Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#61

Post by atoav » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

Roads were a necessety for the invention of bicycles. And by roads I mean roads with a certain standard.

Another necessety was a certain type of middle class which would actually desire individual transport. If you are a worker why would you prefer a bicycle over a wagon that transports all tools? If you are an aristocrat, why prefering a bicycle over some comfortable carriage, especially when you don’t even know the way?

It is no accident, that the bike was invented by a certain type of rich middle class in cities with good infrastructure. More as a toy first (basically a horizontal bar with two wheels and you had to push with the feet), but more serious later

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#62

Post by afterburner » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

robin_reala wrote: post #28

giobox wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen a human ride a penny farthing? I don’t think dreadful is overstating it. Sure it made the most of available technology at the time, but one doesn’t need to be expert in bikes to see why this design died. Just getting on a Penny Farthing can be problematic, given it tries to compensate for 1:1 drive by using an enormous front wheel.

Yep, there’s a bunch of late-Victorian enthusiasts who ride them around London every year: https://pennyfarthingclub.com/ They have obvious faults of course, but they were around for 15-20 years, were better than their predecessors, and didn’t kill off the concept of the bicycle in general to stop future development. That’s enough to give them some credit at least!

I mean, people ride unicycles too. But there's a reason most don't.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#63

Post by jandrese » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #49

henryfjordan wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An average human can peak above 1HP for short amounts of time (think sprinting). They definitely cannot maintain that. I think the Horse Power was defined at a sustainable rate for the horse. 1 HP = 746 watts and most people on a bike would cruise in 100-250 watts range. The top cyclists can maintain more like 400 watts https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2018/06/how-does-your-...

A horse peaks around 15+ horsepower depending on age and breed they can significantly exceed it. They also generally average above 1HP for long stretches. 1hp is at best one measure of the average consistent power output of an average horse doing a full day of work every day for months. Or about the equivalent of a person doing 0.05 to 0.1 hp.

The story I heard was that a horse is good for about 0.5-0.6HP continuously. The farmer lied about his horse.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#64

Post by ghaff » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #50

Excel_Wizard wrote: post #29

>Yet it was a simple mechanical invention As a mechanical engineer, this statement baffled me. All manufactured technology exists in the context of the manufacturing capabilities available to the designer. The manufacturing tech had to be tremendously complicated before a decent bike could be made. Hollow steel tubes aren't simple. Ball bearings aren't simple. There is a reductionist viewpoint among "theory" people t…

Yes, but I don’t think that was the factor here. Ancient technology was astoundingly precise (see the famous Antikythera mechanism). I think the problem was roads. If you combine bad (or nonexistent) roads with airless hard tires, the result is much much less useful than any modern bike on any modern road. The first bikes were indeed wooden with wooden wheels. No ball bearings, no hollow steel tubes etc. But streets.…

Both factors are relevant. Modern mountain bikes with pneumatic tires (for example) would have been very useful going back to medieval times when roads were pretty rough. And, as you say, given streets, even low-grade bikes can be useful.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#65

Post by giobox » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC

simulate wrote: post #44

In 100 years will we wonder why recumbent bicycles took so long to catch on? MIT's David Gordon Wilson, the writer of the excellent book Bicycling Science, had been advocating for recumbents as a more efficient design to replace traditional modern bicycles for decades. http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-designer-inventor-author-bike-b... and https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/bicycling-science-third-editi...

While efficient conversion of rider input to forward motion is obviously important in bicycles, it’s not the only attribute that matters. Recumbent bikes make efficiency gains here in some riding scenarios at the cost of a great many other attributes, which is why they have never really caught on.

Also, they are really hard for young people to pop wheelies on, and that’s important too :)

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#66

Post by Animats » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC

Excel_Wizard wrote: post #29

>Yet it was a simple mechanical invention As a mechanical engineer, this statement baffled me. All manufactured technology exists in the context of the manufacturing capabilities available to the designer. The manufacturing tech had to be tremendously complicated before a decent bike could be made. Hollow steel tubes aren't simple. Ball bearings aren't simple. There is a reductionist viewpoint among "theory" people t…

Right. And one point that cannot be stressed enough.

Good steel, in quantity, only goes back to 1880.

Lots of things that "could have been built in antiquity" foundered on that basic fact. Before Bessemer, steel was as exotic as titanium is now.

The alternatives are not good. Cast iron? Too heavy and too brittle. Wrought iron? Maybe, but not that great. Lead? Too soft. Brass? Could work, but expensive. A king's kid might have had a brass bicycle.

If the iron workers of Cizhou, China, who had an air-blown steel making process by about 1100 AD, had made the next step to a Bessemer converter, history would have been completely different. They were close. Right idea, limited steelmaking capability, existing iron industry. Coal was available, but apparently not too easily.

The few places in the world with easy access to both coal and iron ore started the Industrial Revolution. Then came railroads, and the resources didn't have to be so close.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#67

Post by kwindla » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:03 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #43

SilasX wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm regularly imagining what I would actually be able to accomplish if I went back in time 200-2000 years. Details are always the problem. It reminds you how little you know, but also helps you to form a background interest in engineering, metallurgy, geology, chemistry, etc.

Mark Twain’s “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court” remains my favorite (and very funny) exploration of this.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#68

Post by acqq » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:03 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #49

henryfjordan wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An average human can peak above 1HP for short amounts of time (think sprinting). They definitely cannot maintain that. I think the Horse Power was defined at a sustainable rate for the horse. 1 HP = 746 watts and most people on a bike would cruise in 100-250 watts range. The top cyclists can maintain more like 400 watts https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2018/06/how-does-your-...

A horse peaks around 15+ horsepower depending on age and breed they can significantly exceed it. They also generally average above 1HP for long stretches. 1hp is at best one measure of the average consistent power output of an average horse doing a full day of work every day for months. Or about the equivalent of a person doing 0.05 to 0.1 hp.

It all comes from Watt trying to calculate how to sell his machines to the owners of the mines, who depended before on ponies:

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/103_fall2003.web.dir/Chris_Peter...

"Watt was working with ponies lifting coal at a coal mine, and he wanted a way to talk about the power available from one of these animals. He found that, on average, a mine pony could do 22,000 foot-pounds of work in a minute. He then increased that number by 50 percent and pegged the measurement of horsepower at 33,000 foot-pounds of work in one minute."

"A horse exerting 1 horsepower can raise 330 pounds of coal 100 feet in a minute"

"his business partner Matthew Boulton standardized the figure at 33,000.

The number wasn't quite scientific: Watt looked for horses at peak performance, and for his purposes, it didn't truly matter how accurate his measurement of a horse's power was as long as it was close enough to be believable. Much like his engine, the metric struck."

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#69

Post by SilasX » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:03 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #58

Retra wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm regularly imagining what I would actually be able to accomplish if I went back in time 200-2000 years. Details are always the problem. It reminds you how little you know, but also helps you to form a background interest in engineering, metallurgy, geology, chemistry, etc.

You have to make the machine to make the machine that allows you to make your final product. You would still have the advantage of being able to beeline past technological dead ends, but you still have to build up the industrial base. Even then you run into problems with chemicals simply not being available on an industrial scale because previously there was no need for them. The world is a massively complex intercon…

Related quote from the computer game Alpha Centauri:

"Technological advance is an inherently iterative process. One does not simply take sand from the beach and produce a [computer chip]. We use crude tools to fashion better tools, and then our better tools to fashion more precise tools, and so on. Each minor refinement is a step in the process, and all of the steps must be taken."

https://www.quotes.net/mquote/2325

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#70

Post by sk5t » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #50

Excel_Wizard wrote: post #29

>Yet it was a simple mechanical invention As a mechanical engineer, this statement baffled me. All manufactured technology exists in the context of the manufacturing capabilities available to the designer. The manufacturing tech had to be tremendously complicated before a decent bike could be made. Hollow steel tubes aren't simple. Ball bearings aren't simple. There is a reductionist viewpoint among "theory" people t…

Yes, but I don’t think that was the factor here. Ancient technology was astoundingly precise (see the famous Antikythera mechanism). I think the problem was roads. If you combine bad (or nonexistent) roads with airless hard tires, the result is much much less useful than any modern bike on any modern road. The first bikes were indeed wooden with wooden wheels. No ball bearings, no hollow steel tubes etc. But streets.…

Would a wooden bicycle, with not-very-freely-spinning wheels, and a bone-jarring ride, be worth the considerable expense of purchasing? Would it even be better than walking and/or using a wheelbarrow? Doesn't the thing produced have to rise above a certain level of utility to merit making some copies of it? For human-scale power, I am not sure a bicycle without bearings or pneumatic tires works other than as a curiosity.