O. A. van Nierop, A. C M. Blankendaal, and C. J.

Overbeeke

The Evolution of the Bicycle:

A Dynamic Systems Approach

Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
In this article we argue that dynamic systems theory provides design historians with new concepts and tools which afford new
possibilities for studying, understanding, and quantifying the process of design evolution. We show that the evolution of the
bicycle has diverged and converged in a non-linear way, a general characteristic of co-evolving adaptive systems. By exploring
the dynamic characteristics of the bicycle-society system we reveal that the origin of the modern bicycle stems in great part from
innovations applied in three- or four-wheeled human-powered vehicles.

Introduction from failures can be applied immediately. This

means for Norman that 'in principle, design is
It is generally assumed that the bicycle, as we superior to evolution, because it is guided,
know it today, has its starting point in the run- because the designer follows engineering prin-
ning-machine created by Baron Von Drais. The ciples and can remember and benefit from pre-
development of subsequent models is sometimes vious successes and failures'.7 In practice,
described as if it were a linear' process: new however, for Norman, design is not very different
models would logically follow previous models from evolution, because design is not free of its
and that process should be equally spread over own historical pressures: 'So, design is more often
time.1 Pinch and Bijker2 have shown that such a modification than innovation, following the his-
linear model is not appropriate. tory that came before, even if it is no longer
The reason why most people are, often impli- relevant, even if we no longer know what that
citly, in favour of a linear structure of (technolo- history meant. Is design so very different from
gical) evolution is that it allows them to focus only evolution? I think not.'8
on successful innovations. Petroski,3 however, has Steadman gives an overview of biological ana-
stressed the important role of unsuccessful logies in design history. He comes to the conclu-
designs. His main point is that 'the form of sion that a compromise is needed between two
made things is always subject to change in extreme views: on the one hand, 'the complete
response to their real or perceived shortcomings, unalterable functional integrity of each separate
their failure to function properly.4 Hence, 'form species and the impossibility of any transforma-
follows failure'. tion of one into another', and, on the other hand,
Norman, too, emphasizes the role of failures in 'a complete evolutionary plasticity allowing trans-
the evolution of an individual design.5 A model is formation in any direction and with any result'.9
tried out, weak points are discovered and More examples about the nature of design
improved so that the model is modified and evolution could be given—for example, Roy's
optimized. This process, then, seems comparable The pattern of innovation'10—but the general
to a natural process of evolution. But in his book idea should be clear by now. One thing all authors
Turn Signals are the Facial Expressions of Automo- seem to agree about is the great diversity in
biles,6 Norman emphasized the differences design, i.e. the great variety of solutions to a
between natural and design evolution. According problem. Points of discussion on the evolution of
to him, in design evolution the lessons learned design and technology include:
Journal of Design History Vol. 10 No. 3 © 1997 The Design History Society 253
 selection of fitness: design evolution as a biolo-
gical analogy to the selection and fitness of
novel artefacts;
the creation of diversity: dynamic constraints as
non-linearity (cause and effect are not propor-
tional) on the creation of diversity.11
The Scope of this Article
In the Cambrian period, 550 million years ago, the
number of species grew very rapidly. This Cam-
brian explosion was followed by several large
reductions in the number of species. In one of
these periods, the Perm, 200 million years ago, up
to 96 per cent of the total number of species
became extinct. This evolutionary pattern is not
unique to creation and extinction in biology but
has some general characteristics. The patterns of
creation and extinction in design evolution may
show the same general characteristics. These gen-
eral characteristics are common for adaptive com-
plex systems which exhibit non-linear self-
organizing behaviour.
Many terms are in circulation for the study of
such systems, for example: synergetics (Haken),
non-equilibrium thermodynamics (Prigogine),
complex systems theory (Langton, Kauffman),
catastrophe theory (Thom, Zeeman), and chaos
theory (Gleick). Of these, 'chaos theory' is an
inappropriate term. Apart from the confusion it
creates with regard to the common-sense under-
standing of it (since it suggests disordered beha-
viour), it emphasizes only one of many forms of
dynamic behaviour that complex systems may
exhibit. Dynamic systems theory could be a
more appropriate general term.
Dynamic systems theory is about the nature of
development, adaptation, and evolution and
accounts for diversity, (non)linearity, selection,
and fitness.12 The concepts and tools of this
theory have already been applied to a great vari-
ety of systems, ranging from genetics, via evolu-
tionary biology, and economics to social and
cultural systems as well as human biomechanics.
In this article we argue that they can usefully be
applied to the evolution of design.
We present a global sketch of dynamic systems
theory. The concepts and tools discussed are
254
applied in a qualitative manner to the history of
human-powered vehicles that led to the modern
bicycle. Finally, we discuss possibilities as well as
shortcomings of the dynamic systems approach
for the history of design.
Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
Dynamic Systems Theory
In this section we aim to clarify the following
statement: that the patterns of co-evolving
dynamic ecosystems, such as the bicycle-society
system, show periods of stability, progressive
complication, transitions with critical fluctuations
to new states, and evolve to the edge of chaos to
be maximally adaptive.
Think, as an example, of a society at a given
moment with a given, although unknown, need
for bicycles. Because we do not know a priori
which bicycle design will be successful, we
market several designs. Each design will fill a
'niche' in society's 'bicyde-need'. One design
will be more appropriate for races, another for
long-distance journeys, etc. The 'fitness' of each
design depends on the selection criteria at that
moment (safety, velocity, etc.) and on other
designs which are currently available. Thus a
design or artefact is merely one solution to a
problem for which a whole set of solutions may
be possible. The fitness of each bicycle may be
dependent on the number of models (variety)
already available and their relationships with
other designs. For example, if a design co-exists
with another design for the same user group, this
will reduce its fitness.
Moreover, consider, for the sake of argument,
the following very unlikely scenario. If the
number of designs, their mutual relationships,
and the social context do not change there will
evolve, over time, a stable situation in which a
certain number of each design will be sold on the
market. Each design, then, has reached an equili-
brium with a certain fitness, optimal at that time
[1]. If nothing changes (in developing new designs
or in society), this system will remain constant.
But obviously the assumptions in this example are
far from realistic. We are dealing with a society
which is continuously changing and an active
world of bicycle designers. Thus the equilibrium
O. A. van Nierop, A. C. M. Blankcndaal, and C. ]. Overbetke

mode) X
model Y
model Z
v
y x s^—~N
i 1^
w
UJ
2
TIME
can be disturbed in two ways: a change in need
and a change in resources.
If something changes in society (needs or selec-
tion criteria such as velocity, safety, or environ-
mental influences like laws or the improvement of
roads), then again there are two possibilities: after
a time, the system returns to stability and the
change is said to have been a perturbation only;
or the system evolves to a new (stable) situation.
Some existing designs become more fit, new
designs appear, and others become extinct.
The fact that in some cases apparently extreme
influences have no effect while in other cases
small influences have far-reaching effects leads
to one of the most important characteristics of
dynamic complex systems: cause and effect are
not proportionally related. For example, the dis-
cover of a differential gear by J. Starley in 1880
had no effect on the design of the bicycle but was
of great importance to the success of the tricycle
(and is still an essential part of the motor car). But
the small step from the cushion tyre to the dis-
covery of the pneumatic tyre by Dunlop in 1887
led to the ('catastrophic') transition from high-
wheeled 'Ordinaries' to the low 'Safety7 bicycle.
It is only in retrospect that we can conclude that
the differential gear was a negligible invention for
the bicycle whereas the invention of the pneu-
matic tyre was essential.
Change may also be instigated by bicycle
designers or manufacturers. They may try to
design a new model fitter than the designs
already available. The new design may affect
The Evolution of the Bicycle
i In an unchanging situation, the
fitness landscape of bicycles will
achieve, over time, an equilibrium
Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
considerations of the fitness of other designs and
lead to a new equilibrium. In such a co-evolu-
tionary process, the landscape of one design
heaves and deforms as other designs make their
own adaptive moves.
If one could know at any given time the pos-
sible solutions and the success ('fitness') quotient
of each, it would be possible to present a cross-
section of a fitness landscape of the whole bicycle-
society system. A hypothetical example of such a
cross-section can be illustrated [2]. We can discern
three types of fitness landscape: simple, chaotic,
and complex. 'Simple' fitness landscapes have a
flat scenery with one hilltop. There is one optimal
bicycle with all the optimal elements for that
period. The system is sensitive only to large
influences. The form of a 'chaotic' landscape is
rugged, with many local tops and local valleys.
The attractors (the relatively stable states to which
a system tends to evolve) are highly sensitive to
small influences: the system is chaotic. Between
the 'simple' and 'chaotic' landscapes exists the
'edge of chaos', the 'complex' landscape with
neither too few nor too many hills. This represents
a maximally adaptive state of the system.
The topology of a fitness landscape—the
number of solutions that are available and the
selection criteria—is bound to change: nobody
knows a priori the best solution to a problem.
But more and more is known about the process of
finding the best solution to a problem.
Kauffman13 has made it clear in his numerical
simulations of complex systems that maximally
255

Tricycle Dwarf Safety 'Rover1 Hobby Horse High Wheel
adaptive systems evolve to a state with neither too
much nor too little variation: the edge of chaos.
The creation of variations (divergence) and the
deletion of variation (selection or convergence)
are not just a haphazard pattern. It is the pattern
of the creation and extinction of design which is
very common in evolving and adapting systems.
Adaptive co-evolving systems evolve towards a
process (and not a static state) with a maximal
survival chance and a maximal opportunity to
adapt to changing circumstances. Adaptation,
thus, is like a journey and not a destination.
To summarize: a fitness landscape provides a
general qualitative overview of the evolution of a
system. Dynamic systems theory may not predict
which bicycle will become successful. But if the
bicycle-society may be described as a complex
system, this means that the models will not
evolve towards equilibria but that the system as a
whole will evolve towards the edge of chaos. This
implies that some parts of the system will be stable
and other parts will be changing. At the edge of
chaos, the ratio of change and stability will be at an
optimum, such that it is maximally adaptive.
How can we recognize that the bicycle-society
system has evolved towards the edge of chaos? The
macroscopic evolution of the bicycle is illustrated
as a fitness landscape [3]. As a criterion for fitness
we have used the relative popularity of respective
models which, admittedly, is a very simple view of
the market. The landscape changes with time from
simple (only a few solutions) to chaotic (the period
1884-90 with a great diversity), to complex (1890
256
2 Hypothetical cross-section of
a fitness landscape for several
human-powered vehicles
Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
Ordinary
and later). The landscape is a qualitative descrip-
tion of the evolution of the bicycle. However, it is
possible to quantify the landscape if one disposes
of the sales data (as a possible index of popularity)
and the number of bicycle models at any given
moment. The dynamic characteristics of the system
(for example, types and stability of attractors) can
then be identified.
In the next section we describe the history of the
bicycle according to this model. Char fitness land-
scape of the global evolution of human-powered
vehicles (see [3]) shows the creation and extinc-
tion of models, periods of considerable and little
diversity. The selection criteria influencing the
fitness and the stability of the respective models
will be described in the text.
The Evolution of the Bicycle: From Horsepower
to Manpower
A world that for centuries ran on horsepower
provided a challenge to devise modes of transport
powered by humans.14 The running-machine of
Baron von Drais is often credited as the ancestor
of the modern bicycle [3.1]. A brief comparison
indicates many shared characteristics: two small
wheels in line, the driver seated in an upright
position between them with his feet reaching to
the ground. Looking closer at the history of
bicycle development, however, we find a vast
diversity of ideas about propulsion, driver stabi-
lity, and comfort.
In our scheme we place the evolution of the
O. A. van Nierop, A. C. M. BUmkendaal, and C. J. Overbceke

3 The evolution of the bicycle conceptualized in dynamic systems theory
bicycle, as an indirectly driven two-wheeler,
between the evolution of the indirectly driven
three- and four-wheelers and the directly driven
two-wheelers, to show how the development of
the bicycle has benefited from innovations and
failures on both sides. Indirectly driven vehicles
are defined as having a transmission in which the
transmission ratio can be changed mechanically.
In directly driven machines the transmission is
either linked directly to the anatomy, as in the
running-machine, or mechanically, as in toddlers'
The Evolution of the Bicycle
Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
1860
1870
1900
tricycles. Directly driven machines are defined as
having a transmission that is anatomically and
mechanically constant. Developments in these
three 'streams' did not happen separately, as
they often took place within the same factory.
In the next section the evolution of the bicycle is
described in episodic form in text blocks and is
structured by the fitness landscape already illus-
trated (see [3]). The fitness landscape and the
corresponding text blocks can be read interactively
to obtain the best way of getting to grips with the
257
search process of designers, with their successes
and failures, and with the process by which con-
sumers search for the best vehicle. This fitness
landscape (see [3]) combines both processes and
illustrates when periods of great diversity existed,
and when diversity declined. The numbers refer to
blocks of text and illustrations. By this means we
hope to make clear that the history of a product is
not necessarily linear and that, as a consequence,
the bicycle is not a direct descendant of the run-
ning-machine, as is often claimed.
1.1 Docteur Richard's four-wheeler (1696)
The earliest examples of human-powered vehicles date
back to medieval Italian three- and four-wheeled carts
built for carnival parades. Indirectly driven by means
of levers or treadles, rods, and cranks, these machines
were crudely built and, as a result, heavy and difficult
to move, which hampered their general use. On a visit
to a patient in 1696, Docteur Richard let his footman
do the pedalling while he held the reins to the front
wheel.
3.1 Baron von Drais's running-machine (1818)
258
The first successful steered two-wheeler was the
wooden running-machine invented by Baron von
Drais in 1817. Relatively comfortable and safe, the
rider sat above the centre of the machine with his feet
touching the ground. By walking he had a direct drive.
The 'Draisienne' was demonstrated and manufactured
in Paris. In England it was produced with improve-
ments and known as a 'hobby-horse'. A 'velocipede
Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
vogue' raged as far afield as New York, Milan, and
Calcutta. Regulations restricting riding came about as
a result of this vogue. By 1820 it was all over, after
which the 'Draisienne' was used only by youngsters as
a toy in the countryside.
The running-machine demanded daring as it
needed speed for stability. While coasting, or
effortless velocity, was psychologically reward-
ing, driving on unpaved roads caused dirty
shoes. Dandy drivers in Paris used the newly
applied invention of the sidewalk to keep their
feet clean while riding their 'Draisiennes'. This
provoked a new kind of social conflict with
pedestrians who had thought themselves for
the first time safely separated from carriages
and horses. Driving a 'Draisienne' was reward-
ing and challenging, thereby enhancing fitness of
the design while social conflicts reduced its
fitness. Only when riding and propelling four-
and three-wheeled carts could one keep one's
feet clean.
1.2 Tricycle by Bauer (1820)
Bauer's three-wheeled cart from 1820 was indirectly
driven by means of hand levers. Von Drais, however,
did not favour hand propulsion and disputed Bauer's
solution.
O. A. van Niewp, A. C. M. Blankendaai, and C. /. Overbetkt
Whether machines had four, three, or two wheels,
only the indirect drive allowed for gearing and
thereby small wheels. This secured low and safe
seating and dean shoes. Of course the lightest to
handle was the two-wheeler. As it required speed
for stability it attracted the most daring of
designers and drivers.
2.1 Gompertz's bicycle (1821)
In 1821, immediately after the success of the running-
machine, Gontpertz tried to solve the dirty-shoe problem.
He applied hand levers as a indirect drive to the front
wheel of a two-wheeled machine.
2.2 McMillan's bicycle (1839)
McMillan endangered the streets in 1839 with a back-
wheel-driven machine with treadles and was the first to
be fined for this. His machine was not successful. The
apparent instability of the driver seemed to frighten off
possible users.
1.3 A Quadricycle by Sawyer (c.1845)
From 1845 onwards, the four-wheelers made by the
carriage-maker Sawyer from Dover became popular.
They were light in contrast to their sturdy forerunners.
The Evolutwn of the Bicycle
They were built according to the latest (wood) technol-
ogy, as in the construction of expensive coaches.
Sawyer sold them over a period of twenty years, but
in small numbers as they were only affordable by the
well-to-do.
In this indirectly driven four-wheeler the rider
was seated in a low and stable position between
Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
four supporting points. He could easily get on
and off and shoes stayed clean because of the
indirect treadle drive. However, they were expen-
sive. Driving feet-off-the-ground on a simpler
(and cheaper) solution would require a two-
wheeler with a direct drive. If one was to get on
and off easily it had to have small wheels but
then one had to pedal much too fast. Never-
theless, cranks and axle directly linked to the
driven wheel had the charm of being simple.
3.2 Fisher's bicycle (1853)
To solve the dirty-shoe problem in a two-wheeler,
Fisher attempted in 1853 to create a direct drive with
cranks and pedals fixed to the front wheel but was not
(yet) successful.
In i860 the period when the fitness landscape
was characterized by few and low hilltops ended:
this landscape could be said to be 'simple'. In
1861 the successful tricycle-makers Michaux et
Fils attached cranks to the front wheel of a
'hobby-horse', like the crank handle of a grind-
stone. Society now seemed ready for the two-
wheeled self-propelled toy for the rich, and it
was to prove an intermittent success for at least
thirty years afterwards, whilst at the same time
the fitness of lighter tricycles was growing. With
this development the fitness of the wooden four-
wheelers (as made by Sawyer) rapidly dimin-
ished. The bicycle-society system started to bifur-
259
cate, leading to increasing diversity: the bicycle
fitness landscape reflects this in lots of local hills
and valleys (of which only a few can be described
here).
made the 'Michaulines' even more dangerous, so
it was only occasionally fitted. Moreover, riding
the mostly unpaved roads with simple cartwheels
was not very comfortable. The diminishing fit-
ness of these two-wheelers was reflected in their
nickname, 'Boneshakers'. Meanwhile, other
craftsmen in other places toyed with promising
propositions.

Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
2.3 Guilmet's bicycle (1869)

1.4 A Paris tricycle for ladies (1863)

Directly driven tricycles were in demand in Paris. By
using steel instead of wood, lighter treadle-driven
machines were popular, especially with ladies. Young
couples could chat sitting next to each other on
'Sociables'.
The indirect drive by means of pedals and chains
attached to the back wheel allowed for the necessary
change in gearing when using small wheels. In 1869,
the French watch-maker Guilmet met far the first time
almost all of the requirements far the two-wheeler by
the uncoupling of propulsion and steering, i.e. the back-
wheel drive: a low, safe position between the wheels and
above the pedals, keeping trousers and feet clean.

Guilmet died in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1)

and his two-wheeler was not further developed.
3.3 The 'Michauline' (1869)
Thus international conflicts played their role in
The Michaux produced 500 'Michaulines' in 1865. the abrupt conclusion to the fitness of this pro-
After the 1867 World Fair in Paris they produced mising indirectly driven model.
3200 that year. The 'Michauline' of 1869 was, except The directly driven front-wheel 'Boneshaker7
for the wheels, made of wrought iron (the bronze got one's trousers dirty or even torn as the front
journal bearings were lubricated with blubber). With wheel brushed one's legs at every turn in the
a competing imitation in Coventry, a second 'veloci- road. A consequence of being seated far behind
pede craze' raged until 1870. the pedals was heavy pedalling. These disadvan-
tages were overcome by placing the cyclist
almost directly above the pedals. Now trousers
Riding a Tviichauline' was a daring sport. As stayed clean as the steep fork was more between
brakes were very inadequate, braking by giving the legs. The trend for this development was set
back pressure to the pedals was by far the best by James Starley who was to apply several
method to come to a standstill. For coasting inventions to two- and three-wheelers over the
downhill special foot-rests were fitted. Locating next ten years.
the whirring pedals in that situation was not easy
and often presented serious danger. The ratchet
gear was invented to coast 'feet-on-pedals', but
260 O. A. van Nienrp, A. C. M. Blankendaal, and C. ]. Overbetke
 Now called 'Ordinaries', the two-wheelers were
increasingly dangerous. They toppled forward
quite easily because the cyclist's centre of gravity
was almost directly above the keeling point, i.e.
the front axis. The high position of the saddle
made getting on the 'Ordinary' difficult one had
to run next to the machine, jump into the saddle
and then find the revolving pedals with one's
feet. Braking by back-pressure on the pedals was

Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
3.4 'Ariel' by ]. Starley (1870)
still the best method but, if done abruptly, had
In 1870 Starley manufactured a directly driven two- the same effect as a stone on the road: a 'header'
wheeler called the 'Ariel'. This was made completely as it was called. The more daring cyclists joined
out of steel with solid rubber tyres. The wheels were of racing clubs that organized matches and trips into
the 'suspension' type and far lighter than the 'com- the countryside on Sundays.
pression'-type cartwheel used in the running-machine
and the 'Boneshaker'. The axle was now suspended
from the top of the rim by steel spokes instead of
leaning on wooden spokes that stood on the bottom of
the rim.

1.5 Asymmetrical tricycle by J. Starley (1877) 3.5 'Coventry' racer (1877)

In 1877, the innovation of chain and chain wheels The 'Ordinaries' became faster; front wheels in 1872
was applied for the first time in a tricycle, the chain were already 1.55 m high (the maximum radius being
still being crude. This innovation did not change the the driver's leg length). From 1877 machines became
transmission-ratio—hence the asymmetric configura- lighter as hollow 'backbones' were fitted. The challenge
tion with a large driving wheel. The tricycle was to make the sports machines lighter also resulted in
made entirely of steel and thereby lighter. The wheels lighter three- and four-wheelers. The invention of the
of this tricycle were a further development of the ball-bearing made them all easier to drive.
'Ariel' wheels from the same factory. They could
better withstand transverse forces by their tangen-
tially woven spoke pattern (as in contemporary
bicycles), in contrast to the radial spoke pattern of
earlier wheels.

The fitness of the tricycles was enhanced by

making them lighter to handle. As they were
stable and easy to get on they certainly looked
safer than the two-wheelers which grew increas-
ingly high. In the directly driven two-wheeler a 1.6 'Devon' symmetrical tricycle (1878)
comfortable pedalling tempo could only be
achieved by enlarging the driven front wheel. From 1878 symmetrical tricycles had two large driven
By the same token it was also becoming faster. wheels and a small steering wheel in the front or the

The Evolution of the Bicycle 261

back. Because they offered more stability than the now
dangerously high 'Ordinaries' they were called 'Safe-
ties'.

In order for the symmetrical tricycle to turn easily

only one of the big wheels could be directly
driven while the other 'freewheeled' on the
drive shaft. On bends this gave a bad grip while

riding and while braking by back-pedalling. In
the 'Devon' this was partly solved by applying
the ratchet gear originally invented for the
Tvlichaulines'. This invention made turning easy
but grip on the road was still unevenly spread.
All these refinements made the stable tricycle
safer by the year, enhancing its fitness. As two-
wheelers were inherently lighter, the search for
safer configurations was on in order to give them
a better fit as well.
Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
2.5 The Singer 'Xtraordinary', a 'High Wheel Safety'
(1879)
'High Wheel Safeties' enjoyed a certain popularity
between 1879 and 1885. The 'Xtraordinary' from
1879 was again treadle-driven and its front wheel
was just 1 m high. They allowed for a good pedalling
position and were easy to get on and off, but were still
liable to topple forward due to the position of the driver.
Diversity now increased so rapidly that the fit-
ness landscape became 'chaotic' over the next ten
years.

2.4. Lawson's 'Bicyclette' (1879)

In 1879, Lawson made a 'Safety' two-wheeler, the
'Bicyclette . A safe sitting position far behind the
keeling point was achieved by applying a straight
backbone and the indirect steering and chain drive
common in tricycles. The back-wheel drive with 1.7 A 'Sociable' tricycle (1880)
changed gearing ratio makes it stand out only to us,
looking back into history. After 1880 the application of the ratchet gear in
tricycles was abandoned in favour of Starley's inven-
tion of the differential gear that facilitated maintenance
of grip and easy turning of three- and four-wheeled
The 'Bicyclette' was not fit: soon after its appear- machines (as later in the motor car). The differential
ance it was nicknamed The Crocodile'. Others gear was derived from an earlier construction in the
proposed a back-wheel chain drive using small 'Sociables'. This construction balanced differences in
wheels of equal size. However, these were not fit propulsion force between the two drivers.
either: they resembled the 'Boneshakers' too
much. Around 1880 trust in these two-wheeled
'Safeties' was weak and the stable tricycles gained
in popularity. Further bifurcation of the fitness
landscape went with greater diversity by deriving
lower 'Ordinaries' from the high ones, such as the
'High Wheel Safety'.
262 O. A. van Nierop, ACM. Bhmkendaal, and C. ]. Overbeeke
 From the 'Draisienne' onwards, manufacturers
made women's versions of their bicycles, with a
lower instep to allow for the intricate set of
petticoats and skirts which was fashionable at
that time. But in the Victorian era, cycling was
considered a particularly male pastime and
thought less suited for ladies and the elderly.
Some women, though, cast off their crinolines

Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
and started to wear trousers so that they could
take part in serious cycling.

i.8 The 'Hillclimber', a tricycle 'Safety' (1886)

In 1881 symmetrical tricycle 'Safeties' topped the cycle
selling list. They were chic, enabling the 'beau-monde'
to set itself apart from the commoners on their 'Ordin-
aries'.

A prosperous businessman would buy his leis-

ure-time tricycle for around £20, probably sev-
eral months' wages for the factory hand that 2.7 BSA 'Dwarf Safety' (1884)
made it. The young workman could find a Manufacturers kept on searching for the really safe and
second-hand 'Ordinary' for £5 or less and
comfortable two-wheeler 'Safety'. One simple thing to
expand his courting to villages three times
do was to assemble so-called 'Dwarf Safeties' from
further away than before. So the 'Ordinary'
three-wheeler parts. That was how this BSA (1884)
changed social habits while securing healthier
was made.
offspring.

Racing was important through the evolution of

the cycle. Races were now organized by manu-
facturers in order to show the speed of their new
models, although the real credit of course had to
go to the drivers. However, the publicity that
resulted from winning certainly seduced buyers,
and so racing positively influenced the fitness of
both the bicycle and the tricycle.

2.6 The 'Kangaroo', a 'High Wheel Safety' (1884)

Another 'High Wheel Safety' was the 'Kangaroo'
(1884). Although these machines were lower than
'Ordinaries', they were used especially for sporting
activities.
1.9 A 'Cripper' tricycle leading in a race (1885)

The Evolution of the Bicycle 263

 Tricycles with one driver could be raced but even
faster were tandem tricycles; also still popular were
the 'Sociables'. At the same time the 'Ordinary' was
at the peak of its popularity. Altogether, between 1885
and 1890, a great diversity of cycles crowded the
roads.
Besides racing, clerks took their tricycles to work
in the City of London. Commuting by cycle was
now a commonplace. Employers such as banks
allowed for cycle parking below their buildings
where handymen fitted tyres and carried out
lubrication and small repair jobs. So even archi-
tecture and city layout were influenced by and
influenced the fitness landscape of the evolution
of the bicycle.
2.8 Rumber 'Dwarf Safety' (1885)
Bringing out tricycles and small bicycles with the same
frame as the 'Cripper' of 1885 was another simple
solution to broaden the range on offer.
2.9 The 'Rover III', a 'Safety' bicycle by J. K. Starley
(1885)
The 'Rover' safety bicycle from 1885 by J. K. Starley
(a nephew of James Starley) is mentioned in most
literature as the starting point of the modern bicycle.
In the fitness landscape, however, the 'Rover' is only
one model among many others. It certainly had two
264
almost equally sized wheels but the front fork pivot
was already old-fashioned. The frame still had no
saddle tube: it apparently stemmed from the 'Cripper'
two- and three-wheelers.
Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
2.10 'Psycho' by ]. K. Starley (1887)
The 'Cross Frame Safeties' had a straight backbone that
originated in the beams of carts, coaches, and preceding
two-wheelers. The straight shape was applied for the
first time in the 'Bicyclette' by Lawson.
Between 1885 and 1890 'Cross Frame Safeties'
were as popular as TDwarf Safeties', 'Ordinaries',
'High Wheel Safeties', tricycles, and 'Rovers'. All
this contributed to chaos in the fitness landscape.
The 'Safety' bicycle with its small wheels seat-
ing the cyclist far behind the keeling point was
now safe for getting on and riding. However, the
little wheels still made riding bad roads with
stones and potholes very unpleasant, in spite of
the cushion tyres (thick-walled rubber tubes) that
replaced the earlier solid tyres.
2.11 Spring frame (1885-9)
The cross frame was simple to adapt with springs and
hinges to give a less bumpy ride. Spring frames, as they
were called, were made in several different configura-
tions.
O. A. van NUrop, A. C M. Blankendaal, and C. J. Overbeeke
 1.11 Tricycle (c.1900)
The development of tricycles stopped in 1892. From

Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
then on, they were used only as a means of transport by
butcher's boys and postmen.

}.6 The 'Ordinary' as sporting machine (1885)

One of the reasons why the 'Ordinary' was at the
height of its popularity in 1885 was its large front
wheel; it conquered the bad roads far more easily than
the small wheels of the 'Safety' bicycle and one felt like
a king riding it.

3.7 End of the 'Ordinary' (1892)

Being unsafe, the high two-wheeler was no longer
produced after 1892, but continued to be cherished by
1.10 Young Dunlop's tricycle with pneumatic tyres amateurs.
(1887)
The fact that his son suffered from headaches is
mentioned in most texts as the reason why the veter-
inary surgeon Dunlop fitted his son's tricycle with
pneumatic tyres in 1887.

The invention of the pneumatic tyre was essential

to the modern bicycle. It gave the small-wheeled
'safety7 bicycle the riding comfort of the high two-
wheeler. The fitness of the 'Penny-Farthing', as it
was called with disdain, diminished rapidly. The
heavier tricycle was no longer chic. Its fitness was
reduced as it became no more than a workhorse
design.
2.12 Bicycle (1892)
In 1892 most bicycles incorporated the diamond
frame with saddle tube built of cheap straight
seamless steel tubes (a German patent from 1887),
wheels of equal size, and pneumatic tyres.

The application of the ratchet gear (the 'free-

wheel' invented for the Tvlichaulines') was not
widespread until 1900. By this date brakes were
The Evolution of the Biq/de 265
much more reliable. This was the last improve-
ment that was to give the bicycle its ultimate
fitness by the beginning of this century. The
bicycle had become a general means of transport
rather than the almost exclusive recreational and
sporting human-powered vehicle it had once
been.
Conclusion
In designing a new product, the designer is eager
to produce something 'new'. By 'new' we mean
the creative combination of separate facts, ideas,
insights, or elements to produce something useful.
Without a priori knowledge of the form of a
fitness landscape, the designer must start some-
where. As soon as an acceptable value has been
obtained, 'local search' for an optimum becomes
the best strategy. This may be compared with
Norman's description of design as lull climbing':
the designer looks for failures and successes in
previous models and tries to improve the next
model in such a way that a (local) optimum will
be reached. Once a local optimum is achieved, as
in the 'Ordinary' of 1885, the design may only fit
better if another lull' is climbed. In such a case
one can see that there is a transition (in dynamic
terms) from one model to another, for example
from the 'Ordinary' to the 'High Wheel Safety7. In
times of transition there is a mix (critical fluctua-
tions). The old model will disappear some time
before it is clear what the new model will be. Even
variations on old models appear. In the history of
the bicycle, 1860-92 is a good example of a period
when considerable diversity was in evidence.
In the development of the bicycle it is clear from
the beginning that there were different require-
ments (selection pressures) for the various
models: stability, safety, velocity, comfort, etc.
To be able to adapt to a continuously changing
environment in an uncertain future, variation is
necessary. Selection, then, means that only one or
a few variations will appear to be appropriate and
successful. Many models thus will on a long
timescale appear to be unsuccessful. Examples
are the 'Draisienne', the 'Boneshaker', the 'Ordin-
aries' with wheels of unequal size, bicycles with
the direct chain drive, bicycles with a front-wheel
drive, and so on. In general we have been able to
266
show that the innovations as well as the failures in
the evolution of human-powered vehicles were
beneficial to the development of the modern
bicycle. Of course, the evolution did not finish in
1902. The adaptive journey still continues; a good
example in recent times is the ever-gaining popu-
larity of reclining bicycles, tricycles, and 'All
Terrain Bicycles'. It is fascinating to see that in
Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
many of these 'new' models old principles have
been reintroduced.
Not being historians we hope to have made clear
in a qualitative rather than quantitative manner
that it might be fruitful to elaborate further the
application of the methods and concepts of a
dynamic systems approach to the history of
design. Although there is no consensual definition
of a complex system, complexity involves non-
linearity (cause and effect are not proportional),
chance (random components in deterministic
chaos), as well as variation and selection. Dynamic
systems theory thus incorporates a mix of biologi-
cal and physical organizational principles. In
applying these, we have established the compro-
mise proposed by Steadman (see note 9) between,
on the one hand, 'the complete and unalterable
functional integrity of each separate species and
the impossibility of any transformation of one into
another' and, on the other, 'a complete evolution-
ary plasticity allowing transformation in any
direction and with any result'.
The main problem in applying a dynamic
systems theory to the history of design is the
quantification of the evolutionary process. To
quantify the evolutionary pattern of the design
history of human-powered vehicles, for instance,
it is necessary to find an appropriate way to
assign a fitness value to every model of the
bicycle. We have used popularity, which can be
deduced from sales figures. Quantification allows
for the characterization of types and stability of
attractors and thereby provides quantitative foun-
dation to the fitness landscape.
The dynamic systems approach has proved
useful in many different disciplines, including
economics, biology, epidemiology, human move-
ment science, and psychology. In this article we
have focused on some of the dynamic constraints
in the evolution of the design of the bicycle.
However, constraints of other kinds—such as
O. A. van Nierop, A C M . Blankendaal, and C. ]. Overtake
sociological constraints—are no less important.15
It is not our aim to propose a dynamic systems
approach as the best or the only possible approach 13
to the history of design. Nevertheless, the global
process of diversity generation and extinction
14
requires no other explanation than a dynamic one.
O. A. VAN NTEROP, A. C. M. BLANKENDAAL,
C. J. OVERBEEKE
Delft University of Technology
Notes
1 See e.g. E. Ferguson, Toward a discipline of the
history of technology', Technology and Culture, no. 15,
1974, pp. 13-30.
2 T. J. Pinch & W. E. Bijker, The social construction of
facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science
and the sociology of technology might benefit each
other', in W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. J. Pinch
(eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990, pp. 17-50.
3 H. Petroski, The Evolution of Useful Things, Vintage
Books, New York, 1994.
4 Ibid., p. 22.
5 D. A. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things,
Basic Books, 1988.
6 D. A. Norman, Turn Signals are the Facial Expressions
of Automobiles, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992.
7 Ibid., p. 111; see also G. Basalla, The Evolution of
Technology, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 1988.
8 Norman, op cit., 1992, p. 116.
9 P. Steadman, The Evolution of Designs: Biological
Analogy in Architecture and the Applied Arts, Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979, p. 244.
10 See R. Roy & D. Wield (eds.), Product Design and
Technological Innovation, Open University Press,
Milton Keynes, 1986. 15
11 Cf. Basalla, op. cit
12 For a general view on this topic, see R. Lewin,
Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos, Basingstoke,
Macmillan, 1993; K. Mainzer, Thinking in Complexity:
The Complex Dynamics of Matter, Mind, and Mankind,
Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1994; J. M. T. Thompson &
The Evolution of the Bicycle
H. B. Stewart, Non-linear Dynamics and Chaos, John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1986.
S. A. Kauffman, 77K Origins of Order: Self-organization
and Selection in Evolution,Oxford University Press,
New York, 1994.
For this section we referred to: D. Andric, B. Gavric,
& W. J. Simons, Fietsen: van loopfiets tot mountain bike,
Schuyt & Co., Haarlem, 1990; H. Baudet, Een ver-
trouwde wereld: 100 Jaar innovatie in Nederland, Bert
Downloaded from http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org/ at Tulane University Library, Serials Acquisitions Dept. on September 4, 2014
Bakker, Amsterdam, 1986; C. F. Caunter, The History
and Development of Cycles, Part I: Historical Survey,
Clowes & Sons, London and Becdes, 1955; C. F.
Caunter, Handbook of the Collection Illustrating Cycles,
Part 2: Catalogue of Exhibits with Descriptive Notes,
Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1958; H.
Ebeling, Der Freiherr von Drais: Das tragische Leben des
'verruckten Barons', Braun, Karlsruhe, 1985; Hillman,
Herbert & Cooper Ltd., 'Premier' Works, Catalogue for
1886 Season, Coventry, 1885; G. J. M. Hogenkamp,
De gechiedenis van Burgers Deventer is de geschiedenis
van defiets, Burgers ENR, Deventer, 1939; J. McGurn,
On Your Bicycle: An Illustrated History of Cycling,
Murray, London, 1987; G. H. Minck, Fietsend door
de eeuwen, Kluwer, Deventer, 1986; A. J. Palmer,
Riding High: The Story of the Bicycle, Vision,
London, 1958; M. J. B. Rauck, G. Vole, & F. R.
Paturi, Mit dem Rod durch zwei Jahrhunderte: Das
Fahrrad und seine Geschichte, AT Verlag Aarau, Stutt-
gart, 1979; A. Sharp, Bicycles and Tricycles: An Ele-
mentary Treatise on Their Design and Construction,
Longman, Green & Co., London, New York, and
Bombay, 1896; Velox, Velocipedes, Bicycles, and Tri-
cycles: How to Make and How to Use Them with a Sketch
of Their History, Invention, and Progress, Routledge &
Sons, London, 1869; S. S. Wilson, 'Bicycle technol-
ogy', Scientific American, vol. 228, no. 3,1973, pp. 81-
91; J. Woodforde, The Story of the Bicycle, Routledge
& Kegan Paul, London, 1970.
See e.g. A. Forty, Objects of Desire: Design and Society
Since 1750, Thames & Hudson, London, 1986; J. Law,
Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the
case of Portuguese expansion', in W. E. Bijker, T. P.
Hughes, and T. J. Pinch (eds.), The Social Construction
of Technological Systems, MTT Press, Cambridge, MA,
pp. 111-34.
267