A similar challenge: draw an ant.
Velocipedia
91–100 of 110 posts
Re: Velocipedia
#92I was so disappointed when I realized these images were not real! Awesome project.
Re: Velocipedia
#93Earlier 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?
Why should I feel threatened. Check tgb's comment for further clarification.
Re: Velocipedia
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the purpose? To reduce torsion of the rear axle?
To form the triangle that locates the rear axle. Without it, the seat stays (?) would flex and break. Most bicycle frames are two triangles sharing the seat tube, making it strong and rigid.
But at least that bike is theoretically possible if it was built rigidly enough that it didn't flex too bad.
The interesting thing was that many of the drawings were not physically possible at all, like connecting the chain to the front wheels, or some other bizarre mistakes.
Re: Velocipedia
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
How dare he correct someone who already tried to correct someone else (and was wrong). Why does calm clarification threaten you?
Why should I feel threatened. Check tgb's comment for further clarification.
The fact that tgb "truly believes" the first, and erroneous, clarification was more useful means nothing to me. The first comment was simply incorrect. The impetus was to say someone was wrong. This was corrected by someone else, in a very civil manner, and you called that person a nazi. Grow up and leave meaningful comments or else don't bother.
Re: Velocipedia
#96These have great metaphorical power for software engineering slidedecks. Not sure whether they best illustrate 'emergent design', 'the difference between a pretty UI and a good UX', or 'the difference between giving the customer what they asked for vs. what they need.'
Re: Velocipedia
#97Disappointed this isn't about velociraptors :(
Re: Velocipedia
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
To form the triangle that locates the rear axle. Without it, the seat stays (?) would flex and break. Most bicycle frames are two triangles sharing the seat tube, making it strong and rigid.
But at least that bike is theoretically possible if it was built rigidly enough that it didn't flex too bad. The interesting thing was that many of the drawings were not physically possible at all, like connecting the chain to the front wheels, or some other bizarre mistakes.
> But at least that bike is theoretically possible if it was built rigidly enough that it didn't flex too bad.
True, but a construction would stand a good chance of being too brittle and subject to catastrophic failure during riding involving changing loads (or bumpy roads).
Re: Velocipedia
#99The first bike is missing its chain stays, the bars connecting the bottom bracket to the rear axle and the ends of the seat stays. Wikipedia has a nice diagram with the names of all the parts of a bicycle [1]. There are real bike designs that have a monofork (a one-sided fork, e.g. the Cannondale "lefty"), a monostay, or a solid body instead of top & down tubes (e.g. many folding bikes or the extremely aero Ventum On…
Another fun fact about chain stays is that modern bikes are not symmetrical on either side of the vertical plane. The drive-side chain stay is noticeably thicker on the right hand side (drive side) to deal with the very high stresses in this area. This photo shows this asymmetry quite clearly: http://velonews.competitor.com/files/2010/09/IB2010_cervelo1...
That looks to me like the non-drive-side is thicker, rather than the drive side.
It also depends on the bicycle. I've got a '53 Schwinn three speed that's made out of what seems like gas pipe and it's perfectly symmetrical. A number of my old steel road frames look similarly, and so does my current titanium road frame.
Re: Velocipedia
#100For the psychology research he mentions, there is a paper, Rebecca Lawson, "The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work", https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~rlawson/PDF_Files/L-M&C-2006.pd...
> The participants were given a single sheet of paper, folded in half. The bicycle drawing task (see Figure 1) and the forced-choice task (see Figure 2) were on the top and bottom of the first side, respectively, and a questionnaire was on the other side. First, the participants were asked to rate their functional knowledge of bicycles on a scale from 1 (“I know little or nothing about how bicycles work”) to 7 (“I have a thorough knowledge of how bicycles work”). Next, they were asked to draw the pedals, chain, and extra frame onto a sketch of a bicycle (see Figure 1). Then, they were asked to select which of four alternative pictures was correct for the bicycle frame, pedals, and chain (see Figure 2).
> Over 40% of nonexperts made at least one error in both the drawing and the forced-choice tasks (see Table 1). In this and the subsequent experiments, error scores were almost as high on the forced-choice task as on the freehand drawing task, indicating that production problems were not the primary cause of people’s deficiencies.