Live data from Hacker News

Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

rootsofprogress.org

401–410 of 515 posts

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

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the answer to the question "Why not build more Saturn Vs". We no longer have the tools to build the tools to build the machines to build the parts of the Saturn V.

Why not?

Because "unused muscle atrophy" applies very much to our technology as well. A lot of knowledge surrounding technological processes isn't really captured beyond institutional culture and individual memory. So if there isn't demand for some specific technology, the capacity and knowledge to build it will wither and die with the organizations and people who built it.

We can't do a Saturn V today. We might be able to do a Saturn V equivalent, though, as both NASA and SpaceX are retracing the steps towards heavy lifters.

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

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not?

Because "unused muscle atrophy" applies very much to our technology as well. A lot of knowledge surrounding technological processes isn't really captured beyond institutional culture and individual memory. So if there isn't demand for some specific technology, the capacity and knowledge to build it will wither and die with the organizations and people who built it. We can't do a Saturn V today. We might be able to do…

You should write all this up on a single place, it's very interesting.

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

#403
post #154

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…

Well, I'd argue that they didn't need to travel, because their world was set up for people who couldn't. The spacing of villages most places was set by how far you could walk to the fields & still do a good day's work. Riding around on horseback was for a tiny elite, most places -- a horse eats more than a person, in a world where food was the majority of income. Once people could travel, they did, and the world got…

can people on hacker news stop pretending they have any idea what farming was like

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

#405

>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…

The most compelling counterargument, to me, is mentioned in the article: clocks. I still don’t know how to make a clock and I certainly do not think it’s easy. Yet they were making clocks centuries before the first bicycle was invented.

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

#407
post #349
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…

Can you, or anyone else, recommend any good books/resources that chronicle the history of ‘manufacturing’, if that even is the right term to use. I.e. the various ‘discoveries’, such as steel manufacturing, railroads etc.

How to invent everything is a great, fun introduction to this.

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

#408

Its a lovely article, I much enjoyed reading it. I now think of it as part of a long list of scattered around publications that tried to describe the same process. Each with their own flower bed of opinions I don´t agree with and soiled with technical misconceptions. Having red a good number of patents and an interest in the innovation process I had to giggle a bit how the 100 year old design was described as THE bic…

Would love to hear more about your mods! Have any photos? Just curious as a layman who rides one nearly every day.

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

#409
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) 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. > and the handling is atrocious. How so? You have to take a different line through corners, but you turn later (front wheel is further back) so it's if anything easi…

> 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…

> I can track stand at lights, ride down stairs and going round a 90 degree bend is easy. I can almost turn in the bicycles own circle on my old mountain bike. If I need to bail of the bike, I can just drop the bike and roll off.

Recumbent handling is different but has its advantages. Steep downhills are easier (while there's no bike I'd be happy riding down stairs on, if I was forced to pick I'd take my chances on the recumbent), the turning circle is zero at low speed, if you do get into a front-on collision your body's in a better position to absorb the energy before you hit something with your head, and if you fall off sideways you can shrug it off.

> You need to get the right saddle and yeh if you try riding 60 odd miles on a new saddle and you don't cycle regularly you are going to have a bad time. It would be like trying to run a marathon in a pair of new trainers, not a good idea. As for cycling putting pressure on wrists or too much weight on your arse then the bike probably isn't the right size.

This is "you're holding it wrong" logic. Nope. I did cycle regularly, got my bike fitted, and all that. But there's no getting away from the fundamental physics of pressure = force / area.

> Also suspension looks flashy but is pointless on a tarmac road.

Not having to slalom around the potholes comes in handy. Yes you can work around not having it.

> It is still simpler to repair derailleur setup than any hub. Any bike ship can fix your derailleur gears (unless it is a BMX shop). I doubt the same is true about hubs.

Derailleurs are more popular at the moment so more shops can handle them, but does that matter? If we're talking about a non-enthusiast commuter they're probably going to take it to the bike shop they bought it from for any required maintenance.

> Also derailleur gears will work still without maintenance, almost none for years on end. Modern 8 or 9 speed chain is very reliable.

> Hubs normally require specialised tooling parts and are always more prone to failure due to the nature of a hub.

This is backwards - a derailleur's parts are inherently exposed and vulnerable, an unmaintained derailleur is always going to fail faster than a good-quality hub. The Rohloff recommends an oil change every 5000km, but in fact people ride them for 10000 or 15000 without problems. Derailleurs make sense for enthusiasts who do their own maintenance or racers who want the lightest weight gearing possible, but for commuting or touring they're only used because of price, and the price of hubs will keep coming down.

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

#410
"The quality of roads is relevant, but not really the answer. Bicycles can be ridden on dirt roads or sidewalks"

Bicycles can only be ridden safely on rough surfaces with good pneumatic tyres. As for the sidewalks, 1) their quality was also very variable, 2) they didn't offer a continuous path anywhere unless you only wanted to cycle around a single block (often not even then), 3) they were full of pedestrians trying to avoid the rough, filthy road surface, 4) hopping on and off kerbs is not a good idea without pneumatic tyres and a lightweight frame (early bicycles were ponderous and heavy).

The description of the technical progression needed to make the bicycle practical is fine, but the author seems to need to dismiss all previous thought on bicycles simply to justify their argument. Firstly, that's not a motivation I admire, secondly the dismissal of those obstacles and the other cited disincentives is just wrong: those obstacles were definitely there, something technical and social progress had to address before a bicycle was a reasonable and useful idea.

Post reply on HN