Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Velocipedia

gianlucagimini.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 110 posts

Re: Velocipedia

#51

Post by a3n »

userbinator wrote: post #20

bicycles facing left: 75 % bicycles facing right: 25 % That's unexpected. For some reason I'd think more would be facing right than left, and if I were to draw one it would probably be facing right too. I don't know why but it seems to feel more "natural". I just Googled images for "bicycle" and 32 out of the first 40 were facing right. I noticed all the renders were facing right as well, even if the original drawing…

Maybe because we read left to right. Pointed to the right looks like progress. "Good" charts go "up and to the right."

Re: Velocipedia

#52

Post by LeifCarrotson »

ajuc wrote: post #29
amelius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the front wheel is also missing that beam on a correct bicycle. Edit: implying: if the front wheel doesn't need it, why would the rear wheel?

Front wheel is attached to a thick tube that is almost vertical (weight tries to compress the tube), and that tube is attached to another thick tube throught a wide strong pivot that keeps the angle between the tubes constant. Back wheel is attached to two thin rods at 45 degreee angle. Weight tries to push the seat down and push the back wheel away (to increase the angle). That's why we need another tube to hold the…

Also, the "chainstay" provides rigidity against the tension created by the rider on the top half of the chain, and the force of the wheel pushing the bike forward, which can be prodigious!

PS your English is fine! Only noticed a throught->through typo.

Re: Velocipedia

#53

Post by obj-g »

rawTruthHurts wrote: post #41
logicrook wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renders also mean drawings. Scott Robertson's book "How to render" does not explain how to press the render button in Blender, it explains how to actually draw (render) a concept art.

We already had grammar nazis. I guess it's time for the semantics nazis!

How dare he correct someone who already tried to correct someone else (and was wrong). Why does calm clarification threaten you?

Re: Velocipedia

#54

Post by ccozan »

ranko wrote: post #33
Zarel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually turn by leaning in the correct direction. This is actually the usual way to turn if you're no-hand biking. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-No-Handed-on-a-Bike

It's the usual way to turn when using your hands too - in fact, you (subconsciously) turn your handlebars the "wrong" way when cornering on a bike ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering ). This is very counterintuitive and discussing it is a good way to start arguments...

I thought that countersteering is only for motorcycles?

But then , cite "The entire sequence goes largely unnoticed by most riders, which is why some assert that they do not do it", end cite, is most probably true.

Re: Velocipedia

#55

Post by pmontra »

gggggggg wrote: post #3

I was looking on my phone and didn't actually see the one by the doctor. Was it there?

There are 4 of them. 3rd, 10th on the right, 11th on the left and 3rd to last on the right. It's "medico" in Italian, it could be "dottore" but it's a more general term.

Re: Velocipedia

#56

Post by Someone »

amelius wrote: post #9
gggggggg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No frame between rear wheel and front chainring. No strength.

But the front wheel is also missing that beam on a correct bicycle. Edit: implying: if the front wheel doesn't need it, why would the rear wheel?

It doesn't really _need_ it; the seat stay could be designed to be stronger, but there's more of your weight on the back wheel than on the front wheel, so the seat stay would have to be stronger and, hence, 'fatter' than the fork.

And, since the angle between vertical and the seat stay tends to be larger than that between vertical and front fork, the seat stay already would need to be a bit fatter (the fork is relatively more compressed and relatively less bent than the seat stay)

Also, the force you exert on the chain when riding the bike tries to bend the seat stay, too. That, too, would require a stronger seat stay.

However, there is a better (in the sense that it makes the frame stronger at the same weight or gives you a lighter frame of the same strength): the chain stay. It introduces a triangle in the structure, and triangles are strong.

Re: Velocipedia

#57

Post by amadvance »

buro9 wrote: post #40
LoSboccacc wrote: post #31

it's hard to imagine people getting a bicycle this much wrong http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gian... not that I'd draw it with perfect mechanical fidelity, but there are bicycle defining parts missing there.

That's not very wrong, it's just missing things (rear triangle, drivetrain). At least you could ride downhill on it (though stopping may be an issue).

I would say it's one of few that could not break as soon you get on :)

It really looks like as a history bicycle, where you used foots to push.

http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/064/812/iFF/hobby-hors...

Re: Velocipedia

#58

Post by Someone »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #31

it's hard to imagine people getting a bicycle this much wrong http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gian... not that I'd draw it with perfect mechanical fidelity, but there are bicycle defining parts missing there.

For comparison, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle#1817_... also has bicycle defining parts missing, but we call it an early bicycle, anyways.

Re: Velocipedia

#59

Post by tgb »

obj-g wrote: post #53
rawTruthHurts wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already had grammar nazis. I guess it's time for the semantics nazis!

How dare he correct someone who already tried to correct someone else (and was wrong). Why does calm clarification threaten you?

I truly believe that the renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful than the 'renders can mean any kind of drawing (even though it's clear from context that the writer meant computer 3D rendered)' clarification. Not that the second one was useless, but calling the photoshop point 'wrong' is way over doing it.

Re: Velocipedia

#60

Post by randlet »

ccozan wrote: post #54
ranko wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the usual way to turn when using your hands too - in fact, you (subconsciously) turn your handlebars the "wrong" way when cornering on a bike ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering ). This is very counterintuitive and discussing it is a good way to start arguments...

I thought that countersteering is only for motorcycles? But then , cite "The entire sequence goes largely unnoticed by most riders, which is why some assert that they do not do it", end cite, is most probably true.

You definitely countersteer on bicycles too!
Post reply on HN