It seems that the moment the first bicycle--however you define it--was created, someone was looking for a way to insulate the bike, and rider, from shock. When you look the Draisienne's wooden seat and the iron wheels of subsequent machines, you can understand why someone wanted to make them more comfortable to ride. And if you know anything about the conditions of roads at that time, it's not hard (pun intended) to see the need for a shock absorber to make bicycles (and bicycle-like contraptions) more stable.
If we define "suspension" as anything that insulates ("suspends") the bike or rider from shock, one could argue that pneumatic tires, invented by John Boyd Dunlop in 1888, were the first form of suspension for two-wheelers. In fact, one could even say that when, a decade earlier, John Boultbee Brooks stretched a piece of leather between two rails, he was the first to achieve the goals of every suspension system created since.
So, really, it's not such a surprise to see a suspension bicycle gracing an advertising poster early in the first worldwide Bike Boom:
I could find very little information about Delizy and Poiret. All of it was in French--which, fortunately, I can read.
Apparently, D et P started making bikes around 1890 and weren't in production for very long: I saw an announcement for the dissolution of the company dated 17 July 1892. Their bikes were made and sold at 22,rue Duret in Paris. This factory and showroom stood just off the Avenue de la Grande Armee, which streams into Place Charles de Gaulle Etoile (the location of the Arc de Triomphe) and was, until 15 or so years ago, lined with the boutiques of the major French (and a few foreign) bike makers.
All right. You know that I find stuff like this interesting. So do you: Otherwise, why would you have read this post? But you also know that writing this post was just an excuse to put another cool vintage bike ad on this blog!
Writing recently about "path racers" and the mountain bike experiences of my youth got me to thinking of just what it means to be a "mountain" or "path" rider--and what makes bikes suitable for those kinds of riding.
I also got to thinking about how and when those kinds of riding came to be seen as distinctive from other kinds of riding, and how the terms to describe them came to be.
It seems to me that those kinds of cycling and bikes--as well as cyclo-cross and bicycle motocross (BMX) evolved as specialties within cycling because of paved roads.
Think about it: In the early days of cycling, there were few paved roads. And the few paved roads had gravel, cobblestone or granite sett (a.k.a. Belgian Block) surfaces. Thus, most of the time, cyclists were riding under conditions that, today, we would equate with off-road or cyclo-cross--or what the Brits would call "rough stuff".
If you are a mountain or cyclo-cross rider, try to think of what your rides would be like with solid rubber tires--or no tires at all. In other words, think of what it would be like to ride your favorite trail on bare wood or metal rims. That is, I believe, what normal riding conditions would have been like for most cyclists before the pneumatic tire was invented in the late 1880's.
And to think cyclists rode, not only without the cushioning of air-filled tires, but on front wheels that were almost as tall as the riders themselves!
So, really, it's not surprising that there were attempts to incorporate suspension into bicycles.
This Blackledge bicycle, patented in 1890, uses a spring in the fork assembly to soften the blows from the rough roads of the day. It seems that ever since the "safety" bicycle (two wheels of more or less equal size) was invented, attempts to incorporate suspension into bicycles began with the front fork. For one thing, we feel road shock first at the front. For another, shock to the front is more likely to upset our balance or momentum--and cause crashes-- than shock at the rear.
This Tillinghast bicycle, patented the following year, has another interesting front suspension system as well as a unique kickstand built into the pedals:
Still, attempts to soften the ride--and make the bike more stable on rough surfaces--weren't limited to tinkering with the front end. Here is a drawing submitted by Fernand Clement for the suspension bike he patented in 1892:
Here is another early rear suspension system on a J.H. Mathews bicycle, patented in 1891:
Hmm...Wouldn't it be fun to envision Messrs. Blackledge, Tillinghast, Clement and Mathews showing up at Tamalpais a century after they created these bikes...but just before Rock Shox, Marzocchi, Manitou came along?
For many years, my favorite candy was the chocolate nonpareil. During my childhood, they usually came on waxed-paper sheets. I think part of the appeal (pun intended) of the nonpareil was peeling it off the sheet. It was sort of like pulling a button off a shirt.
I haven't eaten those candies in years. Now I see they're sold in little bags for about five dollars. I'd probably like them if they were made from really good dark chocolate, which would be a nice counterpoint to the sugar pearls that coat them.
(I've often wondered whether I'd like some of my other favorites from childhood--like Nestle's Crunch and Kit Kat--if they were made with high-quality dark chocolate. The dark-chocolate Kit Kat that's sometimes sold in the US seems to be just a Hershey bittersweet bar with wafers in it.)
Back when my grandmother was bringing those sheets of nonpareils, I didn't know any French. Later, I'd learn that "nonpareil" means "without parallel"--or, if you like, "There's nothing like it", which is how I probably described my favorite candy at one time or another.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that this is also called "nonpareil":
The Classic Cycle website describes it as "the missing link in the evolution of the bicycle". Apparently, it was built around 1890, after bike makers moved away from the "hobby horse" design and had been making "penny farthings" (high-wheelers) for a decade or so.
The Nonpareil seems to have been one of the first bikes with wheels of equal size. Most likely, it's also one of the first chain-driven bikes. I must say, though, there's nothing remotely like its chain on modern bikes:
For that matter, there's nothing like that frame, either. Given that everything that's been done (in bike design, anyway) gets done again, I have to wonder whether someone's designing a frame with a single tube that slopes from the front to the rear stays. It eliminates the top or down tube, depending on how you look at it. Can you imagine how much weight that saves? I'd bet that, rendered in carbon fiber, such a frame could be built into a complete bike that weighs less than 5 kilograms.
Of course, unless the UCI changes its rules, no racer could use such a bike in competition. But someone would want it anyway just because it's, well, nonpareil.
P.S. I'd love to find the oil lamp that fit on the fork. There's definitely nothing like it made today!
Historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich has written, "Well-behaved women seldom make history".
She, of course, is correct. However, when women are entering previously-unchartered territory, we sometimes have to behave in accordance with accepted gender norms in order to hold onto our places in those worlds. In other words, we can't be perceived as a threat to men. On the other hand, we also have to do whatever we're doing in our own way--and, indeed, we often have to figure out what that way is--in order not to be seen as inferior to the men who are doing whatever it is we're doing.
I know from whence I speak: In my transition from living as a man to my life as a woman, I have been criticized for being too much like a man and too much like a woman--sometimes by the very same people. The same people who told me I was too aggressive on the job told me, in the next breath, that I was too submissive--"like a woman." It's a bit like telling a woman she throws too hard for a girl but that she "throws like a girl".
I thought about that when I came across this list of "don'ts" for female cyclists that was published in the New York World in 1895:
Don’t be a fright.
Don’t faint on the road.
Don’t wear a man’s cap.
Don’t wear tight garters.
Don’t forget your toolbag
Don’t attempt a “century.”
Don’t coast. It is dangerous.
Don’t boast of your long rides.
Don’t criticize people’s “legs.”
Don’t wear loud hued leggings.
Don’t cultivate a “bicycle face.”
Don’t refuse assistance up a hill.
Don’t wear clothes that don’t fit.
Don’t neglect a “light’s out” cry.
Don’t wear jewelry while on a tour.
Don’t race. Leave that to the scorchers.
Don’t wear laced boots. They are tiresome.
Don’t imagine everybody is looking at you.
Don’t go to church in your bicycle costume.
Don’t wear a garden party hat with bloomers.
Don’t contest the right of way with cable cars.
Don’t chew gum. Exercise your jaws in private.
Don’t wear white kid gloves. Silk is the thing.
Don’t ask, “What do you think of my bloomers?”
Don’t use bicycle slang. Leave that to the boys.
Don’t go out after dark without a male escort.
Don’t go without a needle, thread and thimble.
Don’t try to have every article of your attire “match.”
Don’t let your golden hair be hanging down your back.
Don’t allow dear little Fido to accompany you
Don’t scratch a match on the seat of your bloomers.
Don’t discuss bloomers with every man you know.
Don’t appear in public until you have learned to ride well.
Don’t overdo things. Let cycling be a recreation, not a labor.
Don’t ignore the laws of the road because you are a woman.
Don’t try to ride in your brother’s clothes “to see how it feels.”
Don’t scream if you meet a cow. If she sees you first, she will run.
Don’t cultivate everything that is up to date because yon ride a wheel.
Don’t emulate your brother’s attitude if he rides parallel with the ground.
Don’t undertake a long ride if you are not confident of performing it easily.
Don’t appear to be up on “records” and “record smashing.” That is sporty.
Some of these "don'ts" made me cringe. But I had to get a laugh out of "Don't try to ride in your brother's clothes 'to see how it feels'!"
