Well they have changed a lot. Just the general form of the frame and position of the components hasn‘t. You can see this in a lot of technology (especially mechanical)
Bicycles
Welcome to [email protected]
A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!
Community Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
-
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn.
-
No ads / spamming.
-
Ride bikes
Other cycling-related communities
Take a full-suspension carbon mtb with electric shifting, hydraulic brakes, tubeless tyres etc and compare it to 1895 Singer safety bike. A lot has changed! But of course with more simple designs there aren't that many bits to develop, yet probably every part has changed to some extent since those times.
Weight
Part of the reason they look so similar is because UCI banned recumbents as soon as they were invented
Not just recumbents. In the late 90s Kestral unveiled some super cool and aero road bike frames that did away with the classic dual triangle frame design entirely. UCI banned those as well and i will never not be salty about it
I don't even know what to say about people scared of a pennyfarthing. I guess they never saw a guy push a motorcycle fast as he can in 3rd gear clutch disengaged, and jump on when the engine fires after he dumps the clutch. (They took away kickers before electric start was reliable)