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

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Velocipedia

#101

Post by J-dawg »

msandford wrote: post #99
J-dawg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a good point! I completely got it the wrong way around and didn't look at the image properly before posting it. The non drive side must be thicker because of the torsional force on the frame when pushing on the pedals. Too late to edit my post!

Re: Velocipedia

#103

Post by tgb »

logicrook wrote: post #67
tgb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful Except 'the clarification' is wrong. If you have a render, it doesn't mean it's 3D. It can be 3D, 2D, a mixture of both (last is probably the most frequent). It's a render. This question can be more important than you think, since people may have the wrong expectations when they get a 'render' from the industry. Good post-processing (color balance, a bit…

I disagree that it was wrong. A render is clearly a term with multiple meanings, depending on context, and in the context and audience here most readers will take it to mean 3D rendering . That there is a context where the statements are true does not mean that the statements weren't making the wrong impression in the readers here. Check out the author's reply, clearly indicating that they were surprised at the clarification.

Re: Velocipedia

#104

Post by sundarurfriend »

jadyoyster wrote: post #47
deprave wrote: post #46

I'm curious, why does he call them "men's bicycle"?

A "men's bicycle" is a bike with a diamond frame (as opposed to step-through for a woman's bicycle), but it's a silly name really. More to do with comfort vs. performance than gender.

> More to do with comfort vs. performance than gender.

Could you expand on that? Which bikes are on the comfort side and which ones on the performance side of the tradeoff?

Re: Velocipedia

#105

Post by _delirium »

salmonellaeater wrote: post #26

The 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…

As another example, here's a 19th-century bicycle design without a chain stay. Not necessarily a good design, but it was actually built and ridden: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BicyclePlymouth.jpg

Re: Velocipedia

#106

Post by Strom »

coldtea wrote: post #79
rawTruthHurts wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Semantics nazis"? Quite a roundabout way for describing people that care for the accurate use of terms... Is assigning random personal meanings to words a thing now? I mean, talk about putting the p...y on the chainwax!

Words are tricky. They don't have one true definition. What's accurate for one, may not be for another. Words have multiple, sometimes incompatible meanings, depending on context of discussion and participants. It's not really about completely random meanings that differ from person to person, but more about slightly different meanings that differ from culture group to culture group.

I see more and more that people attempt to devalue & derail statements made by others by making an offensive remark about semantics, instead of attempting to understand what was said.

It would be convenient if everybody used a single definition book for every word, however we don't live in such a reality. A "semantic nazi" is a person who goes around and tries to convert everyone to use their culture group's definition book. [1]

--

[1] I want to be clear that in this specific case the "render" definition extension was pointed out in a respectable manner and I wouldn't pin the nazi name on them for it.

Re: Velocipedia

#107

Post by DatBear »

obj-g wrote: post #95
rawTruthHurts wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not just that the first clarification was more useful. The first clarification was correct. The comment said the renders are beautiful, obviously meaning rendering in in the 3D rendering[1] sense. The clarification stated that they weren't rendered in that sense because the author used photoshop, which doesn't render in that sense.

Then the second clarification stated that rendering also meant drawing... and while it does, it also has a specific meaning within 3D representations which doesn't really fit here.

Nothing to call anyone a nazi over but the second clarification wasn't needed or useful.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_rendering

Re: Velocipedia

#108

Post by anotherron »

Houshalter wrote: post #94
mcguire wrote: post #85

Earlier 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.

Connecting the chain to the front wheel is certainly possible. For example, take a look at the Cruzbike http://www.bentrideronline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/...

Re: Velocipedia

#109

Post by kybernetikos »

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…

I think I'd draw it facing left because I'd draw the front wheel first, and since I'm used to writing left-right, the back wheel would go to the right of it.

Re: Velocipedia

#110

Post by jadyoyster »

sundarurfriend wrote: post #104
jadyoyster wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "men's bicycle" is a bike with a diamond frame (as opposed to step-through for a woman's bicycle), but it's a silly name really. More to do with comfort vs. performance than gender.

> More to do with comfort vs. performance than gender. Could you expand on that? Which bikes are on the comfort side and which ones on the performance side of the tradeoff?

A diamond frame is stiffer and lighter, but you can only mount it by swinging your leg over the saddle or over the handlebars. A step-through frame is heavier but easier to mount.
Post reply on HN