Shire Books, famous for 50 years as publishers of affordable non-fiction paperbacks, has diversified its output since Oxford-based Osprey Publishing purchased it a few years ago. Among Shire’s recent releases are two reproductions of cycling books.
The older of the two books is Fancy Cycling by Isabel Marks, originally published in 1901. What the author means by “fancy cycling” is revealed in the subtitle: “Trick Riding for Amateurs”. The introductory chapter states that one of the many virtues of trick cycling is that no special garb is needed. Indeed, the book is liberally illustrated with photographs showing Victorian ladies and gents performing stunts on ordinary roadster bicycles while wearing the conventional clothing of the time, such as they might wear to go to church. The ladies all have ankle-length skirts and wear hats, some of which are quite elaborate.
The instruction starts with the relatively easy stuff, such as a near-side mount. Then we progress through side-riding, hands-off, side-saddle, unicorn driving (you’ll have to buy the book!), coasting on the handlebar, coasting on footrests on the front fork, coasting with knees on handlebar and feet on saddle, and much more. Ultimately, we reach the really exotic stunts, including the butterfly dance (in which – shock, horror – a lady is seen hatless!) and hoop skipping, where the cyclist combines skipping through a hoop while cycling. No mention of a risk assessment.
The book is a beautifully printed hardback of 116 pages, with numerous well reproduced photographs and even a couple of contemporary advertisements for bicycle makers. The unjacketed linen-bound hardback cover faithfully reproduces the design on the original, showing a male stunt rider on his bicycle, printed in black, white and gold on a claret background.
The author wrote of her book: “May my insignificant efforts be of some little service to the merry band of tricksters; may the track of their wheels be ever increasingly present in the land.” While we may not seek to emulate the tricks shown, the book is a delightful novelty and well worth the £7.99 suggested retail price. The ISBN number is 978-1-90840-271-4.
Fancy Cycling by Isabel Marks, reprinted by Shire.
Another cycling book reproduced by Shire is a paperback publication, The Modern Cyclist, 1923, written by the famous cycling writer Kuklos. (His real name was William Fitzwater Wray.) It’s a touring guide, originally published as The Kuklos Annual, at a time when cycling had finally become cheap enough to be a mass leisure activity in the UK.
The guide comprises three parts, the first dealing with technicalities such as choosing a bicycle, riding position, cycling in traffic, variable gears, legal aspects, touring tips and bicycle maintenance. The second part comprises “potted tours” in Britain, Ireland and France. Kuklos’s comments are interesting, sometimes amusing and occasionally surprising. For example, writing just after the Anglo-Irish War, and possibly even during Irish Civil War, he makes no mention of either conflict, merely stating that “the Irish are the most charming, generous, warm-hearted, and courteous people in the world.” As for France, he tells us that you can order breakfast at almost any time you like, simply by requesting “un café-au-lait complet.” (I’m not sure that would work today!) French WCs “often leave something to be desired,” he notes, mercifully sparing us further details. The third part of the book is a rest house directory with over 3,000 addresses in Britain, Ireland and France.
There are three sorts of illustrations in the book. The first are the maps that appeared in the original book. There are also contemporary advertisements added by Shire books, and taken from Cycling magazine. Most evocative, and also taken from Cycling, are the line drawings showing romanticised scenes of cycling in idyllic countryside. They appear to be mostly by the famous artist Frank Patterson, although they are not credited to him.
With about 150 pages and a colour cover, The Modern Cyclist, 1923 gives a fascinating insight into mainstream cycling in the early inter-war years. It would make a good gift for almost anybody, but especially those with an interest in cycle touring and the few senior citizens old enough to recall that era. The original price was one shilling (5 pence) but today, after 90 years of inflation, you will need to hand over a still modest £6.99. The ISBN number is 978-1-90840-262-2.
The Modern Cyclist, 1923, by Kuklos, reprinted by Shire books.
In theory, the rolling resistance of wheels decreases as the diameter of the wheel increases. This is on the assumption that all other factors are equal: the tyres are of identical cross-section and carcase construction, with equal internal air pressures and equal external applied loads, rolling at low speeds in still air where no significant aerodynamic effects apply, on smooth hard road surfaces, with the wheels on hubs with insignificant bearing friction.
Yet it is clear from observation and testing that, under some circumstances, some smaller diameter bicycle wheels can roll as easily, or even more easily, some larger diameter wheels. This does not mean that the theory is wrong – merely that one or more of the “other factors” is not equal. The easiest factor for the average rider to control is tyre pressure. It’s a fair assumption, confirmed by everyday observation, that most cyclists ride on tyres that are at sub-optimal pressures. So, pumping up the tyres of a small-wheeler to the maximum recommended by the tyre manufacturer may well be enough to allow it to roll more easily than many other cycles with larger wheels. Choosing a small diameter tyre with a supple carcase will also help. At racing speeds, wheel aerodynamics and unsprung mass of the whole bicycle and rider ensemble can also enter into the equation and may, for example, favour a well-designed small-wheeler with suspension.
Between 1998 and 2002, British engineer John Lafford carried out rolling resistance tests on various tyres, ranging in tyre bead seat diameter from 305 mm to 622 mm (i.e. nominal wheel diameters of 16-inch to 28-inch). The manufacturers and product types, cross-sections, tread patterns, state of wear and tyre pressures all varied quite considerably. His full data may be found here: http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/tech/JL.htm
Below is a chart generated directly from John Lafford’s data using Microsoft Excel. The vertical axis shows the various tyres tested, ranked by bead seat diameter – biggest at the top and smallest at the bottom. The horizontal axis shows rolling resistance – the less the better. The straight, backward-sloping, black line is a computer-generated trend line which reflects the general truth of the theory that rolling resistance decreases with tyre diameter. But it is immediately apparent that the rolling resistance of any particular tyre diameter may vary considerably, confirming the variance due to those “other factors” that may not be equal in reality. Hence we find some of the smaller tyres under certain conditions have actual rolling resistances lower than some of the larger tyres.
Rolling resistance of bicycle tyres of differing diameters using data from John Lafford’s 1998-2002 tests.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 25,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 6 Film Festivals
This collection has now been dispersed but before that happened, Arnfried and I recorded it for posterity. Enjoy the slideshow!
Instructions for a wide range of Sturmey-Archer hubs from 1902 to 2001. Includes the original 1902 3-speed, the popular K type of the 1920s and 30s, the T and TF 2-speeds, the ever popular AW, the SW, SG, SB, AB, AG, TCW, AM, AC, ASC, FW, FG, FM, FC, BR, GH6, S3B, S3C, all 5-speeds, the Columbia 3-speed, the BSA 3-speeds (based on a Sturmey-Archer design) and the hubs in production when Sturmey-Archer ceased to be British-owned in 2001. Also included is information on the DBU and FSU accessories for use with hub dynamos.
The files are in Adobe Acrobat format, making them zoomable and easily printable. Some of these files may take 5 minutes or so to download if you do not have broadband.
In the beginning
1902 3-speed
BSA 3-speeds
Includes Jim Gill’s material on the rare split-axle versions
Type K 3-speed
Includes Jim Gill’s simplified instructions
From the 1956 Master catalogue
Fitting and adjustment
Use and maintenance
Fault finding
General dismantling
Individual dismantling
Inspection
General re-assembling
SW wide-ratio 3-speed (See also Brian Hayes’ paper)
SB wide-ratio 3-speed/hub brake
SG wide-ratio 3-speed/Dynohub
AW wide-ratio 3-speed (see below for later AWs)
AB wide-ratio 3-speed/hub brake
AG wide-ratio 3-speed/Dynohub
TCW wide-ratio 3-speed/coaster
AM medium-ratio 3-speed
AC ultra-close-ratio 3-speed
ASC fixed-wheel 3-speed
FW wide-ratio 4-speed
FG wide-ratio 4-speed/Dynohub
FM medium-ratio 4-speed
FC close-ratio 4-speed
BF & BR hub brakes
GH6 Dynohub
Dry Battery Unit & Dynohub wiring
Other Dynohub & Filter Switch Unit wiring information
FSU circuit diagram and notes
Wiring diagrams
Instructions from various dates, 1960s – 2001
S3B 3-speed with small-diameter hub brake
S3C 3-speed coaster
S5 5-speed
S5/1 5-speed
S5/2 and Five Speed Alloy 5-speeds
S52 1988 modifications
5 StAr and 5 StAr Elite 5-speeds
Columbia ‘no-slip’ 3-speed (Jim Gill’s documentation)
AB/C & BF/C 90mm hub brakes
AW 3-speed
AWC 3-speed coaster
AT3, VT and ST Elite hub brakes
Sprinter 5-speed hub and Sprinter 5-speed Elite 5-speed hub brake
Sprinter 5-speed coaster
Sprinter 7-speed hub & Sprinter 7 Elite 7-speed hub brake
Sprinter 7-speed coaster
Steelite SBF, SBR & SAB hub brakes
Triggers & Twistgrips, 1950s & 1960s
SA 1951 trigger instructions
SA 1956 trigger instructions
Twistgrip parts c.1966
Auto Twistgrip service instructions c. 1969
All information provided here is done so in good faith. It is as written by the original authors and has not been modified by Tony Hadland. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss, damage or injury of any kind sustained for any reason arising therefrom. Our thanks go to Sturmey-Archer Limited and Jim Gill for permission to reproduce their material.
The first seven of the following files provide amazingly detailed information on Sturmey-Archer hubs, from the earliest models to the present day. They were compiled by English engineer and hub gear enthusiast, the late Jim Gill. Although some of the material was originally published by Sturmey-Archer, the vast majority is Jim’s own work and has never been published before.
Also provided is John Fairbrother’s simpler approach to fixed-wheel conversions. John is an engineer and bicycle restorer based in Hampshire, England.
The files are in Adobe Acrobat format, making them zoomable and easily printable, page at a time.
Epicyclic Gears – some theoretical considerations
Engineer and hub gear enthusiast Jim Gill explains how various hub gears work. Includes zoomable diagrams.
21 pages
Sturmey-Archer Hubs – reference tables
Zoomable dimensioned drawings and tables of pawls, drivers, axle keys, pinion pins, gear teeth, ballcups, hub shell dimensions, indicators and more.
14 pages
Sturmey-Archer Hubs – axle charts
Zoomable dimensioned drawings of axles for Sturmey-Archer hubs.
26 pages
Sturmey-Archer Hubs – cone charts
Zoomable dimensioned drawings of cones for Sturmey-Archer hubs.
7 pages
Sturmey-Archer Hubs – spring charts
Zoomable dimensioned drawings of springs for Sturmey-Archer hubs.
5 pages
Sturmey-Archer Hubs – triggers
Zoomable dimensioned drawings of triggers for Sturmey-Archer hubs. Includes how to convert triggers for use with fixed-wheel hubs.
5 pages
Jim Gill’s fixed hub conversions
Jim Gill’s compilation of how to convert a 3-speed to 2-speed fixed-wheel and how to convert 4-speeds to 3-speed fixed.
8 pages
Jim Fairbrother’s fixed hub conversions
Modifications to Sturmey-Archer hub gears to produce fixed wheel gears
Engineer John Fairbrother outlines another approach to fixed-wheel conversions.
2 pages
Fixed hub trigger conversion
Modifications to Sturmey-Archer triggers for use with fixed wheel gears
More good stuff from Jim Gill.
2 pages
Vernon Forbes of Columbia, Missouri
on what went wrong during S-A’s British years
I felt a great sense of loss when I heard of Sturmey-Archer’s closing in 2000. I remember sitting for a long time after I heard the news, feeling numb. I had sold, repaired, championed and ridden Sturmey-Archer gears for 21 years. The first shop I worked at was a Raleigh shop. They hired me because I could overhaul Sturmey-Archer hubs. They had all the many internal parts for several models of Sturmey-Archer gears in a wall of 5″x 6″ metal drawers. Small parts were in a case of 1″ x 2″ plastic drawers. Such a vast collection of ancient artifacts bore mute testament to a long and fine tradition of strength and durability that stretched to the beginning of the last century. I used to say the popularity of derailleur gears was little more than a fad in efficiency.
Sturmey-Archer’s Strengths
Derailleur bikes then were relatively flimsy and in need of constant maintenance to keep them working. Ten speeds were designed after Tour de France bikes. If cars were designed the same way they would all look like Formula One racing cars. Derailleur bikes, like their Tour de France counterparts, were not user friendly. Cyclists then had to switch between touch and sound modalities to “find” their gears. Even the most expensive derailleurs required careful installation and bicycle with a straight frame and chainline. Mechanics would carefully position and skilfully bend the front derailleur cage with pliers. Even then it could not handle more than a relatively narrow range of high gears in the hands of someone who knew how to perform what Frank Berto described as the “overshift-and-correct” shifting drill. In writing the history of derailleur chain gearing (Berto, et al., 2000), noted author Frank Berto described the remarkable craftsmanship of a Campagnolo derailleur saying “it will shift lousy forever”.
The metaphor of a derailleur bike being like a high-strung high-performance race car pushing the envelope of technology was viable then. Bicycles were like radio in the forties, recorded sound in the fifties or cameras in the sixties. Bicycle mechanics were like microscope repairmen.
By comparison, Sturmey-Archer (S-A) gears were user friendly and virtually maintenance free. From among the hurley-burley of designs and compatibility problems Sturmey-Archer emerged as a golden standard. Its design rarely changed and parts had always been available. The most desirable feature of S-A gears was ease of shifting. Instead of shifting while steering with one hand you just flicked a trigger on the handlebars. S-A gears were safe, simple and reliable.
This reputation eroded as Suntour and Shimano began making derailleurs so reliable you didn’t need repair parts. Power shifters, bar-cons, and self-adjusting front derailleurs began closing in on the superior simplicity of use previously dominated by S-A. In 1985 Shimano optimized rear derailleur geometry and introduced indexed shifting (Berto, et al., p.260). The final blow came in 1989 with SRAM’s twist grip for derailleurs (Berto, et al., 2000, p. 263) just like those S-A had been producing since 1961. Suddenly, all I could say to potential customers was that S-A gears were indexed shifting when indexed shifting wasn’t cool.
Losing their advantage of being both user friendly and low-maintenance in the face of a rapidly improved derailleur a fair comparison could now be made. Having a weak engine, bicycles need higher gears that are closer together and lower gears that are further apart. Hub gears have higher gears that are further apart and lower gears that are closer together (see Figure 1 below); the exact opposite of what is needed (van der Plas, p. 161). This is just how hub gears work. Derailleur gears, with their ability to match the limitations of human effort, were superior in this regard.
Figure 1: Hub and ideal gearing
At least in America, few people seemed to know that the sprocket size on an S-A hub could be changed so that a larger sprocket with more teeth gave lower gears. The gears Raleigh used on their Sports model came with an 18 tooth cog that gave a normal of 66.4 inches (for metric users, a ‘development’ of 5.3m) with a low of 49.8 (4.0m) and a high of 88.6 inches (7.1m). People buying a bike thought that three-speeds “didn’t have enough gears to climb hills and were too hard to pedal.” Raleigh Sports bicycles weighed 36 lbs and came with fenders and needed lower gears. The gears it came with were too high. I remember I used to routinely swap-out the cogs on the over-geared Raleigh Sports. If Raleigh had specified hubs with 22t cogs that would have given the ideal gearing with a medium of 54.3 inches (4.3m) with a low of 40.8 inches (3.3m) and a high of 72.5 inches (5.8m). As a result of being over-geared hub gear owners found themselves shifting often between normal and low with high gear being “way out there”. Probably more than everything else combined, this one detail made most customers prefer to buy ten-speed derailleur bicycles.
The only explanation I ever heard for why Raleigh over-geared their three-speeds was that cyclists used to turn higher gears with longer cranks at lower RPMs. Still, it never made sense.
Mountain Bikes
Along about this time another seemingly unrelated trend was to unmask one of S-A’s characteristics as a defect: gear slip. Ten-speeds were built for a full-tuck riding position and were awkward to ride. The only accommodations made for women was to tilt the saddle nose down 2-3 degrees. To people with chronic back problems I repeated the findings by French physicians that the full-tuck riding position was actually good for your back. To those with carpal tunnel problems I recommended gloves. For men with prostate problems I recommended a leather saddle. Like the ordinary bicycle, or penny farthing it replaced, the derailleur bicycle had evolved to serve a narrow bandwidth of young, athletic, male customers. The bicycle was difficult to ride and maintain.
The emergence of mountain bikes changed all this. With an upright position anyone could easily ride them, and with an emphasis on durability they brushed the flimsy ten speeds aside. S-A gears could not be used for off-road riding for two reasons, the foremost of which was gear “slip”. If the hub is not in adjustment and you are riding in either normal or high, the gear can unexpectedly go into a “no gear” intermediate position between the gears. When it does this the gear suddenly disengages itself under load. Gear “slip” had long inhibited “honking”, or riders getting out of the saddle to pedal up hills because there is always the chance that while you are standing on the pedals it could suddenly slip out of gear. Since mountain biking required out-of-the-saddle pedaling for climbing hills S-A gears were not an option.
Another problem was gearing; S-A recommended that the rear sprocket be no larger than 22 tooth be used (presumably with a 46 tooth chainwheel) giving a 54 inch (4.3m) normal with a low of 41 inches (3.3m). Lower than this and, and as Frank Berto once said “presumably, the hub would grind itself into pieces the size of tooth fillings”. Mountain biking needed these lower gears, especially since honking was not possible. Think about it: you couldn’t use ultra-low gears but you also couldn’t stand up to pedal. This effectively shut S-A gears out of mountain biking, limiting them to road use.
Because the bikes they provided for road use were all hopelessly over-geared the picture of S-A’s inevitable obsolescence is more understandable. What is most curious is that S-A hubs had been “slip-free” since the 1904-1937 “X” model hub. Why didn’t they just bring back “slip-free” hubs when mountain biking became popular and why did they ever quit making such hubs in the first place? The answer has to do with the series of management companies that ran S-A.
Sturmey-Archer’s Origins
From the beginning S-A was owned by Raleigh Cycle Company. Frank Bowden, Raleigh’s founder, was in the process of building what was to become the world’s largest bicycle manufacturer when he was approached by William Reilly, a poor Irishman, about a three-speed hub he had just invented. In 1902, in a series of legal maneuvers he swindled William Reilly out of the patent rights and got rid of him (Hadland, 1987, p.52). Reilly died in obscurity on a curb in Stockport, near Manchester in about 1950 when he was 83 (Hadland, 1987, addendum); S-A was thus born with Raleigh was the management company.
A Lack of Innovation
The original 1902 hub Reilly designed was a fixed-gear three-speed; you could shift gears but you couldn’t coast. It had an external freewheel threaded on, so you could coast. It had two “intermediate” no-gear positions between the gears to prevent simultaneous engagement of two “fixed” gears, wrecking the hub.
In 1904 the “X” hub replaced the original design. It didn’t need an external freewheel to coast because inside the hub it had three sets of pawls, one set for each speed. If simultaneous engagement of normal and low gears occurred the normal set of pawls was turned faster than the low gear pawls and over-ran them. If there was simultaneous engagement of normal and high the high gear pawls over-ran the slower normal gear pawls. A loose cable gave low, so if the cable broke the hub stayed in low. Designed by the inventor of three-speed hubs, William Reilly, BSA, continued to produce this hub for their bicycles until 1955 when they were acquired by Raleigh who discontinued Reilly’s hub. Bowden took over management of S-A in 1909 after he got rid of Reilly.
Bowden was a brilliant businessman in the process of building a bicycle manufacturing empire. He was not as interested in innovation as he was holding down costs. Raleigh allowed S-A to only just barely survive. Raleigh didn’t want anything but over-geared three-speed hubs and as long as that’s all they produced they didn’t care. The creative genius of S-A engineers was reduced to cutting costs to extend their tiny budget. I always imagined the R&D department as something like Hitler’s bunker.
WWI, production and design problems plagued S-A from l9l4-1918, when they designed the K model hub. This got to the market in 1921. S-A designed it as a cost-cutting measure so that if the cable broke the hub was stuck in high. This was a step backward. For another thing the K hub had only two sets of pawls. One set was used for both high and normal speeds and the other set for low. In high gear the high/normal pawls were fed after being multiplied by the planet gears for high gear. In normal same set was fed directly without being multiplied by the planet gears. In both gears the low-gear set was over-run. For low the sliding clutch “tripped out” the high/normal gear pawls unmasking the previously over-run low gear pawls. This method of “tripping-out” pawls prevented normal and low from being simultaneously driven. There was a danger, however, of simultaneously engaging normal and high. This was prevented in the following way. The fronts of the six clutch arms were square to fit against tabs on the inside of the gear ring for normal. The backside of the six arms of the sliding clutch were ramped so that if both normal and high were simultaneously engaged the gear ring was driven by the high gear. The drive of the faster turning gear ring drove itself into the ramps on the backs of clutch arms and pushed the clutch into full engagement with high. While clutches were expensive to make and tended to wear out there was no “no-gear” position and the hub was always in gear. In 1937 the K hub was replaced by the AW model with the infamous “no-gear” position (see Figures 2-7 below). AW clutches had four unramped arms and were cheaper to produce (Hadland, 1987, p.97). Like the K hub it replaced the AW used two sets of pawls and tripped out the normal/high set to unmask low, preventing simultaneous engagement of normal and low speeds. To prevent simultaneous engagement of high and normal AWs had a “no-gear” intermediate between them to keep them separate (Hadland, 1987, p.97).
Figure 2: This and figures 3-5 show how a hub gear works. This shows the sprocket fitted to the driver. The gear ring and ball cup are cut away to show how the arms of the driver fit over the clutch. The planet gears all spin around a fixed central sun gear on the axle.
Figure 3: High gear. The driver and ball cup have been removed and the gear ring cut in half to show the clutch, which engages the planet pints protruding from the planet cage. As the planet gears turn around the central stationary sun gear (not visible), the gear ring is turned 33% faster.
Figure 4: Normal Gear. The clutch has been raised and its arms engage tabs inside the gear ring, which is therefore driven at the same speed as the driver.
Figure 5: Low Gear. The clutch is fully raised. It still engages the tabs of the gear ring but it also trips out the high/normal pawls so that they no longer engage the ball ring. The gear ring thus turns at the speed of the driver and the planet cage now turns 25% slower and drives the hub through the low gear pawls visible in Figure 2.
Figure 6: This shows the “no-drive” position between normal and high gear.
Figure 7: This shows the principle of the ramps on the back of the clutch arms of the “K” hub. If the clutch engaged normal and high gear simultaneously, the gear ring tabs would run into the ramps and force the clutch down fully into high gear and away from normal gear.
It was not so much that S-A was unable to lead the field in market development as it was unwilling.
S-A continued to patent two additional different “no-slip” designs in 1948 (Hadland, 1987, p.120) and 1971 (Hadland, 1987, p.157). Raleigh patented their own “no-slip” design in 1972 (Hadland, 1987, p.154). Raleigh blocked production of all these.
Another example of S-A’s inability to lead in product development is hub brakes. Consider the popularity of disc brakes now. I recently opened a bicycle mail order catalogue and counted no less than six different kinds of disc brakes. When downhill racing became popular S-A announced they felt the disc brake “had no future in cycling” and stuck with drum brakes. In l985 when S-A said their gears were not strong enough for mountain biking (Hadland, 1987, p.168) it was reminiscent of the 192Os and their making similar disclaimers that their gears were not strong enough to be used on tandems. While S-A had produced a tandem three-speed in 1934 (Hadland, 1987, p.90) but they deleted it in 1941 (Hadland, 1987, p.189), giving derailleurs a niche market in which to get a toe-hold after WWII.
As the world changed the circle of Victorian Engineers at Raleigh who seemed to run S-A rigidly refused to acknowledge the world had changed since l9O4. They continued to make gentlemen’s gears for Edwardian cyclists. They probably figured that mountain bikes, like tandems, were just a fad.
Even in “gentlemen’s gears” they shunned innovation. Just like the “no-slip” three speed, S-A continued to patent innovations that Raleigh withheld from the public. Henry Sturmey patented a five-speed in 1921 and S-A continued to patent different designs of 5-speeds in 1940 (Hadland, 1987 p.111), 1973 (Hadland, p.155) and a 6-speed in 1954 (Hadland, p.130). Production of 5-speeds did not begin until 1966 (Hadland, 1987, p.146.); a 45 year interval.
S-A was starved and their resources plundered while Raleigh continued to grow. With over 7,000 employees in 1960 Raleigh was purchased by Tube Investments (TI), a manufacturing conglomerate that made everything from industrial tubing to several highly successful kitchen pans (Hadland, 2000). S-A had a new management company to run it and it was Raleigh’s turn to be managed. TI continued Raleigh’s regressive practices of plundering profits and blocking progress but had their own cruel twist about the mouth. Under TI’s management, Raleigh didn’t bring out a children’s hi-rise, or Stingray, bicycle until the demand in America was over. During the 1960s, Alex Moulton designed a small wheel bicycle and offered to sell it to Raleigh. After rejecting his offer Alex Moulton made them himself (Hadland, 2000). The bicycles proved wildly popular and Moulton bicycles quickly became Raleigh’s #1 competitor (Hadland, 2000). Raleigh delayed bringing out a BMX bike until it was too late to develop market share and got such a late start in mountain bikes (1984) they lost millions (Hadland, 2000). Now it was Raleigh’s turn to have its hands tied.
One outstanding example of the way TI prevented innovation involved the geared Dynohub. The Dynohub was a hub that contained a generator that powered bicycle lights. S-A had patented a geared Dynohub in 1967 (Hadland, 1987, p.147). While the generator turned as fast as the wheel a “geared” Dynohub generator was designed to turn faster than the wheel and generate more power. The Dynohub had been in continuous production since 1945 (Hadland, 1987, p.167). TI blocked bringing out the geared Dynohub. Rather than coming out with an updated more powerful model to stimulate sagging sales, it was cheaper to discontinue it and the Dynohub was withdrawn in 1984 as well as its battery-takeover option (Hadland, 1987, p.133). This was too bad because generator hubs are currently made by three different companies; Schmidt, DT and Shimano.
Another example of cost saving measures was the indicator chain coming out of a hollow axle, a feature of all S-A hubs. Because you couldn’t use a quick-release it had all the disadvantages of both a quick-release hollow axle and a solid axle; without the strength of a solid axle it was weak like a hollow axle but without the convenience of a quick-release. S-A patented a solid axled 7 speed in 1974 (Hadland, 1987, p.157). The 1974 patent on the solid axled 7 speed had expired by the time Shimano began producing S-A’s designs and producing gears with solid axles. By the time S-A closed Shimano had a solid axled 4 and 7 speed, Sachs had a 5, 7 and 12 hubs that used indicator chains and Rohloff had a 14 speed in both solid axle and quick-release versions, before S-A finally came out with the solid axled 7 speed they had patented 20 years before.
As early as 1984, as Mountain bike sales exploded, S-A, under TI, produced a “no-slip” three-speed for Columbia Bicycles in America that was not released to the general public. It had three sets of pawls and a ramped clutch. In 1984 Raleigh still didn’t have a mountain bike. By Feb. 1987 they had made 60,000 hubs for Columbia (Hadland, 1987, p.167). They were still in production in 1997 though they had not been released in the United Kingdom (Read, p.114). Their steadfast refusal to issue these to the general public is but one of many decisions that led to Sturmey-Archer’s increasing obscurity.
Moreover, three speeds, for all their faults, actually cost slightly more in America than their lighter ten-speed counterparts in the late 70s. For example, the Raleigh “Record Ace” introductory ten-speed was $265 in 1979 in the USA. By comparison a 3-speed Raleigh Sports cost $285. While the emerging mountain bikes still cost well over $600 prices were shortly to begin dropping rapidly as they exploded in growth.
Though British-made Raleigh imports to the U.S.A. stopped in 1981 there were a lot of three-speed bicycles still around and I could still find work as a Sturmey-Archer specialist.
About this time Sturmey-Archer was forced to discontinue rather than update a number of products which had long been in production such as the Dynohub with its battery take-over. They redesigned the drum brake which they offered in a bewildering array of materials and finishes.
Design Problems
The road to obscurity had not only to do with mountain bikes and S-A’s withholding from the public the same improved designs they provided to manufacturers but also a history of defective designs for products they did release to the public that betrayed the loyalty of even the most die-hard customers.
In 1980 I convinced a shop to order a couple of 5-speed hubs. Someone heard we had them and drove fifty miles to buy one. But he kept bringing it back saying it “slipped” out of gear. We ended up giving him his money back. A few months later we got a notice from S-A that the hub had a “faulty” spring. It was too late because no bike shop in town would take the chance on selling five-speed hubs. Some time later I found the shift levers it came with were also “faulty”.
I remember being delighted when S-A came out with an aluminum-alloy-hubshell five-speed hub in 1983. This was withdrawn in 1989 when it was found that pieces of the gears would burst through the hub shell (Read, p.83). Though I never saw this it must have been spectacular to see. The 5-StAr hub (the capitalized “A” playing on the first two letters of the words “Sturmey” and “Archer”) was introduced in 1991 but was withdrawn two years later because it tended to break axles. Though these happened on a relatively minor scale they had the effect of alienating the finicky and touchy market that cyclists are. S-A came out with a series of triggers that, with their increasing reliance on injection-molded plastic, bore an uncanny resemblance to a child’s play-toy. No serious cyclist would even consider putting such ugly junk on an expensive Reynolds 531 frame.
The real tragedy of this is that S-A didn’t have to fail. Recent research by Frank Berto and Chet Kyle indicates that run-in and well oiled Sturmey-Archer hubs are 91.8%-95.6% efficient compared to a Shimano derailleur’s 86.9%-95.9% efficiency (Berto & Kyle, 2001).
In 1979 S-A completely dominated the market. The history of bad design choices has its roots in some of their earliest designs. Before 1922 if a cable broke on a S-A hub it was locked in low (Hadland, 1987, p.74). Under Frank Bowden they redesigned it in 1922 so if the cable broke the hub was stuck in high. They brought out the “no gear” position in 1937 because it was cheaper to make. In 1954 they substituted the AW three-speed design with the ill-fated “SW” model three-speed (Hadland, 1987, p.134) with springless crescent-shaped pawls. How this hub got into production is curious because it never worked and slipped in every gear. What is most surprising is that it took them three years to withdraw it! I don’t know if they replaced all the defective hubs they sold but I don’t think they did.
At the time I first started working in a bike shop Sturmey-Archer was owned by Tube Investments which also owned Reynolds, Raleigh and Brooks. Like a ship breaking up on its way to the bottom Tube Investments sold Raleigh USA to Huffy; the largest manufacturer of junk bicycles in America in 1982. Anticipating a corporate sell-off, Derby, an American management firm was formed by a wealthy American tax attorney expressly for the purpose of acquiring old Raleigh holdings as they were sold by TI (Hadland, 2000). Raleigh of England, Reynolds, Sturmey-Archer and Brooks came under the management of Derby, Inc. in 1987 (Hadland, 2000).
TI had pretty much ruined Raleigh/S-A. By the time TI was finished Raleigh went from employing 7,000 employees in 1960 to 700 in 1987 (Hadland, 2000). The factory was virtually the same as when they bought it, only more decrepit. Moreover, aluminum was the tubing of preference and Raleigh couldn’t do anything but make steel bicycles.
S-A had their resources plundered and development choked for 85 years by first Raleigh and then TI. Derby, their new owner, would eventually own Raleigh of England, Raleigh of America, Nishiki, Kalkhoff, Univega, Gazelle, CyclePro, Haro and Diamondback and be the largest manufacturer of bicycles in the world. Under Derby, S-A began innovating and was allowed to finally release their “no slip” three speed hubs, the ill-fated 5-StAr in 1991 and the solid-axled 7-speed hub to an optimistic public in 1995 (Read, 2003). Tragically, both these designs were defective and S-A had to issue replacements. In 1999, after twelve years of trying to undo the damage and upgrade the factory Derby quit trying. They sold the land Raleigh and S/A were on to the University of Nottingham and auctioned off Raleigh’s brand new laser cutting equipment and robotic machines. They didn’t know what to do with S/A’s buildings and patents and so they sold S-A and Brooks for the price of a three-speed hub (Hadland, 2000). The buyer was Lenark, a shady British management firm who had previously been investigated for fraud.
The law of supply-and-demand was never so cruel.
The end came abruptly. Shortly before my birthday, in October, 2000, the employees were called in, told that Sturmey-Archer was closed and they had ten minutes to get out. A year later I still had trouble accepting that Sturmey-Archer was closed, the workforce unemployed, the land sold to a university to train people for a future without jobs, the buildings knocked down and the machines put in a ship container for Taiwan where Sun Race, their newest management company was located. For me, S-A is gone forever.
Epilogue
S-A’s failure had its origins in 1904. What we are seeing is the dark fruit of greed. The greed that designed hubs for cyclists like the SW and the AW with its “no-gear” position was the same greed that sold the land S-A was on to a University. Greed and avarice do not serve society any better than they serve the needs of cyclists.
My own fortunes followed those of Sturmey-Archer’s. While I continued as a mechanic I was not hired as a Sturmey-Archer specialist after 1985. The bike shop I work in now is a Raleigh shop. It has one extra three-speed cable and one small plastic drawer labeled “Sturmey-Archer” containing a couple of frame fittings.
Annotated Bibliography
Berto, F. and Kyle, C., (2001), HUMAN POWER, #52. Summer, 2001. pp.#3-11. Though other articles have appeared measuring the efficiency of epicyclic gearing this is the most recent and possibly most carefully done.
Berto, F., Shepherd, R., and Henry, R. (2000), THE DANCING CHAIN, Self-pub., San Francisco. The definitive text on derailleur design and history. Imprimatur.
Hadland, T. (1987), THE STURMEY-ARCHER STORY, Self pub., s.l. The definitive text on Sturmey-Archer hub gear design and history. Nihil Obstat. Imprimatur.
Hadland, T. (2000), Raleigh in the last quarter of the 20th century. In the 11th INTERNATIONAL CYCLE HISTORY CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, A. Ritchie & R. van der Plas, Eds. Van der Plas publications, San Francisco, Calif., USA. Chronicles the confusing business dealings that led to Raleigh’s leaving England and Sturmey-Archer’s closing.
van der Plas, R. (1991), BICYCLE TECHNOLOGY. Bicycle Books. San Francisco.
Read, P. M., STURMEY-ARCHER: “THE END” AND “NEW BEGINNINGS”; (1902-2000 onwards) hub gear drawings, diagrams and parts lists, Fourth Ed., (1997), Self pub., Milton-Keynes. Peter Read has a business repairing Sturmey-Archer equipment. This massive tome is the definitive guide to repair each S-A design with many small changes carefully documented. It includes the many aftermarket improvements that Sturmey-Archer cognoscenti have developed over the years.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Tony Hadland on whose research this article is almost entirely based and for his invaluable suggestions. The author also thanks David Gordon Wilson and Peter Read of Phoenix Hub Gear Repairs for their invaluable comments on earlier versions of this paper. The author is especially grateful to Marv Wells, in Columbia, Missouri for his expertise in preparing the images. You’re a good bud, Marv.
The Author
The author is a bicycle mechanic in Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A. You can contact him by email at dansemacabre.1347@yahoo.com or by paper mail at 1007 Grand Ave., Columbia, MO 65203-4025, USA or by telephone on + 573-442-1187
Figures and Text both copyright (c) by Vernon Forbes, 2003. (Minor revisions February 2012)
