Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
rootsofprogress.org
Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
1–10 of 515 posts
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#2Same for steam engines: it turns out Watt spent most of his effort on getting components manufactured and having the associated manufacturing processes developed. The basic idea of the steam engine had been around for a long time prior. You can ask the same question of Romans and electricity. They had all the necessary tech: glass for insulators, acid for batteries, metallurgy for wire etc.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#3If i had to point to a specific technical factor, it's pneumatic tires.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#4Why did we wait so long after the modern bicycle to see it as transportation rather than recreation? Awareness of climate change maybe? It seems that a) bicycles were not primary transportation even before cars, and b) the push to replace cars with bikes could have happened at any point, even before cars took off. So why now?
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#5>In light of this, I think the deepest explanation is in general economic and cultural factors. Regarding economic factors, it seems that there needs to be a certain level of surplus to support the culture-wide research and development effort that creates inventions.
A related concept is the "adjacent possible" coined by Steven Johnson:
https://www.google.com/search?q="adjacent+possible"+steven+j...
(Linked a google search query because many "adjacent possible" articles are behind a paywall and can't tell which will be visible to you.)
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#6So it looks like there were attempts but they had fatal design flaws and technology (metallurgy) was immature.
One question raised is why didn’t we see a trike come about before the bike?
It’s more stable and propulsion via direct front pedal isn’t as awkward as the front pedal bike.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#7Why did we wait so long for the elevator? Circular dependency and incentive. Combining a ratchet with a pulley is incredibly simple and both have been around since the ancient Greeks. But with a few exceptions, it didn't make sense to build buildings big enough to need elevators. I mean, how would you get up and down the buildings? Answer: an elevator... but it didn't exist yet... hence, nobody could imagine how to get up and down tall buildings efficiently. That, and steel-framed buildings that could support themselves over 10 or so floors didn't come into vogue until after the renaissance.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#8If i had to point to a specific technical factor, it's pneumatic tires.
I've, in some past article linked on (I think) HN read the answer to this very question as advanced, efficient bearings (so, the ability to produce finely accurate small metal objects).
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#9Same for steam engines: it turns out Watt spent most of his effort on getting components manufactured and having the associated manufacturing processes developed. The basic idea of the steam engine had been around for a long time prior. You can ask the same question of Romans and electricity. They had all the necessary tech: glass for insulators, acid for batteries, metallurgy for wire etc.
Reminds me of John Salvatier's point about the "surprising level of detail" in reality, i.e. yes, the idea that "steam can drive a wheel" is simple enough, but you have to get a lot of small details right that don't make it into textbooks like reliable manufacturing tolerances.
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#10Bad quality article.
There's a simple answer: ball bearings are relatively high tech that requires lots of innovation to come together at the same time.