Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plagiarism. Thanks dude.
It's a bot that hijacks comments, see this (and upvote, I guess, for the moderators to take notice): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20445029
Thanks.
Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
161–170 of 515 posts
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No, James Watt behaved like a sincere merchant, and he made a more powerful engine than he actually measured, in order to avoid making it again in case he complains that the engine is too underpowered.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Since there's no derailleur, the chain would do a good job of resisting that force (though since it's only on one side, maybe it wouldn't be enough, and the wheel/seat stays would twist)
Though when you start to pedal, the chain would tend to pull in and bend the seatstays, but there should be some level of force that is less than the opposite force caused by the rider's weight, so this bike could work under light pedal pressure.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#164Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#165>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 seems this comment was made before reading the whole of the article, which goes into much detail about the invention and the many iterations that were needed to arrive at the current design.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Bamboo-frame bicycles exist today as a fashionable item, and as far as I can tell without having ridden one, they work for practical purposes just as well as metal-frame ones. I suspect you could make a perfectly acceptable modern bicycle with 18th century technology, albeit not as durable. Metal axles aren't much of a problem. Light and strong wheels are trickier, but you could get away with solid wooden ones, or em…
> expensive, flimsy bicycles are completely useless in a world with poor roads and deep wealth inequality.
You make a last great point with this.
Without paved roads, rubber, decent springs; all of the shortcomings are amplified. The gear drive works, but if you have a wood wheel, with a wood axle, w/ wood cogs, the tolerances to be both comfortable and effective on cobblestone or dirt would be troublesome.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is ridiculous. Bicycles were near 50 years old by 1930. There was a ton of riding done before nicely paved roads were everywhere. The Tour De France is happening right now, it was first run in 1903 and covered 1500 miles, with riders doing up to 250 miles in one day.
Bicycles do fine on dirt roads & trails, pavement is absolutely not required. Bicycles have adapted to better roads over time but they never required glass smooth modern paved roads.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#168>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…
This is addressed in the article to some degree. Wheels and the frame can be made of wood. Wheels can be lined with iron or bronze plating. Ball bearings are not strictly necessary. Chain can be replaced with belts or some alternative transfer mechanism. The result would not be as comfy as a road bike today, but it would be a functional vehicle.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#169In 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...
First mover advantage? Upright bikes are everywhere, and I could easily find one to learn, plus they're cheap. Recumbent simply don't offer enough perceived advantage to justify the investment to even try one out.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often wonder as I am building/fixing something (often my bicycle as it happens) and I happen to toss an extra screw in the trash how miraculous a simple screw of this type would have been to a middle-ages craftsman. The precision of keeping all those threads perfectly spaced is one thing, but the technology to make them in such volume at these sizes (often quite tiny), and in volumes so as to make them essentially…
I recently read "The Perfectionists", which is a very readable book on the topic of how vital precision and machine tools was to the industrial revolution and the material world we live in. It really gets to the bottom of how the advances in our material capabilities and the invention of precision went hand in hand. https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B072BFJB3Z/
Next: nano-tech