|
freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Manthreading, mansplaining, manflu - man I'm sick of this misandrist nonsense (12/22/2016 3:30:31 AM)
|
My guess is, after the penny-farthing bike, the much smaller and compact bone-shaker was invented.
Having looked it up, the bone-shaker (1863) preceded the penny-farthing (1870) by 7 years.
The idea being that because the pedals were fixed to the front wheel, you could go further with one rotation of the wheel if it was bigger.
Which, given the times, kinda made sense.
Apparently (according to ibike.org) in the 1880's: While the men were risking their necks on the high wheels, ladies, confined to their long skirts and corsets, could take a spin around the park on an adult tricycle. These machines also afforded more dignity to gentlemen such as doctors and clergymen.
Also, in 1894 there was a "change in social order" where Betty Bloomer's bloomers become very popular. Ladies, heretofore consigned to riding the heavy adult size tricycles that were only practical for taking a turn around the park, now could ride a much more versatile machine and still keep their legs covered with long skirts.
But it doesn't explain what happen to the crossbar or why.
I had to look further.
According to livestrong.com: In the late 1800s, when cycling became a popular mode of transportation and recreation, social customs dictated that women had to wear long dresses in public. A long dress hiked over a high crossbar was out of the question, and modifications to make cycling clothing more masculine was quite shocking at that time. Since it wasn't possible to make the clothing more bicycle-friendly, the logical step was to make girls bicycles more clothing-friendly. The result was the frame with the low top tube that could accommodate the dress.
So, the reason the crossbar was lowered for women was because of social customs and women's dresses.
But interestingly: The traditional diamond construction of bicycles for boys has remained essentially unchanged since the late 1800s, a credit to the structural integrity of the design. Dropping the top-tube to accommodate a dress weakens the frame. This loss of strength doesn't have any significant effect on recreational riding. But, as bicycles became more specialized in the 1990s, more women found they needed the strong frame....
With social dress rules a thing of the past, bicycle designs for girls are dictated by function. Some, like mountain bikes, are often nearly identical to their male counterparts. The top tube is raised to a near horizontal position, which gives the frame strength for aggressive rides. The frames have a diamond shape for greater strength and safety.
So maybe there's a glimmer of hope for gender equality in bike designs! [:)]
|
|
|
|
