. “The right side of the trunk has now reached its highest
level and is in the act of _rolling_ over the right foot.”
Hence see the effort of nature to roll.
Page 61. “In traversing a given distance in a given time a tall
man will take fewer steps than a short man, in the same way that
a large _wheel_ will make fewer revolutions in travelling over
a given space than a smaller one. The nave of a large _wheel_
corresponds to the ilio-femoral articulation (hip-joint) of the
tall man, the _spokes_ to his legs, and portions of the _rim_ to
his feet.”
We thank nature very much for this suggestion of the wheel; without it
perhaps we should never have conceived of the veritable wheel itself.
I also find from another work:[3]
“Living beings have frequently and in every age been compared to
machines, but it is only in the present day that the bearing and
the justice of this comparison is fully comprehensible.”
Page 67. “One might find in the animal organism many other
appliances the arrangement of which _resembles_ that of _machines_
invented by man.”
Page 91. “Let us examine from this point of view the articulation
in the foot of man: we see in the tibio-tarsal articulation a
_curvature_ of small _radius_.”
Page 112. “In addition to this the body is inclined and drawn up
again; at each movement of one of the legs it _revolves_ on a
pivot.”
And so on in all works on animal locomotion will ever be found a
continual reference to radius, roundness, and rolling.
These quotations show that while we must acknowledge that the
fundamental principles involved in the cycle were anticipated, to a
certain extent, by nature, we may yet take great credit upon ourselves
for developing the new or improved method to such a perfect and useful
degree.
To the oscillating features found in the human organism the genius of
man has added a full circular revolving mechanism, pushing further
nature’s aspiration to roll. Nature rolls a little, and then rolls back
again; man has so improved upon himself by the addition of a wheel that
he can roll on forever. It is quite evident that by such means he saves
much energy; let us now determine if possible how this saving can be
still further increased.
The whole question of the advantages of the cycle method or wheel
locomotion must resolve itself into one of reduction of organic
friction as shown by fatigue in the body. All inorganic friction, such
as metallic friction in the machine and upon the road, must be finally
overcome at the expense of organic friction due to the exercise of the
muscles in man. Without stopping to discuss such profound questions as
to just what organic friction is, or as to how the display of energy
creates friction, we will confine ourselves to the more tangible
problem,—to wit, improvements upon the improvement; that is to say,
granting the cycle method to be an improvement upon the leg method, we
will discuss improvements in the cycle method.
We feel perfectly justified, from our own experience and observation,
in adopting, as a basis upon which to build all future improvements,
the broad principle underlying the intervention of continually rolling
wheels between the rider and his road-way. Now, we ask, what are the
requirements appertaining particularly to this wheel method?
In order to approach the subject logically, I repeat that the
fundamental requirement is the reduction of organic friction or fatigue
of the body.
The above requirement is met in two ways: First, directly; that is to
say, by working the muscles of the body to the best possible advantage;
secondly, indirectly, by reducing the inorganic friction such as is
found in the machine and in its action upon the road.
We shall attack first the reduction of direct organic friction by
discussing the manner of applying the energy of man to revolve the
wheel; his position and economy of power; and secondly, the reduction
of the indirect or inorganic friction in the machine by regulating the
size of the wheels and weight thereof, the jolt or jar, the friction of
the parts one upon another, loss of momentum, and such other problems
as may present themselves in the course of our discussion.
The terms used in this book hereafter will be largely arbitrary.
Man-motor and locomotive carriages, velocipedes, unicycles, bicycles,
tricycles, tandems, and all such terms will be included more or less in
the broad terms “cycle” and “cycle-method.” Wherever any distinctive
feature is to be made prominent, then such qualifying adjuncts or
special terms will be used as express it.
In speaking of different styles of bicycles, we will adopt the name
“Ordinary” for the prominent form of machine which is provided with a
large wheel fifty to sixty inches in front, with a crank movement, and
the usual fifteen- to twenty-inch rear wheel. The recent rear-crank
driver, with the two wheels of about equal size, we will recognize as
the “Rover” pattern, in deference to the people who first pushed it
into the market and so named it. Other terms will be adopted which will
be self-evident to all acquainted with the art.
Attention is called to the engravings in Part II. of this book, which
will give an idea of the different forms of machines used in the art.
[1] Animal Mechanism, 65.
[2] J. Bell Pettigrew, M.D., F.R.S., F.R.S.E., F.R.C.P.E., “Animal
Locomotion.”
[3] E. J. Marey, College of France, Academy of Medicine, “Animal
Mechanism,” 1887, p. 1.