Sorry Foxfan
I know, but this is interesting.
"There are, more especially on the Continent, critics who advocate the use of the folding cycle for military purposes. I cannot but believe that these must mostly be people who have never ridden a folding bicycle. It is heavy, lacks rigidity and strength, entails loss of time in folding and unfolding, and even when it has been folded and is strapped on to the back in such a manner, by the way, that it cannot possibly be unstrapped except by the assistance of a comrade, it is the most unwieldy burden I have ever carried.
The advantages claimed for it, even if real, would hardly compensate for these drawbacks; but the advantages are theoretical rather than practical. It is claimed that cyclists when they wish to cross fields, etc., will dismount, fold their bicycles and stow them on, their backs. I was once the proud possessor of a folding bicycle, which I used for experimental purposes, and I can assure you that fur half a dozen excellent reasons nothing would induce me to take one on service, or if I did it would never be folded except when the spring got out of order and it collapsed automatically, which is one of its unexpected habits.
THE CYCLE IN WARFARE: ITS POTENCY AS A STRATEGICAL AND TACTICAL FACTOR.
By Captain. A. H. TRAPMANN, Adjutant, 25th (Cyclists) Battalion (County of London) The London Regiment. 16th December, 1908"
Not exactly a glowing endorsement of bikes for use in war, by an officer in a cycling battalion.
The lightweight bike for airborne forces in WW2 looks more like a modern bike though.
Folding bike is similar to the bike my brother got for nowt in the '60's apart from the folding aspect.
Brings back nightmares of removing cotter pins to get cranks off to grease BB bearings, and the fact there's not a bit on the bike that is aluminium. it's all heavy steel.
We're spoiled with modern bikes.