[Dungeon Fantasy]I want to ride my...

[Varyon]

Tricycle?

My Oubliette setting for DF features some advanced clockwork/gears - used for various mechanisms (mostly traps in the dungeons themselves, but humans have incorporated it into their architecture in a variety of ways), weapons ("gear rifles" can be found in the dungeons and have been duplicated, as well as the technology being adapted for larger stationary "gear cannons" and repeating gear rifles), etc. It seems that a society that can produce such mechanisms fairly readily would be able to produce bicycles and the like. But I've got some concerns.

First off, particularly for something akin to cavalry, a bicycle typically isn't the most stable of platforms. I see three general design options to correct this. First is to build a four-wheeled quadricycle. A second option would be to basically toss on some training wheels (for those unfamiliar with such, these are basically rods that end in small wheels and extend down to ground level on either side of a bicycle; this stabilizes the bicycle, preventing someone who is learning how to ride from falling over). The third option would be to have two wheels on one end, and one on the other - a tricycle or a reverse trike.

A quadricycle seems like the most likely design, as it has the same four-wheeled nature as a wagon (I'd expect the development to start with a pedal-powered wagon, then get condensed down to the size of a quadricycle for a personal transport). This also has more precedent for military usage - the Motor Scout (which used a motor rather than muscle power, although it appeared to still have working pedals) was a quadricycle with a mounted Maxim machine gun. Two big drawbacks is that a quadricycle isn't going to be as maneuverable as the other options and that it's likely to be the heaviest (and thus slowest and least-efficient) option.

A bicycle with training wheels wasn't something I had considered before sitting down to write this (in fact, when I first started writing about the options to increase stability, I initially wrote a brief dismissal of the idea of using training wheels... then realized they might actually work), but seems like a workable option. They wouldn't add much mass to the bicycle, and you could probably design them to be removable (or lift up off the ground) when you're in a situation where maneuverability would be more worthwhile than stability.

Aesthetically, my preference is for a reverse trike with the front wheels relatively close to each other, for increased stability without sacrificing too much maneuverability. But might a standard tricycle be more appropriate for use by cavalry? And on the same topic, what about a recumbent trike? The increased efficiency is useful for long travel and the decreased profile means the rider is harder to hit in combat, but melee combat wouldn't be much of an option (you'd need to use a gear rifle or perhaps a lance) and recumbents don't handle going uphill very well.

Which of the above seems the most appropriate? Or might you end up finding a mix, depending on the preferences of the military force in question (or adventurer)? Perhaps light cavalry and scouts use bikes with small raiseable side wheels, medium cavalry use reverse trikes, heavy cavalry use quadricycles, and dragoons ("cavalry" that fights dismounted - basically cycle-mobile infantry) use recumbent trikes?

I have more concerns to address, but this is enough to get started.

[mlangsdorf]

I'd expect to see a lot of dragoons on standard bikes, honestly. Bicycle dragoons eliminate one of the problems of conventional dragoons - you need to detail around a quarter of your force to hold the horses. You can just leave bikes in your rear area/camp, unattended.

Standard trikes and quads require that you be able to build a differential to handle the movement of the rear wheels, which is another weight complication. Doubly so on a 'cycle where the rear wheels are the drive wheels. I'm not sure if you need differentials on the front wheels on a quad or reverse trike, but I think you might.

For shock cavalry, I don't think training wheels/outrigger wheels are going to cut it. Recumbent bikes eliminate an advantage of conventional cavalry, that you're physically above the infantry. Bikes in general eliminate the massive weight advantage that cavalry has in the charge, along with the intimidation factor. But 'cycle cavalry might be willing to charge into a solid square of infantry in a way that horse cavalry simply will not, so maybe that cancels out some.

I think I'd put heavy cavalry on quads, but I wouldn't expect much out of them. I'd probably put the logistics force on trikes or quads, possibly recumbent or even side-by-side tandems, and add trailers. But most of my bike force would be bike dragoons, on light weight (as much as possible) off-road bikes and intended to operate mostly as scouts and skirmishers.

[khorboth]

I would consider more standard bikes or early pedal-less bikes for heavy infantry. A unit of heavily armored dwarves who can quickly redeploy is a huge advantage. Instability is less of an issue if they're not expected to fight mounted.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Varyon

A second option would be to basically toss on some training wheels

Training wheels are no good on rough ground. You'll rapidly find a situation where the main rear wheel is off the ground, and the back end is being held up by the training wheels. At that point, you have no propulsion, and one of the training wheels will likely snap off.

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I'm not sure if you need differentials on the front wheels on a quad or reverse trike, but I think you might.

Not unless you attach them both to the same axle. If you allow them to rotate independently, there's no need for a differential.

[malloyd]

I don't think you can force bicycles into the role of *heavy* cavalry, or chariots. A bicyclist is never going to be able to match the power of a horse or team of horses - they are not going to get heavily armored warriors up to cavalry charge speeds, certainly not on anything but ideal ground.

Dragoons do seem like the most natural role, especially in a place that has a decent road network. Being able to move your troops around at forced march or faster speeds and have them arrive still in good enough shape to deploy and fight a battle is a major advantage.

Light cavalry roles can probably work with mountain bikes, at least in it's more modern incarnations. Unlike a horse you can't really take your hands off the controls long enough for archery, but pistols work just fine.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Varyon

T

Aesthetically, my preference is for a reverse trike with the front wheels relatively close to each other, for increased stability without sacrificing too much maneuverability. But might a standard tricycle be more appropriate for use by cavalry?

Nope. In terms of recent history the first ATVs were standard trikes and my father had too many .....um "aggressive forward dismounts" to really foster confidence in the design. They disappeared from the marketplace relatively shortly.

The reason for liking standard trikes is the simplicity of the steering arrnagements not maneuverability. Attempting to maneuver on one is what inevitably sends you over the front handlebars.

Another issue is illustrated by the following link....

https://atvhelper.com/which-atv-has-...werful-ranked/

.....which lists the horsepower for contmporary ATV (which are all quads). The lowest figure on the list appears to be 14 hp while the highest are around 90.

The best you're going to get out of bicycle pedals is 0.25 and a person genrating that much is going to be exerting themselves too heavily to be wearing much armor.

So, practicality probably stops at bicycle dragoons or just mounted infantry for people not quite familiar with cavalry force terminology. Note that the Swiss do have combat bicycles for some of their infantry.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I'd expect to see a lot of dragoons on standard bikes, honestly. Bicycle dragoons eliminate one of the problems of conventional dragoons - you need to detail around a quarter of your force to hold the horses. You can just leave bikes in your rear area/camp, unattended.

Reduced need to care for horses is indeed part of what makes cycle infantry an attractive option, although I'll admit I was thinking more of costs than logistical concerns like this.

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Standard trikes and quads require that you be able to build a differential to handle the movement of the rear wheels, which is another weight complication. Doubly so on a 'cycle where the rear wheels are the drive wheels. I'm not sure if you need differentials on the front wheels on a quad or reverse trike, but I think you might.

This was an issue I was unaware of. A brief bit of research indicates that standard trikes largely avoid the issue by only having one rear wheel actually connected to the drive shaft (the other spins freely), while reverse trikes don't need such. I think a quad would be able to get away with the same "one rear drive wheel" solution. Considering this "solution" eliminates most of the benefit of a standard trike over a reverse trike (improved traction) indicates to me that standard trikes are going to be rare (but those that do exist may well opt for the added weight and cost of a proper differential).

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

For shock cavalry, I don't think training wheels/outrigger wheels are going to cut it.

Yeah, I think shock cavalry would be using armored quadricycles. Bicycles with folding side wheels would probably be primarily used for by scouts and maybe some light cavalry.

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Recumbent bikes eliminate an advantage of conventional cavalry, that you're physically above the infantry. Bikes in general eliminate the massive weight advantage that cavalry has in the charge, along with the intimidation factor. But 'cycle cavalry might be willing to charge into a solid square of infantry in a way that horse cavalry simply will not, so maybe that cancels out some.

Some excellent points. Yeah, I think recumbents would be largely useless for combat, with one possible exception I'll get to later. The weight advantage can potentially be regained with 'cycles that are heavily armored, but those are going to be slow if they're reliant on muscle power. I can think of two solutions to that latter issue. The first would be to have a clockwork battery built into the 'cycle (which will add further to the weight), and a lever the rider can use to switch between the battery being connected to charge, being connected to discharge, and being disconnected. Basically, prior to attacking, they can switch the gears to charge the battery, then pedal (going nowhere) until it's fully charged. They then switch the gears so the battery is disconnected, and get into position to attack, probably building up to their personal maximum speed in the process. They then switch it over to discharge, letting the battery propel them forward faster than they could manage on their own, smashing through the enemy formation. They would then switch back to the battery being disconnected to pedal their way to relative safety, after which point the process can be repeated. The other option is magic - enchant the 'cycle such that it can propel itself. A horse would probably be better than the former option, but reduced cost may make it feasible; the latter option is likely to cost more than using a horse would, although there may be ways (such as only being able to sprint like this for a brief period a few times a day) to get the cost down to be comparable to - or less than - simply using a horse.

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I think I'd put heavy cavalry on quads, but I wouldn't expect much out of them. I'd probably put the logistics force on trikes or quads, possibly recumbent or even side-by-side tandems, and add trailers. But most of my bike force would be by bike dragoons, on light weight (as possible) off-road bikes and intended to operate mostly as scouts and skirmishers.

That all makes a lot of sense. I was thinking the dragoons might get more use out of recumbents than standard 'cycles, as they'd burn less energy getting to the location to dismount, but maybe the difference is slight enough that standard ones would work just as well (possibly better, as they would be more capable of fighting while mounted if necessary). Scouts of course would want to sit upright, so they can see further.

Originally Posted by johndallman

Training wheels are no good on rough ground. You'll rapidly find a situation where the main rear wheel is off the ground, and the back end is being held up by the training wheels. At that point, you have no propulsion, and one of the training wheels will likely snap off.

Something for later discussion (I've decided it would be better to handle this issue one bite at a time, rather than my usual habit of putting everything out there in a giant wall of text from the beginning; the results of this method are so far rather promising) will be the surfaces the 'cyclists will be riding over - I figure rough ground is going to be pretty bad on 'cyclists in general. It may also be appropriate to have the side wheels raised a bit, so that they generally only come into contact with the ground when the bike is leaning one way or the other. But this is certainly something to keep in mind.

Originally Posted by malloyd

I don't think you can force bicycles into the role of *heavy* cavalry, or chariots. A bicyclist is never going to be able to match the power of a horse or team of horses - they are not going to get heavily armored warriors up to cavalry charge speeds, certainly not on anything but ideal ground.

Yeah, I think cavalry charges would require either a clockwork battery or enchanted 'cycle, as above. Of course, this being DF, some of the characters may well be unrealistically strong for their weight - someone with ST 20 may be able to manage a pretty impressive charge on a 'cycle. But those folk will probably be too rare to rely on for something like this.

Originally Posted by malloyd

Dragoons do seem like the most natural role, especially in a place that has a decent road network. Being able to move your troops around at forced march or faster speeds and have them arrive still in good enough shape to deploy and fight a battle is a major advantage.

Indeed. I knew from the beginning that 'cycle dragoons would be a good fit, the real question is if other cavalry/cavalry-adjacent roles could be filled by 'cyclists.

Originally Posted by malloyd

Light cavalry roles can probably work with mountain bikes, at least in it's more modern incarnations. Unlike a horse you can't really take your hands off the controls long enough for archery, but pistols work just fine.

I wonder if it might be worthwhile to be able to lock the handlebars into position, such that you lock in a trajectory and then continue straight (or at a slight turn, depending on the position you locked them into) while engaging with a bow or rifle. Or maybe have foot controls, such that you can get up to speed, move your feet into the control "stirrups," and coast while engaging, using your feet to steer.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Nope. In terms of recent history the first ATVs were standard trikes and my father had too many .....um "aggressive forward dismounts" to really foster confidence in the design. They disappeared from the marketplace relatively shortly.

Ah, useful to know. Yeah, I'm thinking standard trikes are pretty much nonexistent.


So, my current thoughts are as follows.

Scouts, light cavalry, and dragoons use reverse trikes - while I'm hoping to often have relatively-smooth surfaces for them to ride over, I think the mentioned issues of "training wheels" over rough terrain are significant enough to warrant simply not using them. Heavy cavalry, if available in cycle form (heavy cavalry would be more likely to use horses), would use either reverse trikes or quadricycles, armored and equipped with clockwork batteries. For logistics forces, I'm thinking recumbent quads hauling trailers, as mlangsdorf suggested. How does that sound?


As for an option to allow someone on a recumbent to fight, one stationary/ship-mounted weapon I intend to be in use in the setting is a repeating gear rifle (it has a hopper filled with bullets) on a swivel mount of sorts, attached to pedals that wind the rifle's mechanism (typically you have one person aiming the weapon and another working the pedals). Someone on a recumbent could have such a weapon mounted on it, aiming with one arm while controlling the 'cycle with the other, and having a lever (like the recharging shock infantry above) to swap from powering the 'cycle to powering the rifle. Essentially, get into position and up to speed, swap to powering the rifle, and attack while coasting. I suspect it ultimately wouldn't work very well, however.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Varyon

R

For logistics forces, I'm thinking recumbent quads hauling trailers, as mlangsdorf suggested. How does that sound?


.

Only practical if "clockwork batteries" with more usable power than a horse or mule are ubiquitous.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Only practical if "clockwork batteries" with more usable power than a horse or mule are ubiquitous.

The 'cycles would be directly human-powered, not reliant on clockwork batteries*. Horses, mules, and other beasts of burden would still be in use; the 'cycles (and their drivers) would be in place of some of the human porters in the logistics train. Basically, because riding a recumbent is more efficient than walking, you should be able to replace more than one human porter with a 'cyclist and his/her recumbent, reducing overall quantity of supplies (you've got to bring enough food and water for your porters) needing transported, and even though you'll probably have to pay a 'cyclist better than you would a porter, this should result in overall reduced costs. I don't think the 'cycles would be able to replace horses and mules when it comes to logistics, but I could be mistaken.

*A "clockwork battery" is an arrangement of gears, springs, etc that can be wound up to store energy, then release it to perform work - slamming a piston forward to propel a bullet, moving the chain on a bike to turn the wheels, etc.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Varyon

It may also be appropriate to have the side wheels raised a bit, so that they generally only come into contact with the ground when the bike is leaning one way or the other.

If you're going to try that, there's a better solution, which could be called "outriggers," or "running boards." You have a frame on each side of the 'cycle, with several wheels underneath it on each side. This weighs more, but is much stronger, capable of stopping a sideways fall. It also means the rider learns that it's there and does not try to go through narrow places that would snap off the stalks of training wheels.

I'm pretty sure that trying to use a ranged weapon while pedalling will have hopeless accuracy. Your troops will have to coast while firing, which imposes major limits on doing it while going uphill. One useful quality of horses is that they stay upright by themselves.