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

Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

rootsofprogress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 515 posts

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

#121

Post by thedogeye »

I think the post downplays the value of a horse. Horses are incredible. Not only do they provide transport that is even better than bicycle (you don't have to pedal, and they can go over almost any terrain) but they also provide labor. Indeed, horses actually generate a net surplus of labor above the labor required to grow food to feed them. That is, a farmer with a horse can grow far more food than a farmer without a horse, even after all the food the horse eats.

If I could safely and legally keep a horse in front of my house and office I would totally get rid of my bike.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

SilasX wrote: post #19
otabdeveloper2 wrote: post #10

Bad 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.

Relatedly, my favorite example of "why didn't this get invented before" is wheeled luggage which (from what I've read) wasn't sold until 1989, even though the wheelbarrow (the same basic idea) has been around since prehistoric times. IIRC, the reason it didn't appear sooner was a combination of a) getting reliable castors[1] for wheels that small is a non-trivial problem, and b) there wasn't much demand for it until…

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by chrisdhoover »

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…

It is reductionist. Bicycles are complex machines, simple to us now because we can view examples and understand them readily. But to create one from nothing requires imagination. He hints at it with the cotton gin and flying shuttle. He also discounts the whole balance thing stating that you balance on a horse. Not true you sit on a horse you don't balance on one. Further the horse is firmly planted on the ground on four legs. It is not obvious that someone could balance on two wheels. It seems that the foot powered “walking” bike was the development that taught us to balance.

What bothers me with such speculative and unsupported history is now it will likely be thought true. Everyone believes that there were two sleeps per night in the past or that doctors brought women to orgasm to relieve stress. These ideas have little substantiated documentation and are hard to believe yet they are repeated by know-it-alls frequently.

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

#124

Post by Balgair »

scrooched_moose wrote: post #109
sinker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who had tried to make anything, especially anything original and with mechanical components knows this to be true. Even simple machines require a lot of forethought, planning, and iteration to be able to perform consistently and reliably. When we see an every day object like a bicycle we take it for granted and think that it must be obvious. But that couldn't be further from the truth. Take even just a single…

The Toaster Project is a good example of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODzO7Lz_pw https://www.amazon.com/Toaster-Project-Attempt-Electric-Appl... He attempted to build the basic components of a toaster from scratch. Smelting metal, molding plastic, etc. The book is a tough recommendation because he sortof gives up on the later parts and limps to a finish, but overall its a fascinating look at how difficult t…

HTME on Youtube also goes into the process of making seemingly simple things and the time and effort it takes: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfIqCzQJXvYj9ssCoHq327g

One of the more famous videos is where it takes them ~$1500 and 6 months to make a chicken sandwich and they still used a lot of equipment that they didn't make themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URvWSsAgtJE

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

#125

Post by ajuc »

nordsieck wrote: post #102
ajuc wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need steel tubes for a bicycle, you don't even need steel at all. In fact there were (and still are) wooden bicycles and they work fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_bicycle As for ball bearings these are incremental improvements not a necessity (see horse chariots and carriages with wheels used for millenia before we had ball bearings). For another example see medieval wooden windmills - all cogs a…

> As for ball bearings these are incremental improvements not a necessity (see horse chariots and carriages with wheels used for millenia before we had ball bearings). For another example see medieval wooden windmills - all cogs and bearings made from wood with some animal fat and skin for bushings and lubrication - worked well enough for centuries. ... >> Anyone accustomed to modern practice finds it hard to believe…

It would be less efficient, but still workable. Even just wood on wood is sufficient. Proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcvFpbh2fjE [1]

I think people vastly underestimate what you can do with very simple "naive" technology.

[1] Yeah it uses aluminium spacers on the chain, but you can do a bicycle without a chain.

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

#126

Post by davesmith1983 »

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #110
davesmith1983 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've ridden many different types of bicycle from fixed gears, single speed mountain bikes and more traditional mountain bikes and racing bikes. Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) and the handling is atrocious. Yes they are maybe more efficient but they are not pleasant to ride. TBH the current design is efficient enough, is well understood both in terms of the technolo…

>Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) and the handling is atrocious. I disagree. Some of them certainly are 'below eye level', but that is an awfully broad criticism of the group as a whole. I ride a LongBike Slipstream. The length of the bike is LONGER then a Smart Fortwo. I sit eye-level with almost every sedan I've encountered. SUV's and raised pickup trucks are indee…

> "Efficient enough" ? All of the land-speed records for human-powered vehicles are held by recumbents. http://www.ihpva.org/home/

I am not trying to break the land speed record on the way to work. I just want to get there in one piece.

The point I was making is just because something is on paper technically better there are other considerations, for someone that commutes regularly being able to go to the local bicycle shop and pick up a spare whatever is more important to me than any perceived efficiencies.

I own a fixed gear with some rather fancy kit on it. Despite the simplicity of the bike, getting replacement parts requires me having to order things online. The cheap 1990s Marin Hawk Hill mountain bike I cycle to work on, I can literally get parts for it anywhere and an be fixed with a set of allen keys and a spanner.

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

#127

Post by my_username_is_ »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #106
jaclaz wrote: post #17

As a side-side note, ever asked someone (friends, family, etc.) to draw a bycicle by heart? This guy did: http://www.gianlucagimini.it/prototypes/velocipedia.html

This is cool. Except it's driving me nuts that I can't figure out what's wrong with the first picture, or at least why it would immediately break.

It's missing the chain stays (a section of the frame linking the frame near the rear wheel to the pedal area). There would be a large cantilever arm trying to support a large part of the rider's weight, and it would likely break under the stress.

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

#129

Post by evilolive »

brookhaven_dude wrote: post #54

Not really: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zHHPCAao4k

could there be any simpler explanations like a modern renovation of the temple where this was added?

are there other recorded appearances of this modern-looking but very-early bicycle in the region? why was there a gap in its existence until it was re-introduced in the 20th century?

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

#130

Post by mayoff »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #106
jaclaz wrote: post #17

As a side-side note, ever asked someone (friends, family, etc.) to draw a bycicle by heart? This guy did: http://www.gianlucagimini.it/prototypes/velocipedia.html

This is cool. Except it's driving me nuts that I can't figure out what's wrong with the first picture, or at least why it would immediately break.

It's missing the chainstays, which are the tubes from the bottom bracket (where the pedals attach) to the rear axle.

The seatstays (the tubes from under the seat to the rear axle) are only connected to the seat tube with a small weld. When you pedal, you're using the top part of the chain to pull the rear axle toward the pedals. This force is going to break the weld connecting the seatstays to the seat tube.

Note that a chain can't push, only pull, so the bottom part of the chain cannot counterbalance this force.

Post reply on HN