Kirkpatrick McMillan

Growing up in England and going to school there I was taught that a Scottish blacksmith named Kirkpatrick McMillan (1812 – 1878) invented the first pedal driven bicycle in 1839.

The story goes that McMillan (Right.) saw a Hobby Horse being ridden near his home in Dumfries, Scotland; he decided to build himself one.

On completion he realized it would be an improvement if the machine had a means of propulsion so it could be ridden without putting his feet to the ground.

Cranks were attached to the rear wheel; movement was by connecting rods attached to pedals worked in a reciprocating motion by the rider’s feet. The exact same principle can be seen on a child’s pedal car to this day.

Today there are doubts cast on the claim that Kirkpatrick McMillan was the first to build a pedal driven bicycle. The problem was that McMillan never patented his invention, and it appears never even exploited the idea for profit.

Another Scottish blacksmith, Gavin Dalzell from Lesmahagow, copied the idea in 1846 and produced so many that for almost 50 years he was thought to be the inventor.

Then in the 1890s a wealthy corn trader named James Johnston, who just happened to be the nephew of Kirkpatrick McMillan, decided to throw a lot of money into proving that his uncle, now deceased, was indeed the inventor.

He unearthed all manner of neat stories, including one where in 1842 his uncle rode his bicycle 68 miles from Dumfries to Glasgow. While in the Gorbals District of Glasgow, McMillan colided with a young girl after she ran in front of his bicycle, injuring her slightly. He was fined five shillings.

A story was said to appear in a Glasgow newspaper reporting “An anonymous gentleman on a velocipede was fined five shillings.” Johnston claimed this was his uncle. However, there are doubts today that this incident actually happened or that the newspaper article even exists.

This is the problem; James Johnston said a lot of things but never backed it up with documentation.

He even had a blacksmith named Thomas McCall build a replica of his uncle’s machine for the 1896 Stanly Show.

Today this same replica can be seen in the Bicycle Museum at Drumlanrig Castle. (Above left.)

Thomas McCall had himself been building these machines since 1869.

The McMillan replica in the museum looks an awful lot like those attributed to Thomas McCall. (Picture right.) Right down to the horses head carved on the front.

So is this a true replica of McMillan's original, or did McCall take Johnston’s money and then sell him one of his old stock models?

These would have been obsolete by the late 1800s following the invention of the chain drive, and McCall would have been more than happy to unload one of his old machines. Especially as he was 62 years old by then, maybe retired and could use the cash.

James Johnston may have been fully aware of this and knew that the Thomas McCall bicycle was not a true McMillan replica. This is only speculation on my part, but it was these attempts by Johnston to prove McMillan was the first by any means, or at any cost that now tends to cast doubt on the claim.

Was history re-written; dates fudged? It was certainly accepted as fact in Great Britian during the first half of the 20th. Century, and is still stated as such in many books and articles.

I like to keep an open mind. The point is even if it can’t be proved McMillan was the first, it probably can’t be disproved either. Kirkpatrick McMillan it seems was a modest man who never sought fame and fortune from his idea.

In spite of this his name will continue to have a place in history, along with the other names associated with the building of this type of machine; the ones I have mentioned here like Gavin Dalzell and Thomas McCall. Rightly so, because these men were all early pioneers of bicycle building.

    To Share click "Share Article" below

The day the bicycle lost its heart and soul

When some one sent me a picture of a Fuso bike, (Above.) I knew at first glance that I did not build it. This one was built by Russ Denny, my former apprentice who took over my business when I retired in 1993. The frame had a sloping top tube, and while this is normal today, back prior to 1993 it was not.

I never built any frame with anything but a level top tube, with the exception of a few drop top ladies model, and the occasional twin tube “Mixtie” frame, which is a whole different frame design. I m talking of the standard road frame.

It made me think, what a run this simple design had. From the early 1900s until the mid to late 1990s, almost made it a hundred years without any major changes. Apart from basic geometry, tube angles, etc., once the standards were established, they remained the same, a level top tube was one of them, and any deviation from that was not acceptable, to either the framebuilder or the customer.

What I find amazing is that everything else changed so dramatically over the same period, I think of automobiles, aircraft, and just about any other manufactured item. They have all been though many changes over the same period.

It all started with the invention of the chain drive. The first was the British model “Rover” Safety Bicycle.So-called because its fore-runner was the Ordinary or High-wheeler model, (Below right,)

Although this was the first “Enthusiasts” bike, one had to be young, athletic, and have nerves of steel to even mount such a machine.

The Rover design pretty much established that the chain would drive the rear wheel, while the front wheel would provide a means of steering. The chainwheel, cranks and pedals would be just ahead of the rear wheel, and below the rider’s saddle.

The rider’s position was copied from the ordinary, and lead to those early frames having laid back “Slack” frame angles that would prevail into the 1950s.

Early frames were a hodge-podge of tubes of various shapes and sizes. The bicycle soon became mass-produced, which lead to it becoming an affordable means of transport for the working classes. Prior to that the only personal form of transport was a horse,

Mass production also lead to standard-ization and simplification of design. The chain itself is still half an inch pitch today the whole world over, even though most countries use the metric system.

Wheel sizes became standardized, and the frame design became the simple straight tube, diamond design, that we are all so familiar with.

Most of these standardizations came within the first ten years into the early 1900s. Tube sizes, 1 ¼ Head tube, 1 1/8th. Down and seat tube, 1-inch top tube. Most countries in the world including Italy, use these same Imperial size tubes. Hand brazed, lugged steel frames were, for the most part, the norm throughout this period.

It soon became obvious that frames would have to be different sizes to accommodate different size people, and the level top tube being parallel to the wheel centers, made it a point of reference, for the framebuilder to easily design and build a frame of any size.

The front fork being the same height for any frame, the position of the bottom head lug, and the length of the head tube is easy to arrive at, and head and seat angles are measured from horizontal top tube.

The advantage for the customer was, once he had established a size of frame that suited him, he could buy another of any make in that size, and it would fit.

Plus, the handlebars would be the correct height in relation to the saddle. No one spoke of handlebar drop.

When I left England in the late 1970s, my customers were almost exclusively amateur racing cyclists, their bikes all had the same componentry. Campagnolo Group, Cinelli handlebars and stem. Christophe toe clips, Binda laminated toe-straps. Tubular tires, and usually Mavic rims. Frames were either by a local builder like me, and therefore varied from one area to another.

If the frame was not by a local builder, it was by one of the larger English builders. Holdsworth, Mercian, Jack Taylor. Italian frames were not big in England at the time.  They were expensive compared to the UK built frames.

When the US Bike Boom happened in the 1970s English framebuilders, even the larger ones could not supply the demand, and they lost out to the Italian companies that  were larger, as they had been supplying most of the continent of Europe for years.

By moving to America, I was able to compete for a small niche of the market, but when the second bike boom hit, namely the Mountain Bike craze. Only a few high-end established mountain bike specialists were able to take advantage of their particular niche. The rest was taken over by companies like Giant, who found by building frames with sloping top tubes, they were able to build less sizes.

Above illusrates the evolution from the "One size fits all" BMX Bike, to the limited size MTB and Road Bike.

When this look became the norm, it made its way to road bikes, and by then carbon fiber was taking over from steel. Lugged steel had a good run, and I am proud to have been around at the end of that era.

The only other products I can think of that are made by craftsmen and remain the same year after year, are musical instruments. Everything else, including bicycles are now the same as any other consumer product that can become obsolete at the whim of the manufacturer.  

The bicycle, and in particular the lugged steel racing bike, took about ten years to establish standard designs and practices that would last for another 90 years. Towards the end changes in componentry came at a fast pace, (Index shifting, clipless pedals, etc.) culminating in the demise of the frame itself, which is fitting because after all the frame is the heart and soul of the bicycle.

     To Share click "Share Article" below

Riding a bike: Science or Natural Instinct?

I recently came across this article about scientist Matthew Cook working on a project to design a computer that could steer a bicycle.

I quote from the piece:

The problem is more difficult than you might think, we may be able to ride bicycles, but, as Cook notes, “We do not have great insight into how we ride a bicycle.”

Really! I will tell you. We do it instinctively, (With a little practice.)

The same instinct we use to walk and run.  When man stumbled upon the bicycle, he built a mechanical device that is a simple extension of the human body.

Scientists find it hard to accept “Instinct” as a reason, because they can’t prove it, either by demonstration or mathematically. How many times have I watched nature programs on TV and heard the quote, “Scientists do not know how the salmon or the turtle swims thousands of miles through the ocean to find its way back to its place of birth.”

Or how birds migrate huge distances with the change of seasons. How do they know it is time, and how do they find their way?” The answer of course is instinct. Some inbuilt intelligence passed on from generation to generation, throughout evolution.

I said earlier that man “Stumbled” upon the bicycle. He did just that, there was no single inventor.

The fore runner of the bicycle was the Hobby Horse, generally attributed to a German, but the French and English were building similar two-wheeled devices about the same time.

Even the Hobby Horse was not an original invention. For thousands of year’s children’s toys, models of animals, were made with wheels for feet.

Before the automobile the main form of transportation was the horse. It was natural children would play with pretend horses. The name “Hobby Horse,” is a clue. It was an adult size toy horse.

Later when cranks were attached to the front wheel, it became a bicycle. We no longer had a toy, but now a bona-fide form of transport, whereby people could travel under their own power. Moving greater distances, and with less effort than walking or running.

To explain my thinking that humankind rides a bike and balances instinctively, let me pose this question.

How does a running man change direction? He leans to the left or right.

Not only man, but every other animal on earth.

Try this simple experiment. Stand in one spot and lean to the left. When you reach the point when you are about to fall, you will instinctively step to the left, thus bringing your feet back directly under your body to bring it upright once more. This is how all animals turn while running at speed.  They lean to the left or right, causing them to step to the left of right.

Also Newton’s Law of Physics states an object moving in a straight line will continue to do so until forces from a different direction cause it the change direction. If a running man were to try to turn by stepping left or right without leaning he would probably trip over his own feet as the law of physics would be forcing his body to continue straight. The lean, and the pull of gravity as he falls that way counters the forces causing him to continue straight.

A bicycle becomes a mechanical extension of the human body because the wheels simply replace our feet on the ground.  If we fall to the left, we instinctively steer to the left to bring the wheels directly under our body mass, just as surely as if we were walking or running and fell to the left or right, we would instinctively step in the direction we were falling.

Furthermore, we instinctively lean in the direction we wish to turn, this time with the added bonus that a bicycle will steer itself in the direction of the lean. Actually three forces come into play:

1.)    A spinning wheel or disc will turn in the direction it leans. Roll a coin on a flat surface it will roll in ever decreasing circles until it falls, as it turns in the direction it is falling.

2.)    Because the steering axis is angled forward, and the front fork is raked or offset forward, there is  a greater portion of the wheel ahead of the steering axis. The wheel’s own weight will cause it to turn in the direction it leans.

3.)    On a racing bicycle, a handlebar stem or extension is used, placing the bars ahead of the steering axis. The weight of the handlebars will cause the front wheel to turn in the direction the bike leans. It will even do this if you lean a bike while stationary.

Riding a bicycle slowly is a simple balancing act as we constantly steer to the left and right to stay upright. No different in principal, than balancing a broom on the palm of our hand. The fact that we are slightly higher above the ground than we would be on our feet, works to our advantage. It is actually easier to balance a long handle broom with a heavy head, than a short handle lightweight broom.

As we gather speed and momentum, it becomes easier to balance and ride a straight line, as laws of physical motion take over. And when we wish to turn, we instinctively lean in that direction without thought, and with the same ease we would do so if we were running.

Finally, I leave you with these observations, and to me further proof that a cyclist leaning into a corner is an instinctive move. The cyclist will lean into a corner but keep his head vertical to the road surface. (See top picture.) Probably a vision thing to keep the eyes focused, and done instinctively. See also the picture of the Cheetah. The head is vertical, and the eyes horizontal, focused. 

Also the cyclist’s inside knee pointed out. Is this too instinctive as if the rider was stepping in that direction? Motorcyclsts do it to the point their knee almost touches the ground. And yet it would seem unnatural not to do it.

     To Share click "Share Article" below 

The Bicycle: Evolution or Intelligent Design. Part III

 

This is the final part of a three part series. If you haven’t already done so, I suggest you read Part I, and Part II first.

The slump in bicycle sales that lasted through the 1960s, ended during the 1970s spurred on by a bicycle boom in the United States. In America people were realizing that exercise was an important part of a healthy lifestyle. In Europe those who had given up on cycling in the late 1950s, were coming back to the sport after the initial love affair with the motor car had subdued.

If you remember from part one of this series, the standard racing frame of the early 1950s had a 71 degree seat angle, and 73 head angle. If you also remember that 2 degree difference, with the seat tube leaning back slightly from the head angle, benefited the framebuilder because when building larger (Taller.) frames, the top tube automatically became longer.

This old framebuilding design philosophy had not been forgotten among the older established framebuilders that had been around for years. However, no one was prepared to go back to 71 degree seat angles, so 73 seat, 75 head angle became the new norm.

The sales pitch made for this steeper head angle trend was that it made the bike feel livelier when sprinting. It also made a bike that was squirrely and sometimes difficult to handle. The other gradual trend that had happened in the period from the 1950s through to the 1970s was that racing cyclists were riding smaller frames. Frame sizes had shrunk as much as 5cm. or 2 inches.

Smaller frames were lighter, and stiffer. Improvements to aluminum alloys meant that longer seat posts and handlebar stems could be used, and of course this was necessary when using a smaller frame.

I initially got into framebuilding trying to build a frame that suited me. I am short in stature, 5’ 6”, I found that even with a 73 degree seat angle, I still found myself sliding forward in the saddle when sprinting or anytime I was making maximum effort. I came to the conclusion that a body will always find a natural position for any physical task. One where it can perform at maximum efficiency.

When you teach a child to ride a bicycle, you teach them to balance, and that is about it. They are seldom taught how to ride out of the saddle, and yet once they have mastered the balance part, you will see them standing on the pedals when the going gets tough, or extra speed is needed. It is the human body finding the best way to do the job efficiently.

The Ordinary or High Wheeler bicycle, had a simple efficient riding position. Not aerodynamically of course, but in terms of getting power to the pedals, the arms worked in direct opposition the legs. Over the years that followed in an effort to get the rider’s back horizontal to be aerodynamically efficient, the handlebars were moved further and further forward without lowering them a significant amount, and without changing where the rider was sitting.

It wasn’t until the trend went to smaller frames, that handlebars could be placed lower in relation the saddle. Today saddle to handlebar height difference is probably greater than ever, and I believe the riding position of today’s racing cyclist is the most efficient it has ever been.

The only time I see a lot of sliding forward in the saddle is on time-trial bikes, where the arms are once again stretched forward in an effort to gain the most aerodynamic advantage. It would seem to me that the saddles on these bikes should go even further forward. Although UCI regulations might prevent that happening.

Incidentally, the leisure cyclist who has neither the ability or desire to ride in an extreme racing position, often set their bike up with the handlebars high and forward, when lower but closer (Shorter stem.) might be just as comfortable and a more efficient position.

Getting back to the steep head angle trend of the 1970s. It was just that, a trend that really served no useful purpose other than to make something different as the racing bicycle was reborn after a long slump. The other reason was old established framebuilders clinging to this notion that, “The seat angle must be shallower than the head angle.” Because that is the way it has always been.

I never followed that trend though the 1970s. In fact I went the exact opposite, staying with the 73 head angle on most road frames, and on small frames especially, I made the seat tube steeper than the head angle. My customers in the UK were exclusively racing cyclists, and rarely questioned the geometry, all they cared about was, “How did it ride?”

Evolution has been happening in the bicycle business since its invention, and is still happening. Look at what happened in the last thirty or so years. The Mountain Bike began with a handful of enthusiasts downhill racing on trails in Northern California. When it went mainstream in the late 1980s, it appealed to mainly young adults who had grown up riding BMX bikes in the 1970s.

When I built road frames in the 1980s, the technology was there that I could have built welded frames. However, racing frames were traditionally lugged steel, hand brazed. A welded road frame was not acceptable to my customers. Sloping top tubes also were not acceptable to me, or my customers.

The Mountain Bike was a different animal altogether, not bound by any framebuilding traditions of the last 100 years. The welded frame was accepted, and lent itself to mass production in aluminum as well as steel. The BMX bike had been a basically a “One size fits all,” frame. The mountain bike became available in Small, Medium, and Large sizes.

The old school framebuilders like myself disappeared and the corporations took over. It was not surprising when the road bike made a comeback it would look similar to the Mountain Bike and be available in S, M, and L sizes.

The level top tube started out as a point of reference for the frame builder, but it also became a point of reference for the customer. If a person always rode a 56cm. frame, he knew what a 56 frame would look like, and you couldn’t sell him a 54 with a longer seat post, and different stem.

By radically changing the look of the road frame, it left the door open for limited sizes to become acceptable. Once again something that suits the manufacturer, not necessarily the customer.

In the 1980s, even with my knowledge of bikes, I could not have sat down and designed a road bike like today's machine. Even if I did, would it have been accepted? It had to evolve, and that is the way it has always been.

 To Share click "Share Article" below 

The Bicycle: Evolution or Intelligent Design. Part II

This is Part II of a three part series, If you haven’t already read Part I, you can read it here.

Soon after the chain driven bicycle was invented in 1885, a whole bicycle industry sprang up in Britain. Bicycles were mass produced, making them affordable for the working man. For the next 60 years the bicycle became the working man’s form of transport. And bicycle racing the working man’s sport.

Because Britain was the first to industrialize bicycle manufacture, certain standards were set, and the rest of the world followed. The half an inch pitch bicycle chain is a good example, it is still the standard today worldwide, even in countries that have always used the metric system of measurement.

Bicycle frame tubes were a standard 1 1/8 inch seat and down tubes, 1 inch top tube, 1 1/4 inch head tube. With the exception of the French who used metric size tubes, most of the rest of the world used the Standard English size tubes, even the Italians. And this would remain the standard, especially for lightweight racing frames for almost 100 years.

The horizontal, level top tube became standard. It was the framebuilder’s point of reference. All other angles were measured off the top tube, it was parallel to a line drawn though the wheel centers. (Assuming both wheel are the same size.)

Traditionally, lightweight frames were custom built, one at a time. My mentor, Pop Hodge, would assemble a frame, measure all the angles and tube lengths. Then lay it out on the brick floor of his shop. The top tube would line up with the edge of a row of bricks. There were marks scratched into the bricks where the Bottom Bracket should be, the same with the rear drop-outs, the bottom head lug, etc.

He would then drill a hole with a hand cranked drill, (He used no power tools.) and pin the tubes in the lugs with a penny nail. (A penny nail was a reference to its size.) When the whole frame was assembled, he would place it in a hearth of hot coals, (Again with a hand cranked blower.) Heat the whole joint to a light red heat, when he would feed in the brass, and braze the joint.

The first framebuilders were blacksmiths, and Pop Hodge had been building frames since 1907 built in that traditional way. He had a hand held torch that he used to add braze-ons and other small parts. It burned coal gas, from the town’s supply that was piped in to all homes and businesses for cooking and heating. The flame was boosted by foot operated air bellows.

The level top tube also had the advantage that once a person established what size frame suited them, any make of frame in that same size would fit. Even though seat angles, and top tube lengths may vary, it would only be slight and could be taken care of with a longer or shorter handlebar stem.

The main reason different makes of frames worked as long as the frame size was the same. When the saddle was set at the correct height, and the handlebars would then be automatically the correct height in relation to the top of the saddle. No one spoke of “Handlebar Drop,” it was an unnecessary measurement, as long as the top tube was level.

In the late 1950s and through the 1960s there was a huge social change taking place in the UK and the rest of Europe. Economies were booming, (Because of the WWII recovery.) and the working man was buying a car for the first time. My parents never owned or even learned to drive a car, but the younger generations were abandoning their bicycles and buying a car.

Even the racing cyclists, mostly owned one bike. They rode to work on it, which was a big part of their training. On the weekends, the fenders (Mudguards.) and saddle bag came off, racing wheels were fitted, and a time-trial was ridden.

For many cyclists, Time-Trialing in the UK in the 1950s and before was more a social event than a serious athletic event. Owning a car for the first time changed the whole social structure of the working man, and many gave up cycling completely.

The result was a huge slump in the bicycle business at all levels. Prices of lightweight frames remained stagnant for many years and framebuilders had to look to ways to cut costs. The ones who survived were the ones who moved away from building frames one at a time, and managed to produce large numbers of frames sold at a reasonable price. See top picture.

I mentioned in Part I of this series, that the standard racing frame geometry of that era was 71 degree seat angle, 73 head. To simplify the design the parallel frame was introduced, that is one where the head and seat angles are the same.

People were not ready to make a big jump from 71 to 73 degree seat angle, so a compromise was made and the 72 degree parallel frame was introduced. Advertised as a “Massed Start” or Road Racing Frame, the parallel frame had the advantage that a complete range of sizes could be made using only two, maybe three top tube lengths.

Simple jigs were used to assemble the frames, the same length top tube could be slid up or down between the parallel head and seat tubes, to build several different size frames. Maybe not the ideal set up, but it did cut the cost of building frames, and as I mentioned before the reach could be adjusted with a different length stem.

Tubes could be pre-mitered using the same angles, another time saver. By the mid-1960s the parallel frame concept was accepted by most people, and the 73 degree parallel became the norm. 73 was a better head angle, and riders soon found that the 73 degree seat was better too. Less tendency to slide forward on the saddle.

So once again here was a trend started by framebuilders because it suited them, but actually lead to a better riding bike. This series will have to run into a third part. Next I will touch on the steep head angle trend of the 1970s and how that came about, and then bring the story up to the present day.

 To Share click "Share Article" below