h a l f b a k e r y
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Having ridden bicycles across decades of time, I can
authoritatively say that to me, the most annoying thing about
most-common design is the fact that it is more difficult to
the tire on the rear wheel than the front wheel --and the rear
tends to wear out faster, because
more body weight is
by it. (British spelling: "tyre")
So, stand back a bit an note that if the seat and the handlebars
are removed, they could be swapped (to each other's post-
mountings) as a first approximation
Reverse Bicycle. A better approximation would add a
between the seat and the bike frame, so the seat wouldn't
the handlebars would need fit loosely, so they could be twisted
Also, some sort of linkage needs to be added, so that the
front and now-rear wheel can be twisted when the handlebars
twisted. More, this linkage needs to change the twist-
due to the way a twisted rear wheel affects the direction of a
while the bike is moving. That is, if the handlebars are twisted
clockwise, the rear wheel needs to twist counterclockwise.
Finally, the ratchet inside the chain-drive system needs to be
reversed, in order to make the front drive wheel rotate the
correct direction while pedaling. OR, the wheel and pedal-
sprockets need to be "turned around". Normally they are on the
right side of a normal bike, relative to the cyclist; they would
be on the left side when the bike is Reversed. If turned around
to again be on the right side with respect to the cyclist, the
ratchet would be correct for driving the Reverse Bike in its new
That second option would also require moving a typical
derailleur system to the other side of the bike, too, requiring
adjustments to the bike frame; it would be overall simpler just
to reverse the ratchet action, as in the first option.
When done, a majority of the cyclist's body weight will now be
over the wheel that steers, instead of the drive wheel. IT will
have the tire that wears out faster! And it is also easier to
Rear wheel steering
Tried and failed. [8th of 7, Mar 18 2016]
Riding a bicycle backwards
[scad mientist, Mar 18 2016]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
||[Ian Tindale], just about anything can be
Your own anno reminds me of a Keith Laumer science
fiction novel ("Worlds of the Imperium", I think), in
which there was a transport system
between alternate Universes/time-lines, and Our Hero
a Universe where the transport system didn't exist. So
cobbled-together one, after which one of the other
characters in the story said something like, "You left a
across the time-lines I could have followed on a
||This has been tried. The machine was unrideable.
||[suggested-for-deletion] widely known to be unworkable.
||[8th of 7], it certainly wasn't "widely known" to me! There
is a fairly simple way to make it workable, though, which is
to add a third wheel. (Or 4, as in "training wheels", heh!)
It occurs to me that if the steered wheel was doubled, that
would also divide the cyclist's weight between them, such
that the tires would last longer.
||It's kind-of humorous that a bike with training wheels is still
called a "bicycle", while it is a "tricycle" if it has 3 main
||Does the rear tire on a standard bicycle wear out because
of the extra weight, or because it is providing
acceleration. Sometimes my rear wheel will spin slightly
starting out if there is a slick spot of loose gravel. If the
tire with less weight on it is used for acceleration, it will
be even more likely to spin.
||While riding a bicycle with rear steering is very difficult, it
can be done <link>. Not practical for most people to learn,
but this is the halfbakery.
||Riding a bicycle backwards is not the same as a rear-wheel-steer bicycle.
||// it certainly wasn't "widely known" to me! //
||Since when are we responsible for your lamerntable ingnorance ? Please, tell us what we said that may have sounded like "We care" ...
||A bicycle with two steering rear wheels would not be a bicycle, unless you removed the front wheel to compensate for the extra rear wheel.
||A bicycle with training wheels would be a quadricycle, but only if all four wheels were constantly in contact with the supporting surface during normal operation. Fortunately this is not the case, since most bicycles with such wheels are ridden by immature humans, who exhibit poor control of their conveyance and frequently end up on the ground and their bike with all four wheels in the air. Sometimes, they get injured. Oh, how we laugh.
||// Riding a bicycle backwards is not the same as a rear-
wheel-steer bicycle //
||Yes, most google hits for riding a bicycle backwards have
the person backwards and the bike moving forward. The
link I gave is a person sitting on a bicycle in the normal
orientation, but going backwards: demonstrating that it
is possible for a human to balance and somewhat control
such an unstable configuration. Presumably a bicycle
designed for this could be slightly more stable. Your link
also mentions: "One documented example of someone
successfully riding a rear-wheel steering bicycle is that of
L. H. Laiterman at Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
on a specially designed recumbent bike."
||Definitely impractical, but I could bun such a half-baked
solution if it was actually a solution. My first question is
whether this is actually a solution to the problem.
||The problem with rear-steering is the same for bicycles as for cars: the arse end swings out, setting up a collision with something unseen to the driver. This is not a problem with forklifts within the environment of a warehouse.
||// the arse end swings out, //
||That happens with regular bicycles too, tho.
||Then again, if the rider is a shapely female, that's not entirely a bad thing (or so we are told).
||You could just get one of those bikes with a smaller
front wheel. Then the two tires will wear at a more