CHAPTER I.

EVOLUTION OF THE BICYCLE—1816 TO 1899.

“The nothing of the day is a machine called the Velocipede. It is a wheel carriage to ride cock-horse upon, sitting astride and pushing it along with the toes, a rudder wheel in the hand. They will go seven miles in an hour. A handsome ‘gelding’ will come to 8 guineas; however, they will soon be cheaper unless the army takes to them.”—Letter of John Keats to a friend, about 1818.

The future historian of cycledom will clearly note that 1898 was memorable for the reincarnation of the chainless; that the chain models were improved in quality and reduced in price, and that the trade did not hold a show, this being the first lapse since those events began in this country in 1890. Conservative old England, where shows were first held and the bicycle really began to succeed, has just closed her twenty-first or “coming-of-age” show in London, and the other large cities of the kingdom are, in their turn, pushing the show around the circuit as usual. America—progressive and enthusiastic—after less than one decade of it, exhausted itself for the time, and the National Board of Trade of Cycle Manufacturers decided to pass 1898, refusing to give sanction to either national or local exhibitions.

From the stand of the riding public much might be said on the affirmative side of the show question. The show brings under one roof all the new models and accessories for the coming year, affording ready means of comparisons, instructive, even if sometimes odious; maker and rider come together, and the latter especially, has opportunity to renew old friendships; the copious reports and illustrations in the daily and trade press arouse expectation in the cycling public, and undoubtedly make many new converts; the gap between riding seasons is bridged across “the winter of our discontent,” and things are kept on the move. Not denying aught of this, the makers reply that they are not in the amusement business; that this is a costly form of advertising directly, also delaying trade both by inducing buyers to wait to see it all and by tying up their representatives when they ought to be on the road visiting agents; that no other business has or needs such gatherings; and that shows were originally intended to bring together maker and dealer, not maker and rider.

Intelligent and impartial observers who have studied the question from both sides, say that all the trouble has come from the American habit of overdoing, and that the makers are to blame for deviation from the original idea, and for going into gorgeous competitions in electric lighting, costly furnishings and decorations and a prodigal waste of printed matter; that when aisles are packed and the week is a society event, the greatest thing in a show, the one chiefly cared for, and really about the only one that can be seen, is the show itself, the crowd itself being what the crowd attends; that the thing becomes a grab for “souvenirs” and a spectacular waste, instead of an exhibit of cycles and accessories to those who really want to see them.

TRANSFORMATION OF “THE SHOW.”

There has been a divergence from the original idea, certainly, even in England. The Stanley Show was at first the happy thought of some member of the Stanley Club, one of the oldest if not quite the oldest of cycle clubs, in a time of cycle feebleness, when the young sport needed all the aid it could command. To help things along through the winter, and doubtless largely on the strictly social side, it was proposed to get together in one place as many patterns of cycle and as many kindred articles as could be got. From that feeble start the thing has grown, as cycling grew. In a like feeble way, though with a model to follow, cycle showing began in this country, at Philadelphia. During the years that have followed it has brought the public into line, until in New York there is now only one building large enough to hold it—and that none too large for such an event. In Chicago there was one vast enough, but so vast that it had to be placed so far away from business and residence that it was as if a show were to be held out at Jamaica, on Long Island. Reaching the spot was certainly none too easy, and the cold was apt to be very bitter. Here in New York, it is urged, had the makers, through the National Board, chosen and decided to revert to the plan of a simple trade exhibition, and had the date been in November or December, instead of January or February, the cost would have been small, and all interests really concerned would have been benefited, even while allowing, although not pressing, the public to attend.

A CYCLE OPENING DAY.

It is to be expected that shows will come again, with some lessons learned and surer warrant of having the net balances more on the right side all around. Meanwhile, and as an immediately timely matter, observe that cyclists have from the first gradually taken as theirs all seasonable outdoor holidays, and a sensible custom has grown up in Boston and other New England towns of making Washington’s Birthday, Feb. 22, an “opening day” among the retail cycle dealers, who hold open house, utilize flowers, decorations and other pleasant things; array their new models for view and invite the public to call. Needless to say, the invitation on this cycle “New Year calls” day is largely accepted and cyclists, real and expectant, with their sisters and their cousins and their aunts, go the rounds at pleasure, comparing models, anticipating the full riding season and enjoying good cheer.

The retail cycle dealers in New York, lesser and greater, propose to adopt this good Yankee custom hereafter and will keep latchstrings out on Feb. 22, so that instead of one great central show there will be a thousand miniature ones scattered throughout the metropolis; it is estimated—of course there can never be an accurate census—that there are 250,000 cyclists in New York City alone. The 17th of March, St. Patrick’s Day, has generally been considered the opening of the riding season, the round of day and night being then equally divided: the “opening day” adopted for Feb. 22 will naturally and easily fall in with this customary notion as to March 17.

THE SWIFT MARCH OF IMPROVEMENT.

So rapid has been the march of improvement in cycle-making during the last seven years that the approach to fixity and uniformity of pattern—all bicycles now looking alike to the casual glance—has almost lost to us one of our most charming senses, the sense of delighted surprise. The most ingenious efforts of our master mechanics, accomplishing what would have been impossible only a short time ago, are now received as matters of course. The crude conditions and mechanical product of no more than ten years ago are rarely recalled; the vast majority of riders do not even know about them. The strength, lightness and beauty of the later bicycle have come out of long and toilsome and costly evolution, in which many have fallen by the way, and reward has not always been according to real merit. The careful student of the principles of cycle construction—the making of “a poem of steel”—cannot appreciatively examine the details in the advance shown in this year’s models without being glad that he is permitted to see such achievements. It is one thing to push and misuse the bicycle, another to ride it with intelligent care, another to understand it, another to love it and to honor the long cumulative skill which has made it possible and practical. The rabid seeker for extreme and radical novelties in type, form and modes of propulsion may care little for the niceties of mechanical accomplishment and may declare that the standstill has been reached. But this pessimistic and blasé view is unwarranted, for undoubtedly many of the most perfected and nearest perfect details now in vogue will be used on the cycle of the future, regardless of its general type.

THE TENDENCY TO FIXITY.

As in a number of past years, the art of cycle-making in 1898 exhibits distinct signs of two irresistible tendencies. One is toward fixity of type; the other is toward reversion to type. Fixity of type means the condition when—although there may be several widely different patterns of bicycle in use, as there always are of other wheeled vehicles—all of one pattern are substantially alike, varying only in trivial details, the product of all makers bearing the same appearance to the casual eye, however varying in real quality. When that time comes bicycles will resemble cut nails in being staple, standard, uniform and all alike. Such a time has not yet arrived, and it is not necessary to try to name the date in the new century when it will arrive; nevertheless the signs of its approach are unmistakable.

THE TENDENCY TO REVERSION.

Reversion to type—a well-known phrase of the scientific evolutionist—means here a return to earlier and once-discarded forms of construction. Very few notice the process, yet it constantly goes on. The inquirer for novelties often has the old presented to him and is satisfied, supposing he is looking on a new up-to-date production; it is a common experience to find alleged new devices brought out and rapturously received by the quidnuncs which the veteran instantly recognizes as among the things he saw tossed, years ago, into the refuse of the scrapheap.

That unhappy and irrepressible person, the “born inventor”—one of whom, like the “sucker,” is born every minute—is perpetually doing this in cycle matters, because the cycle is so much in the public eye that it draws him as the lamp flame draws the moth; he cannot keep away from it. Twenty years ago, at the very beginning of the bicycle in this country, he was eagerly on hand with his multiple-speed, mile-a-minute contraption; he has been doing the same ever since, and is just as industriously as ever reinventing the old folly; the Patent Office is flooded with his lumber. This, however, is repetition rather than reversion.

Reversion to old forms comes about for several reasons. We must always remember that the bicycle, like the piano, the violin and some other things which could be cited, belongs to nobody. Nobody invented it; it is the product of many minds, and has been wrought out by a long and gradual evolution, in which every step, freaky ones excepted, has been suggested and tested by practical use. Hence a device may be abandoned in the hope of escaping the inevitable drawback which besets all earthly things; or a device may be dropped because it cannot be made well enough or easily enough in the existing state of the art; or the conditions of public demand, or the state of the roads, or the caprice of fashion may change. Changes also come about to gratify the craving for novelty, and when the list of possibles comes to its end the maker goes back to or toward the beginning again, like the preacher who tips over his barrel of sermons and starts in afresh on the other end.

For illustration, suppose the following: The chain has some drawbacks, and therefore it is gradually displaced by the bevel-gear and entirely goes out. That gear develops drawbacks in turn, provoking fresh complaint, and after some years of suffering under it, some maker brings out a chain wheel, which is hailed with delight, and widely written up as the novelty of the year. One by one makers follow suit, until the gear is again quite displaced; improvement has then gone around and has come back upon its own path, the disadvantages of the old form having been found by trial to be less than those of the newer. This supposed case, which is partly real, would illustrate progress by reversion.

A BRIEF SKETCH OF DEVELOPMENT.

The early history of bicycle development has been told even to weariness, perhaps because not always well told. We shall not go over the course again, and yet it may not be amiss to show briefly and connectedly how the wheel of today grew out of the three preceding ones, especially since this strikingly illustrates the reversion process just explained.

The earliest vehicle for making oneself horse as well as rider was a three-wheeler, and was known at least, as early as 1779; the two-wheeler began in 1816, as far as records show, with the Draisine, a front-steerer, which was all ready to develop into either a front-driver or a rear-driver, according to the method of attaching the cranks, which so long remained the missing link. Of course it quickly went out, and after nearly a half century of oblivion it was dragged down from the garret and the cranks were added—to the front wheel, as that was then the easier way. The revival is generally credited to France and to Pierre Lallement, although Michaux, for whom he had been working in Paris, is probably more entitled to the credit than he; the name of the man really the first to take the new step, however, is hopelessly lost in obscurity. Lallement did ride the thing in Paris, and did afterward make one in Connecticut. The patent on “oppositely projecting cranks” issued to him in 1866 became the most valuable one on which suits were afterward fought and royalties were collected, yet Lallement invented nothing, and it is worth putting on record here that Mr. Wilcox saw the velocipede of that day publicly ridden in Brooklyn nearly two years before the issue of that patent, and more than a year before Lallement came to this country.

A few years of decline as a curiosity and the “boneshaker” had gone into forgetfulness after the Draisine. Aside from its intolerable weight and its crude and clumsy construction, what killed it was its lack of speed, for it was “geared level,” that is, not geared at all. England, however, did not give up the subject, but kept pegging away at it. To get a longer run for each foot-stroke, a larger wheel was necessary; so the rider was gradually brought “over his work,” and the front wheel became as large as he could reach, on a “close built” construction; necessarily the back wheel shrunk to a smaller size, ranging from 16 to 18 inches, or else the thing could have been neither mounted nor managed. Wood had given place to metal; the tubular steel frame, the suspension wheel with wire spokes, the steel rim and the solid rubber tire came in nearly together, and so, as the third great step, was evolved the high wheel, or the “good old ordinary,” still held more or less affectionately in the memory of all who ever rode it. A specimen or two appeared in the Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia in 1876. In the following year the new type commenced to go in this country, beginning thus the bicycle era, and it made its pioneer way without any rival until 1881. In 1880, however, McKee & Harrington of this city, one of the pioneer makers, received a diploma and a bronze medal for “a steel bicycle” exhibited at the fair of the American Institute. But the faults of the new construction were as positive as its virtues. It was heavy, averaging twice the weight of the bicycle of today; the size which fitted depended on the rider’s length of leg, not at all on his strength or his preference; worst of all, it was an acrobatic and unsafe thing, and was not a practical vehicle, although those who then sold and used it tried to make it out so.

Under the demand for safety, invention went back to the “boneshaker,” and put on the cranks and sprockets which could have been put on earlier, producing in a clumsy form the now universal geared rear driver. An earlier specimen under the name of “Bicyclette” appeared as far back as 1879, but the “Rover” (nearly identical with that) succeeded in giving its name to the type. Yet this name failed to survive, because the type drove out every other, and no specific name was required to distinguish it. To the great majority of present riders, this is “the bicycle,” the only one they ever knew; before it had driven out all others it was spoken of as “the safety,” and yet there were many other forms of safety bicycles, of which one antedated the rear driver in this country by some six years, and two originated here.

All this was reversion to type. The Draisine went out of existence, then received cranks on its front wheel and revived as the “boneshaker,” or velocipede. That went out as quickly in its turn, and gradually grew into the ordinary. Then reappeared the Draisine, with cranks in the other places, and drove out the high wheel after a hard contest. Will any such complete reversion occur again? It does not seem likely; yet when we remember the long and persistent battle of the types, and the number of forms which have been tried, it would be unwarranted to pronounce this impossible; the front driver still survives, although little is heard of it, and if it should possess the field once more that would be no more remarkable than the changes which have already occurred.

TENDENCIES IN GENERAL.

The mechanical tendencies of the American cycle makers and their product for 1898 are sharp and clearly defined. Indeed, the past year marks the close of a decade of construction of the rear-driving bicycle. Before proceeding to analyze in detail the constructional features for 1898, a bird’s eye view of the tendencies over the whole field will not be amiss.

The most striking characteristic tendency is the effort to introduce chainless rear driving, not altogether, however, by the bevel-gear. A careful census of the makers shows that some thirty prominent makers had perfected plans to place a chainless cycle of some sort on the market in 1898. Thus the season offers debatable ground between the advocates of the chainless and the chain-driven cycle. During 1898 is being fought the battle for supremacy between them, the chain-driven cycle being ably reinforced by its great and coming ally the gear-case, and the bevel-gear and other forms of chainless construction coming away from the realm of theory and the special pleas of the makers’ catalogues, and in the hands of the riding public will be put through that great crucible of public test, use on the road, under load, and under all sorts of conditions. The introduction of the chainless method of propulsion has, however, not radically changed the prevailing popular type of frame construction, and therefore the general tendency of construction, except the methods of propulsion, may be here surveyed as a whole.

DROP OF THE CRANK BRACKET.

One of the most prominent tendencies of the season is the dropping of the crank-hanger bracket to a point from 2 inches to 4 inches below a line drawn through the centre of the wheel axles, the average drop on road wheels being 2½ inches, on light road wheels 2¾ inches, and on road-racing and track wheels, from these to the extreme limit. This lowering of the crank-hanger bracket has also necessarily brought with it a shortening of the steering head, in order to maintain the top tube horizontal or parallel with the ground. Lengths of head run from 4 to 8 inches, a fair average in length being about 6 inches, a change indeed from the long-head fad of a few years ago, under which heads have reached a length of over 13½ inches. Just what effect the shortening of the head will have on the steering remains to be found out by actual use, the makers who have used long heads having always claimed ease of steering for them.

Another point to be borne in mind in noting this tendency toward short heads, is that their use will necessitate the use of longer and therefore weaker handlebar stems, for those who use a medium or upturned bar, as well as long seat posts, more withdrawn from the frame. Of course, the scorcher with his drop bar will like the short head, and therefore its popularity may be wholly confined to this class of riders.

The most peculiar feature in connection with this drop of the frame is the very marked tendency toward the use of longer cranks and higher gears. In former years the average length of crank was 6½ inches for a man’s roadster, and 5½ to 6 inches for a lady’s wheel. A notable departure in this crank length this season is that three or four of the largest makers are equipping their ladies’ wheels with 6½ inch cranks, and men’s wheels with 7 and 7½ inch cranks. While this may be commendable in a cycle for men’s use, having a high gear, such crank length is positively objectionable on a ladies’ cycle, for several reasons, one of the chief ones being the increased knee action.

HEIGHT AND SHAPE OF FRAME.

The length of wheel base—that is, the extreme measurement between the points where the two wheels rest on the ground—is not noticeably changed, the average being still about 43½ inches; this measurement has a close but not a quite fixed relation to the shape and angles of the frame. The rake or backward inclination of the diagonal stay is in most cases somewhat lessened, not now being in complete harmony with the rake of the front forks and head. This may be considered a change in the preferred direction, the forward position of the rider, nearly over the crank axle, being an extremely popular one; to indulge this preference on position, in cases where this diagonal tube, which also carries the saddle, was well raked backward, the use of a long saddle-post in the form of an inverted L was necessary. This changed construction also shortens the upper horizontal tube, and thus, it is claimed, tends to stiffen the frame. The craze for riding exceedingly high frames has shifted to the other extreme, the average scorcher now calling for a very low frame with a short head, and a crank-hanger dropped well down below a line drawn between the wheel axles, obtaining leg-reach by raising the saddle above the frame. A peculiar and typical combination consists of the use of an extremely low crank-hanger together with long cranks; this obviously brings the pedal very near the ground at the bottom of its travel, especially when toe-clips are put on, and there must be danger of coming to sudden and sharp grief when going on stony or rutty roads or in swinging rapidly around sharp corners, which requires leaning to one side to preserve balance. If not carried to extremes, however, the drop of the crank-hanger may be considered a good point mechanically. It brings the centre of gravity lower, and makes mounting and dismounting easier, this last consideration being of especial consequence for ladies. Here it may be remarked that, a year ago, ladies who desired to use the double-loop frame, either with or without the low drop, were obliged to purchase the highest-priced makes in order to obtain it; this year, all the great makers of medium-priced grades, as well as makers of the highest-priced, furnish the double-looped drop-frame, thus showing not only the popularity of the double-loop but a keener desire and a better understanding to cater to public wants.

SIZES AND SECTIONS OF TUBING.

The use of large tubing seems to have reached its limit during 1897, a majority of the makers now using 1⅛ inch tubing in the front part of the frame. Other makers vary this, of course, by using 1¼ inch tubing in the lower main frame, and in the diagonal stay which runs from the crank-hanger bracket to the seat-pillar cluster; D-shaped tubing, however, is much more largely used than before for rear forks and back stays. Front forks are also largely made of D-shaped tubing, many of the makers using a front fork made of an internally tapered continuous piece of D-shaped tubing. Rear forks are also made in this same manner, and are connected to the crank-hanger by a single large round stem, which avoids the necessity of offsetting the fork on the chain side. Back stays are also connected to the main part of the frame in this same manner. This idea, when used in connection with the arch-front fork crown, which is the most popular one of the day, and which seems destined to supersede entirely in popular favor the old two-piece crown, makes a very taking looking construction. There is, however, a question as to whether this method of joining the continuous rear forks to a single stem is as rigid as would be two separate forks, run either straight or with an offset to the crank-hanger.

Internally tapered tubing is very largely used in frame construction generally, thus avoiding all need of employing internal reinforcements or liners, as formerly, which are liable to cause the tube to give way under strain at the exact place where they come to an end. This is considered a step in the right direction.

REINFORCEMENTS AND JOINTS.

The use of external reinforcements is not growing, and as the use of large tubing necessitates the employment of flush or invisible joints, in order to make a neat finish, such joints appear to be more largely in vogue than ever. Even the popular priced models use them largely. Some fear was expressed as to their durability and strength, at the opening of last season, but the makers have now had last year’s experience to guide them, and may be assumed to know how to make them strong, so that no trouble need be apprehended on that score.

External joints are, however, largely used still, as are also lap-brazed joints. These variations may, however, be considered as mere “talking-points,” and as evidences of finish and detail rather than as the distinctive features of the frame. For instance, a maker who used flush joints last year on his chain wheels now produces his chainless wheel with outside joints. Another maker who used lap joints on all his models last year, now makes his latest model with flush joints, and so the variation goes on. These changes back and forth, may be in some measure reckoned among those made for the sake of change.

Sheet metal stampings are used for connections more largely than ever; many of the detailed parts of these are wonderful evidences of the excellence of the art and show the advanced stages of what might be more properly termed drawing, forming, and stamping processes.

HUBS AND SPOKES.

In the construction of the wheel hubs, the use of the “barrel” pattern, which has been for several years making its way, is more notable than ever, the old pattern with definite flanges thereon for the spokes, having nearly disappeared. This is in good part because the cup-adjustment bearing, which requires the barrel hub to go with it, has greatly gained ground, a large number of the leading makers having now adopted it for all, or nearly all bearings. Self-oiling devices and hollow axles containing oil and wick are also popular, the old projecting “lubricator” or cup for receiving oil, being wholly extinct. It is safe to say that this is an old device which reversion will never bring back.

The use of hubs having flanges, of a peculiar shape, made and drilled to receive the usual tangent spoke made straight from end to end without a hooked end to attach to the hub, is very largely on the increase, more than twenty of the leading makers now following that method. Spokes are still enlarged at both ends by the process of swaging or drawing down, instead of upsetting. Not a few makers are increasing their number, of course using a thinner wire.

CRANKS AND CRANK AXLES.

There is a distinct reversion toward square-section cranks. In crank-axles, the one-piece type has evidently come to stay, and it is followed closely in popularity by the two-piece crank and axle. Very few of the makers use the three-piece construction, and even in these there are peculiar and odd forms of fastening the crank to the axle, the use of the good old cotter pin being nearly abandoned. This may be accounted for mostly because the makers desired “something different,” and also on the ground of neatness. The main objection, however, to the use of these various types of crank fastenings is their entire lack of interchangeability, so that the rider who has one of them and breaks or loses a part of his crank fastening, cannot obtain this part or any repair thereto, except through the maker or dealer who handles this particular pattern of wheel. Under the old system of using the cotter pin the cranks and cotter pins were readily interchangeable, and therefore this tendency to variations in these parts is to be regretted.

SEAT-POSTS AND HANDLEBAR FASTENINGS.

Internal or semi-concealed seat-post and handlebar fastenings of all descriptions are very much in vogue, the reason for their popularity being their great neatness, as compared with the old method of clamping, and their lack of projecting parts; still there is not uniformity in this particular, many of the great makers adhering yet to the familiar method of fastening by “pinch-bind” bolts.

Handlebars show a decided tendency to go back to the length between grips which prevailed when the bar was straight. The steel bar, of tubing, still reigns supreme, some times covered with rubber or celluloid coatings, or imitations thereof, for the sake of protection from rust and for showy appearance, as well as to be more agreeable to the touch. The wood bar is by no means extinct, but does not make progress, not having caught the public fancy, as its friends expected it would.

GEARCASES, PEDALS AND BRAKES.

Nearly all the makers are providing sufficient clearance at the crank axle and rear fork-end, so that a gear-case can be used. Many of the makers have gearcases of their own production, and there are two or three detachable ones on the market which are composed of hard and soft rubber, metal and leather combined. More gearcases will probably be sold this year than ever before in the history of the trade, public attention having been largely called to them by the neatness and desirability of the case as used on the bevel-gear cycles.

The average width of tread on this year’s cycles is about 4½ inches.

Pedals are made stronger and larger, and are screwed directly into the end of the crank, the use of the lock-nut on the end of the pedal shaft being almost entirely abandoned.

Brakes of some kind will be more largely used than ever before. External brakes with levers on the handlebars are not as popular as in former years, many of the makers extending the brake stem down through the steering head, thus making a neater and more stylish appearing brake. Brake spoons are mostly fitted with a rubber shoe; and there is a decided tendency toward back-pedaling brakes, many of which are supplied by the cycle makers without extra charge.

Weights run from 23 to 26 pounds, the average weight of roadsters being 24 pounds, and ladies’ wheels averaging in weight about 25 pounds.

CHAINS AND CHAIN ADJUSTERS.

Large sprockets have evidently come to stay, front sprockets having from 18 to 32 teeth and rear sprockets having from 7 to 12; a combination made up of these will produce almost any gear ratio desired.

Chains seem to have settled down to a standard width of 3/16 of an inch, and there are many varieties, all having, however, one inch pitch and solid blocks; there are also roller chains, having longer or shorter pitch, but rollers instead of blocks do not yet seem to have taken hold here, as in England.

Chain adjustments—_i.e._, means for moving the back wheel slightly to or from the crank axle—have been much simplified and improved. A number of variations of the well-known eccentric adjustment are on the market; a few makers are even using the eccentric adjustment at the crank bracket, on singles as well as on tandems. Here is an instance of reversion, the early “safeties” with chain-driving having been constructed in exactly this manner.

WOOD GUARDS AND RIMS.

The use of wood or bamboo in frames seems to have almost dropped out of sight, only two or three makers producing bicycles thus made.

The dress-guards on the back wheel on ladies’ bicycles are made of wood and are so furnished by all the makers, the metal styles having gone out of use altogether. The same cannot be said, however, of chain guards. Wooden chain guards are not so largely used as last year, the tendency being to use aluminum guards, either plain, nickeled or enameled, to match the frame in color; guards of stamped metal are also used. This return to metal may be ascribed in part to the notion that wood is heavy because it looks so, and to the temptation aluminum presents because of its extraordinary lightness. This, however, looks like a step backward. Aluminum, considered as material, has very poor claims, and it will be very difficult, by any practical lining and buffing, to break the persistent habit of metal chain guards to rattle when going over rough places; wood guards, on the contrary, if properly made, are strong, noiseless, and not heavy.

The wood rim is the only one used, and is now made thicker through its section and broader across its face, and while it is true that these rims do not now possess the life and resiliency they had when they were made of the thinner section, and narrower, they are now stiffer, truer, and not so liable as formerly to warp and twist or to break in a collision. Originally, wood rims were largely used, in good part, on account of their extreme lightness. Making them heavier now and painting them in dark colors might suggest a tendency to return to the use of steel rims, it being impossible now, owing to the large use of colored rims, to tell by their appearance of what material they are made. Rims of three-piece or laminated construction are fitted to nearly all of the high-grade wheels, but great improvements have also been made in the one-piece variety.

As in coach and carriage building, black still seems to be the standard color, but where colors are used many of the makers are enamelling rims to match. Striping seems to have fallen into disfavor, but scroll transfers, with illuminated corners with flowers and colors, appear to have gained a strong foothold.

TIRES.

The field is still contested between the double or inner-tube and the single-tube or hosepipe tire, and at times, leading makers of each have claimed that their class were used on two-thirds, or thereabouts, of all the cycles made in America. The regulation size for full roadsters is 1⅝ inch, in either class; the most popular at present are tires having a serrated or corrugated tread. There are, of course, a great many variations in surface in tires with rough treads, and also of smooth-tread tires. Very few marked novelties in tires are now seen in the market; this is quite in contrast with one and two years ago. Average weights are about 4 lbs. to the pair.

SADDLES.

Saddles may be divided pretty accurately into three classes. First are those having a fixed and unyielding metal base and a short pommel, which is not intended to be touched by the rider’s body, the seat portion being fitted with raised pads; second, saddles with a fixed base of either wood or metal, the edges being inflexible but the ease of use depending upon a more exact shaping of the whole, this form of saddle being sometimes varied by being slightly padded near the cantle or back edge, or either padded or inflated at the pommel; third, the saddles which are made by lacing firmly from cantle to pommel, the lacing being then provided with a flexible leather cover. The last named, which is a popular type, is also varied by having pads built on it, and the varieties of saddle under these three types are so great and so different that almost every peculiarity and whim of the rider ought to be met and satisfied this year.

TRICYCLES AND MULTICYCLES.

Tricycles are largely made by only one maker, and there is no apparent reason why they should not be more largely used by those who will not or can not venture to use the two-wheeler.

All the makers are producing tandems, and the peculiarities noted in constructing single models are carried into these also. Variations in tandems, however, consist of a diamond frame in front and a loop frame in the rear, or loop frame in front and diamond frame in the rear, but some have two loop frames so that two ladies can ride them.

Multicycles, such as triplets, quads quintuplets and sextuplets, cannot strictly be said to be for popular use, the makers only building a few of these yearly for advertising and racing purposes.

PRICES AND VALUES.

In concluding this review of the mechanical tendencies of the trade for 1898 the irresistible conviction is forced upon the mind of the critical observer that _noblesse oblige_ evidently seems to have been the motto of every cycle maker for 1898, for never before have cycles been produced so good in design, style, finish, workmanship, material, stanchness and running qualities. Even the lowest-priced models quoted are superior in these respects to those offered in some previous years, and listing from $100 to $125 and $150, and the riding public is to be congratulated on this fact, because it places the bicycle, the vehicle of modern democracy and personal rapid transit, in the hands of the masses, at a popular price, and thus relegates the gaspipe cycle and its maker to well-deserved oblivion.

Undoubtedly the great reduction in price and the great increase in quality, a seeming paradox indeed, are due to what is known as fixity of pattern. Close observers of the trend of the trade and sport say, in addition, that the present conditions and popular prices are caused by the bicycle being no longer a fad of the classes, but a necessity of the masses; that their demand for a well-made and well-known product to meet their wants and purses, has caused this reduction to popular price, and that the needs of the makers in order to meet this want have been fulfilled by improved processes of manufacture, increased efficiency of the labor employed, lessened cost of component parts, and other economies of making and marketing, as well as by the increased quantity of the output. This is true of not only the cycle-making industry, but is also the history of every great American product of manufacture for which there is a great popular demand that leads to competition for popular favor.

On the other hand, the makers have also well provided for that class of the riding public who will be satisfied with nothing less than what might be termed a _model de luxe_, and who are willing to pay an increased price for this extra finish in construction and detail, so that the mechanical tendencies of the trade may well be summed up by quoting that epigram of Macaulay’s—“in every experimental science there is a tendency toward perfection.”