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

371–380 of 515 posts

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

#371

Post by WalterBright »

WalterBright wrote: post #356
Gustomaximus wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or consider how useless you would be if transported back 400 years. You would be able to offer great advice about washing hands or the solar system generalisations. But actually create something to show people....even the simplest things would be beyond most of us.

If you could figure out how to make wire, you could make a working electric motor.

I looked it up, people knew how to make wire then. From that you could build a working telegraph system, even a telephone system, with what was available at the time.

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

#372

Post by pushpop »

WalterBright wrote: post #369
pushpop wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d also need to make magnets, know their polarisation, create bearings, and have the skill to assemble all of that as well.

None of that is necessary. I built a working electric motor in cub scouts using several feet of wire, tape, some iron nails, some sheet metal cut from tin cans, a wood board to mount it on, and a battery. Tools required: tin snips and a hammer. A battery can be made from a jar, lemon juice, and two electrodes. Believe me, as an 8 year old, my skills were limited to using a hammer to mash my thumb with. :-) Electromag…

I’m both impressed and have learned something new. Thank you :)

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

#373

Post by jonplackett »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #346
vageli wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The precision of keeping all those threads perfectly spaced is one thing" > Making the first precision screw requires a "screw originating machine".[1][2] This is a special-purpose device which can make a better screw than the ones used in building it. I hadn't realized screws would be needed to create a screw-making machine. I love that we have machines that make better versions of their own components, something…

Which is incidentally yet another reason why it's very important to ensure stability of our technological civilization. We've pulled ourselves by the straps of our boots a couple hundred meters into air now; it's not safe to stop pulling. Given big enough shock to economies and populations, we'll regress not a decade or three, but all the way to the beginning of industrial revolution - you can't build the technology…

There’s a great book about exactly this - including an attempt to help you reboot it by giving people the Igor clues in the right order.

The knowledge, How to rebuild the world from scratch https://www.amazon.co.uk/Knowledge-How-Rebuild-World-Scratch...

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

#374

Post by akadruid1 »

dTal wrote: post #149
nine_k wrote: post #100

Earlier 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…

The existence of huge numbers of wooden scooters called chukudu in Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda disproves this. Apparently they are made with simple woodworking tools, transport 500 pounds and last 2-3 years.

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

#375

Post by TeMPOraL »

monktastic1 wrote: post #355
TeMPOraL wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is incidentally yet another reason why it's very important to ensure stability of our technological civilization. We've pulled ourselves by the straps of our boots a couple hundred meters into air now; it's not safe to stop pulling. Given big enough shock to economies and populations, we'll regress not a decade or three, but all the way to the beginning of industrial revolution - you can't build the technology…

This is one of the most fascinating things I've read on this site. Do you know of any resources that go into this in more detail?

See resources around the thread about precision manufacturing. Consider how Industrial Revolution started thanks to easy access to high-density energy sources like coal, and how we've mined and burned pretty much everything that's accessible by hand. Observe how modern mining requires huge amounts of energy and sophisticated technology. It's all intertwined.

Consider also the amount of people needed all across the industries and supply chains of any product you know. I don't have hard sources, but I fondly remember this essay by Charles Stross[0]. TL;DR: how many people does it take to maintain (not improve) current technology level of our civilization? Charlie puts it at 100 million to 1 billion.

And now think of the economies and infrastructure needed to just feed these people. We hit 1 billion around 1804[1], which is far in the industrialization process, and most of these people weren't working to support the technology levels anyway.

For some insights, I recommend tracking down and watching Connections[2]. It's an old show, from the era where TV shows actually made sense, and it drives home just how much our current technology is dependent on right combinations of social, economical and technological conditions.

EDIT: fixed site reference in [2].

--

[0] - http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/07/insuffic...

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_milestones

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series); I hear you can find it on a site that starts with "daily", and ends with "motion.com".

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

#377

Post by icelancer »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #286
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…

There is an economic component in this. The people who would really want a bicycle had neither time nor money to develop them nor money to afford one. People with time and money would immediately think that horses were more practical. And they wouldn't be wrong. It wasn't until the mid 1800's that the people who would want a bicycle could afford one if such was available. You had a middle class with disposable income…

Exactly. You need pressure and necessity to deliver most inventions, especially at scale. Who's going to do all that work when horses were a hell of a lot easier?

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

#378

Post by nkoren »

Innovation takes an unreasonably twisty path. An even more stark example: suitcases with wheels. If you have the technology to build a siege engine or a crossbow, then surely you can build a suitcase with wheels. And yet they post-date the Saturn V rocket. How reasonable is that?

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

#379

Post by bjackman »

mayoff wrote: post #130
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #106

Earlier 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.

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 tha…

I think the fact that the crossbar is not connected directly to the headtube (part where the fork & handlebar assemblies pivot) would also cause a problem!

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

#380

Post by davesmith1983 »

jessaustin wrote: post #294
davesmith1983 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Depends on the recumbent. Mine (an Azub Six) isn't - I commute through London on it every day. And cities are (slowly) getting better at keeping traffic out of the way. I cycle through through and around traffic. I don't keep myself out of traffic I am part of it. I personally hate being in a cycle lane, because I know that many other cyclists normally aren't paying attention, don't know how to ride (they never che…

There was a fad in the late 90s early 2000s for mountain bikes, mountain bikes are rubbish on road unless you kit them out with touring tyres, there is simply too much road drag. Also suspension looks flashy but is pointless on a tarmac road. A rear suspension is stupid on any road better than cobblestone, but the shocked front fork on a hardtail is nice in many situations. If the commute is less than five miles or s…

On even gravel tracks having wider tyres will help you more than a front shock. Cobblestone or similar is easy to ride on a racing bike, a shock is totally unnecessary.
Post reply on HN