Originally Posted by
noglider
Am I correct in noticing that these bad ideas have a stronger tendency to come back repeatedly in the bicycle industry?
That's why I chose the other two examples, people keep thinking they're a good idea, and (if they are aware of previous failures) that they can do it better with new materials. People have been reinventing bicycle technology since forever: velocars have been around for 90 years, the first electric trike was demonstrated in 1881.
Originally Posted by
noglider
One strong example is the one pedaled with levers instead of spinning cranks. Back in about 1980, I attended a bike trade show, and some Japanese folks were displaying this proudly. They invited me to try it with a bicycle on a stand. I pedaled really hard, and the thing fell apart, and I fell down. I was not hurt, and they were very embarrassed. I told them why their idea was fatally flawed, and they thanked me. The flaw isn't that it fell apart, it's that with levers, there is energy required to decelerate the cranks with each cycle.
That's actually the case with legs too, but we work with what we have. Treadle cycles have been around since the 1870s. People have tried building more efficient bikes using arm powered levers to supplement leg power, but it turns out that performance is mainly limited by cardio capacity rather than muscle mass and all they've done is make a heavier more complex machine that is less effective, but we can buy
these things which are more about general fitness than efficient cycling.
