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

481–490 of 515 posts

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

#481

Post by scientiquity »

nickbauman wrote: post #77
atoav wrote: 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.…

The Antikythera Mechanism was a completely exotic Roman artifact. It was the space shuttle of its time. Not really a fair comparison. Dually, Romans were known for their extensive roads system. My family home sites directly below the Ancient Roman frontier in Germany, where you can climb a mountain and still find a 10 foot wide stone road they built 2000 years ago mostly intact

Or try the BBC and History Channel documentaries. There's zero dispute about its Greek origin. It's painfully obvious, in fact.

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

#482

Post by spaced-out »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #370
crygin wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps more critically, we've burned most of the easily-accessible fossil fuels, which means that if we drop below a critical threshold we won't be able to reboot from scratch because there will be insufficient high-energy-density material available.

That too. I'm increasingly strongly of the belief that ensuring the stability of what we have now is the most important thing. We can keep fixing things incrementally, but if we break our civilization now, we condemn the next couple dozen or more generations to medieval life on a severely damaged planet. That's why it pains me when I see activists crying for correcting the wrongs at all costs, "justice" at the cost o…

The biggest threats to the current order today are not the people calling for more "justice", or more "social justice", however.

The biggest threats to the current order are companies and politicians that refuse to address our unsustainable level of pollution, which is pushing our climate out of balance.

They're the people advocating for a "starve the beast" approach to governance, literally trying to create a financial crisis just to get a few percent taxes shaved off their bottom line (and probably think they can profit off the crisis too).

They're the people pushing for increased gerrymanding and census manipulation, which radicalizes politics on both ends of the political spectrum, shuts out people in the middle, and erodes faith in our institutions on the long term.

These things are by far the biggest threat to the long term stability of the current order in the US.

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

#483

Post by TeMPOraL »

spaced-out wrote: post #482
TeMPOraL wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That too. I'm increasingly strongly of the belief that ensuring the stability of what we have now is the most important thing. We can keep fixing things incrementally, but if we break our civilization now, we condemn the next couple dozen or more generations to medieval life on a severely damaged planet. That's why it pains me when I see activists crying for correcting the wrongs at all costs, "justice" at the cost o…

The biggest threats to the current order today are not the people calling for more "justice", or more "social justice", however. The biggest threats to the current order are companies and politicians that refuse to address our unsustainable level of pollution, which is pushing our climate out of balance. They're the people advocating for a "starve the beast" approach to governance, literally trying to create a financ…

I agree. And I didn't mean to say that pursuit of justice is a problem, but I do have an issue with calls for justice at the expense of everything else that I sometimes hear from the Internet pitchfork mobs, and I worry that it may gain momentum at some point.

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

#484

Post by WalterBright »

dugmartin wrote: post #478
arethuza wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought everyone had a container where they keep a random selection of nuts and bolts that have been collected over the years...

I have two clear plastic drawers from a refrigerator I had 15 years ago almost overflowing with extra hardware. While it’s mostly just nuts, bolts and nails I also throw any extra part that comes with random widgets. I just dug through it yesterday to find two small machine screws to tie together a broken plastic connector. It’s not hoarding if you use it right?

Yeah, I have a tub with random springs, brackets, spacers, clips, and odd metal bits pulled off of devices I threw away. It's surprising how convenient it is when you need something.

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

#485

Post by magduf »

admax88q wrote: post #208
smileysteve wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To amplify number 2; I just spent a week in Rome; Cobblestone would seemingly destroy the fragility. Anecdotally, on a bike ride recently, on a modern bike, hopping an inch curb snapped a chain.

Modern bikes are built yo tight tolerances for their purpose. Taking an inch curb in a mountain bike is nothing, taking it in an ultra weight optimized road bike is a different story.

Road bike chains aren't that delicate. It sounds to me like this person's chain was already old and near EOL. An inch curb on a road bike isn't that big a deal either, unless maybe it's a time-trial bike or something. The main problem with road bikes is that the wheels aren't as rugged as mountain bike wheels.

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

#486

Post by magduf »

hinkley wrote: post #247
entee wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As any cyclist who has been on cobblestones can tell you, the pavers used on Roman roads aren't friendly to bikes. This would be doubly true without a pneumatic tire. Amazing engineering but not suitable for a bicycle.

See also: Paris-Roubaix. They often use customized bikes for that to keep from shaking their fillings out.

They actually use road bikes for these, though they're versions that are now called "endurance bikes". They're a pretty popular segment of road bike sales now. The two biggest models are the Specialized Roubaix (named after the race of course), and the Trek Domane. Both are basically road bikes with relaxed geometry and some compliance features to reduce/absorb vibration so the rider doesn't get tired as quickly. And of course wider tires, typically 28 or 32mm, but this has actually become the norm these days for road bikes anyway. (23mm tires used to be the norm, but that's gone out of fashion now, as people have decided you don't gain enough in efficiency with such skinny tires to make the downsides (punishing ride quality) worth it.)

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

#487

Post by magduf »

chrisdhoover wrote: post #123
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…

>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.

Have you ever ridden a horse? You have to have balance to avoid falling over. And if you have ridden one, it sounds like you've never ridden English-style.

>Further the horse is firmly planted on the ground on four legs.

Only when it's standing still. Try riding one while it's jumping over things.

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

#488

Post by magduf »

dfeojm-zlib wrote: post #305
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…

I swear Cannondale road bikes have more in common with aircraft than terrestrial vehicles. You gotta see the aluminum welds on insanely thin tubes. Disclaimer: I lost my 20+-year-old baby-blue R800TT to frame damage that I bought while making $4.25/hour. #SadDayForMe

This is becoming less true, perhaps: modern road bikes now are largely made of carbon fibre, not aluminum. The cheap $1k ones are still Al, but anything over $2k is now CF.

Of course, some commercial aircraft are now getting CF parts, but they're still mostly Al.

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

#489

Post by NovaElder »

ripsawridge wrote: post #477
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…

"Dark Age America" is a fascinating book by John Michael Greer that goes into the wicked dependencies in our technology stack.

That is one of many of his books to focus on this topic.

The Ecotechnic Future, The Retro Future, The Long Decent, Not the Future we ordered - all great books on what will happen if these systems crumble from resource depletion.

As much as I want disagree with his views, they look more sound every day. He is actually doing a follow up series on these topics on his blog (Ecosophia) currently.

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

#490

Post by jpindar »

carry_bit wrote: post #467
crygin wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps more critically, we've burned most of the easily-accessible fossil fuels, which means that if we drop below a critical threshold we won't be able to reboot from scratch because there will be insufficient high-energy-density material available.

I wonder how difficult it would be leapfrog oil and go straight to nuclear power.

I think it would be a lot easier to go with internal combustion of ethanol and biodiesel (and possibly wood gas) first.
Post reply on HN