Live data from Hacker News

Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

rootsofprogress.org

131–140 of 515 posts

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

#131
post #37

>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…

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…

I dabbled in electronics, then electromechanics then mechanics.

I'm now convinced that almost no software engineer is worth its title unless he made some physical apparatus on any complexity. Even a pair of scissors.

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

#132
Many of these kinds of industrial-history questions can be answered along a few different angles:

* Trade and access to raw materials. This is often one that limits development and diffusion even if the concept is known, and for the bicycle, it's one of the biggest immediate factors. Trade deprivation can often be a factor in historical innovations as the market starts searching for substitutes.

* Education and basic research. The 19th century saw a second "printing revolution" because paper was getting cheaper, enabling the likes of dime novels and penny dreadfuls, but also making literacy a widespread phenomenon, with public schools appearing throughout the industrial world and academia gaining larger libraries and greater capability to specialize on logical-positivist STEM topics, rather than the classical education of nobility and clergy. Less reinvention means more effort towards innovation.

* Market readiness. You can't sell software if nobody has computers; and for manufactured goods the development of an urban lifestyle has to take place. None of the early bicycles do well on unpaved roads. Bicycle adoption trailed automobile adoption, since the latter gave the motivation to pave every street. In the late 19th century, systematic city sanitation policy was still a new innovation and large cities suffered from stinking rivers, open sewerage, and disposal methods that consisted of emptying a bucket out of a window. People were dressing for this reality in heavy suits or dresses and boots, while bicycle usage relies on being less encumbered(and that is still a factor even today).

Today the hype for rental e-scooters can be followed througn a similar series of developments: while scooters as toys have been around for about as long as bicycles, the early 70's saw polyurethane wheels introduced, and this made skating(on boards and in shoes) almost a new sport, since they were inexpensive and could reliably compress and keep rolling without stopping or shattering like clay or metal wheels; scooter wheels are bigger, but also benefited from this change. A few decades passed and Razor introduced the folding kick scooter concept to mass markets, making the scooter as easy to carry as a skateboard. With the last two decades we got better battery power density and smartphone diffusion, making the "dockless" rental scooter commercially viable, along with electric-powered versions of shoes, skateboards, bikes, etc. But there is somewhat of a market readiness issue, since while the potential is obvious, it's hard to use these devices safely on current streets, and there is no established etiquette to their use.

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

#133
There was still active research into why bicycles are stable as recently as 2011. Here's a talk about that research: https://youtu.be/YdtE3aIUhbU

If the bicycle was some sort of "obvious" machine, people wouldn't still be studying the basic stability mechanics 200 years later. Very few things are as simple as they seem. Even levers can get a bit complicated.

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

#134
post #100
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Good steel would only be strictly needed for axles. Bearings could have been polished and oiled wood. The frame, wood. The hinge of the front wheel, brass or another small bit of steel. Transmission could be a leather belt. Wheels, wood again. Would such a device somehow emulate a modern bicycle? Very likely. Would such a device be practical, reliable, fast, to say nothing of comfort? I greatly doubt it.

Right, that's how you could plausibly have made one or two, as a palace amusement, or a circus act. It's a little surprising this didn't happen (as far as I know).

But efficient enough to go some distance, reliable enough not to need a full-time repair-man, and cheap enough to be sold to people who didn't already own a horse & carriage? That needed lots more technology.

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

#135
post #81
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

"see the famous Antikythera mechanism" As a counterpoint see the marine chronometer for measuring longitude. Clocks had been around for centuries so easy right? [1] Making something strong/reliable is easy, making something precise is 'easy', making something strong/reliable and precise, oh and preferably lightweight is hard. You do have a good point about roads though. In fact in the UK the first push to tarmac the…

Even marine chronometers, once they were perfected, were very expensive, artisan pieces that had to be handmade.

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

#136
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.

Its missing the bar from the pedals to the back tire. If you sat on this bike, all your weight would rest on the joint under the seat, bending the front half of the frame away from the back tire, at least sending the pedals into the ground, if not snapping the frame outright.

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

#137

>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…

I have seen bicycles built using bamboo. I mostly agree with the assessment that the tech and need just wasn't there in antiquity, but I would definitely stress that it could have plausibly been built using the materials available.

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

#138

Bicycle was useless without paved roads. Horse was much more convenient. I have personal anecdote about these issues. As a kid in 1967 I made 250 km bicycle trip in two days. My father was amazed: "How this is possible? I made exactly the same trip in 1929 also in two days, but I had a very good horse galloping half the time." We were both camping at the same forest at halfway point too..

I think it's less about the road quality and more about pneumatic tires. Same for cars. Would you rather drive a car on a dirt road with modern tires, or on a highway, directly on metal rims? The answer seems obvious to me...

You do not understand. These was no road perse in 1929, just two deep grooves for carriages and cars. It was impossible to bike on that. The first coast-to-coast american biked on railroad tracks. They were bumpy obviously but evidently much better than any roads.

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

#139

One possibly overlooked factor: the nature of travel has changed dramatically in the last 200 years. Right up until World War 1, my ancestors literally had no reason to ever go more than ten miles from home, and even that was rare. The entire extended family lived within a two mile radius. This was because they were all farmers, and farmers didn't need to travel often. Furthermore, if you did travel, well, you alread…

Plagiarism. Thanks dude.

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

#140
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.

Picture the downward force generated by sitting on the bicycle causing the rear axle and bottom bracket to spread away from each other, causing the seatstays to break at the seat tube. This is what chainstays prevent on a complete frame.
Post reply on HN