We evolved, for perhaps 2 million years as vertical bipeds without ever  discovering that the forward step motion of the feet could be extended  into the more productive circle. The invention of the wheel is often  cited as the start of human technology but surely finding the mechanism  by which the wheel could be integrated into the natural movements of the  body is the real breakthrough.
The further application of sprocket mechanisms on a pulley, whereby a  rapid small wheel turns a slow big one, is surely an improvement on the  original genius.
It is the same sort of trick that was used to lift  weights, changing the ratio between distance and effort to make heavy  loads manageable - I was taught formulae for describing this in maths  classes - but what the bicycle carries is the very person who operates  it. It's not like using a pulley to lift dead weight and leaving the  worker standing in the same place. The driver is the load. The cyclist  is the operator and the cargo. Brilliant!
Indeed, cycling is an improved application of the legs over what nature  and devolution devised, for it makes use of the return step.
Previously  the only reason to lift the hind foot and put it in front again was to  enable another step. On the bicycle the foot produces movement when it  is drawing and when it is returning, especially if you were toe-clips or  cleats, which no thinking cyclist would leave home without,  wanting to  enjoy the full marvel of the best machine ever made.
Evolution had no intention of enabling the legs to piston, to produce a  circular motion. It had bent the knees to help us walk and climb; it had  strengthened them to support the upper body, not to allow us to prop  that body in a saddle and divert that force elsewhere. Well, perhaps it  equipped us with a downward kick to help us defend ourselves against  predators chasing us up trees. Is there a single other instance of a  body evolved to one purpose being so deftly put to another? Well, yes;  the horse. You can't look on a horse now without wondering at how  unfinished it appears without a rider. But a horse isn't a mechanism, a  product of human inventiveness. It is an enslaved beast. The food you  give it provides no return in your own body and the maintenance costs  are huge compared to oiling a bicycle.
The bicycle's only fuel is the food the rider eats. What could be neater  than that? It is almost like cheating in the game whereby we biped  primates learn to progressively manage the resources of the Earth and  take off into space. Only a car driven by expelled breath would  approximate to the efficiency of the bicycle.
And when you consider that cycling, that is, burning food to make energy  to propel yourself along, simultaneously makes you physically fit,  giving the body the best possible advantage of that same food -- surely  this compares to stealing fire from the gods? Nothing we did in the  ancient world ever so justified the myth.
And yet the bicycle has not had the credit it deserves. The history of  the industrial revolution has it that every great leap forward was  grounded in the discovery of coal or oil. That was the incentive for  people to come off the land and build cities.
But what do we see in the footage from modernising countries today but  rivers of people on bicycles flowing over the roads to work? The  factories would never have functioned if the bosses had been waiting for  workers to get there on horses and donkeys. There should be a statue of  the bicycle in the heart of every industrial city.
Yet, for all that the bike is a machine, and, I argue, the  quintessential machine, the best machine ever devised, being the one  that converts natural human movement into improved locomotion without  fuel, it is widely viewed as something else -- a style statement.

 
No comments:
Post a Comment