I’m genuinely curious why something that looked so neat back then phased out. Were they unsafe? what advantage was there over a motor bike?
In: 0
It’s hard to ride. In college I, and many other people, used unicycles all the time. But even with a year’s practice you fall a lot more than on a regular bike. (No Biden bike comments please.)
The monocycle takes the difficulty of the unicycle and adds the speed and danger of a motorbike. That’s upping the risk of injury for “look so neat”. That’s really not a super good idea.
Someone answered this awhile ago.
Essentially the problems were stopping at speed meant you ended up upside down. They was something about cornering. Not very fuel efficient. I think there was something about height restrictions.
But yeah, they looked dope.
The monocycle was no more then a gimick from the start, and still is. They are relatively hard to control as they move around a lot during acceleration and braking. The brake distance is also limited compared to a traditional two wheeled cycle. You typically also get a number of other issues like the weight, suspension, visability, etc. And there are basically no good advantages to the design other then the looks.
Monocycles were never widely adopted as modes of transportation. Many had been made individually by some people but there was never a company putting a monocycle into production. They were unsafe and they had no advantages over motorcycles or cars. They just looked cool.
They weren’t practical, they just looked cool going in a straight line. Some dudes made a working jet pack in the 1960s too, but it’s no wonder why those didn’t catch on.
Latest Answers