Here are some interesting notes from an article I just read about the social construction of early bicycle technologies.

- the “anticyclists” – “Their actions ranged from derisive cheers to more destructive methods. For example, Reverend L. Meadows White described such resistance to the bicycle in his book, A Photographic Tour on Wheels:
…but when to words are added deeds, and stones are thrown, sticks thrust into the wheels, or caps hurled at the machinery, the picture has a different aspect. All the above in certain districts are of common occurrence, and have all happened to me, especially when passing through a village just after school has closed. (Meadows, cited in Woodforde 1970, pp. 49-50)
The use of bicycles has been male dominated from the start. This is in part due to the fact that they afforded women the ability to travel to social meeting independent of men, which posed potential problems related to their autonomy. In addition, the stimulation derived from riding bicycles (from the vibrations) was first seen as sinful. This likely changed later when vibrators were developed to treat women diagnosed with “hysteria”! On the matter of sin, a magazine advice column from 1885 proclaimed,
The mere fact of riding a bicycle is not sinful in itself, and if it is the only means of reaching the church on a Sunday, it may be excusable (cited in Woodforde 1970, p122).

“Tricycles were the permitted machines for women” (Pinch and Bijker 34). That some women wore skirts or trousers on bicycles was considered a moral problem (Pinch and Bijker 35). Thus, designs were developed to allow women to wear skirts instead, with poor results.

Early male users of the Ordinary (Penny Farthing) were “young men of means and nerve: they might be professioinal men, clerks, schoolmasters or dons,” and they used the machines primarily for sport (Woodforde 1970, p.47)

An example of the way emergent technologies are contested and negotiated lies in the pneumatic bicycle tyre. Here is what an industry insider had to say:
The most conspicuous innovation in the cycle construction is the use of pneumatic tires. These tires are hollow, about 2 in. in diameter, and are inflated by the use of a small air pump. They are sait to afford the most luxurious riding, the roughest macadam and cobbles being reduced to the smoothest asphalte. Not having had the opportunity of testing these tires, we are unable to speak of them from practical experience; but looking at them from a theoretical point of view, we opine that considerable difficulty will be experienced in keeping the tires thoroughly inflated. Air under pressure is a troublesome thing to deal with. From the reports of those who have used these tires. It seems that they are prone to slip on muddy roads. If this is so, we fear their use on rear-driving safeties – which are all more or less addicted to side-slipping – is out of the question, as any improvement in this line should be to provide side-slip and not to increase it. Apart from these defects, the appearance of the tires destroys the symmetry and graceful appearance of a cycle, and this alone is, we think, sufficient to prevent their coming into general use. (Stanley Exhibition of Cycles, 1890, p. 107)

- smaller wheels meant more vibrations, so suspension was built into frames, called “spring frames” (Pinch and Bijker 41) One such frame, called the “Whippet spring frame,” from 1885, uses a design that is VERY similar to the Slingshot bikes from the 1990s (which are still made).



The ultimate macho machine was the Rudge Ordinary of 1892; it had a 56 in. wheel and air tire! (Pinch and Bijker 42).

For most engineers, the air tire was a “theoretical and practical monstrosity,” while for the general public, it was considered aesthetically hideous:
Messenger boys guffawed at the sausage tyre factory ladies squirmed with merriment, while even sober citizens were sadly moved to mirth at a comicality obviously designed solely to lighten the gloom of their daily routine (Woodforde 1970, p.89. my italics).

The air tire was accepted by users, primarily racers, because it made them faster, not because it was more comfortable. The same can be said for full suspension mountain bikes; they are as common as they are now not because they are more comfortable, but because racers have accepted them as performance enhancing – faster.