peg or step on pre-1900 race bikes
 

Hey all. So I was telling someone on the fixed forum that some old pre-1900 bikes had a peg on the rear hub to help you mount up. You see the peg in some older bike. The comment stemmed from a picture where the bike looked too large for the rider (the TT was above his crotch). My guess is this was a design "hold-over" from velocipedes. But when I thought about it, I really didn't know the exact reason.

But does anyone know if and why this was a hold over? Was there some school of thought that riding a taller bike was somehow better?

I'm just thinking that none others were available, or that it was better from a performance standpoint.

I assume that you are refering to the early "saftey" models? If so, the peg was to permit a running start before mounting. The running start was a hold over from the high-wheelers, so it was an accepted method, but there was also rationale behind it. These old machines were quite heavy and the road surfaces were not good, requiring quite a bit of momentum to ensure a successful start. Furthermore, almost all the bicycles were constant drive, so it was not really practical to have a foot on a spinning pedal and resort to several scooter-style kicks to get the momentum up.

The frame design of several of the early safety models also did did facilitate mounting. Many had a very short distance between the handlebars and saddle, which prevented straddling of the top tube. Others, rather than using stems to raise the handleabrs, had top tubes that sloped upwards to meet the handlebars, again preventing straddling of the top tube. Both features appear to hold-overs from the non-geared designs, where speed was a function of front wheel size.

Like most designs, the early safety bicycles were a evolutionary development from the previous style. They introduced the novelty of the geared drive and smaller wheels sizes but still retained many old features. In addition to the handlebar reach and diagonal top tube, many of them still incorporated unequal wheel sizes. The fact that they still retained these old features probably owed as much to marketing as evolutionary development. The public would be resistant to a machine that totally lacked any resemblance to what they were familiar with, regardless of the merits. The safety had enough trouble gaining converts from the serious cyclists, who considered chains inefficient and unreliable.

To add to what T-Mar said also the early safteys did not have standard wheel size.wheels were often 28 rear and 32 front---smaller than the hi-wheelers but still large.Also many used pegs on the front fork to to rest the feet while"coasting"Frame sizes I think did run a bit large too as I've seen 26" and larger frame seven after the wheels were somewhat standard(28 or 26)
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l2.../ivel20001.jpg
1886 Ivel