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

491–500 of 515 posts

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

#491

Post by jpindar »

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…

>he chain is difficult point - leather won't cut it as you need immense tensile strength and rigidity - but if you didn't want to meticulously hand-craft a modern chain (possible but tedious), a direct-gear solution might be practically possible.

Leather is good enough for motorcycle drive belts. Nowadays belt drive bikes use cogged composite belts, but once upon a time they were leather.

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

#492

Post by [deleted] »

lucideer wrote: post #26

> (Some commenters have suggested that it was not obvious that a two-wheeled vehicle would balance, but I find this unconvincing given how many other things people have learned to balance on, from dugout canoes to horses themselves.) I'll be one of those commenters I guess.... What!?? Balancing in a canoe is in no way similar to a bicycle. I can jump in a canoe having never been in one, and it will balance itself. I…

[deleted]

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

#493

Post by mantap »

Armisael16 wrote: post #325
mantap wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem utterly counterintuitive that a vehicle that cannot balance by itself would be able to balance with the addition of a heavy rider elevating its center of gravity. Usually making an object top-heavy renders it even more unstable, and bicycles are not stable to begin with. And adding a rider on top of a bicycle does make it more unstable, but the amazing flexibility of the human brain allows us to transfor…

Bicycles are entirely stable without a rider as long as they’re moving. The human is only really necessary to provide motive power. There are a ton of videos showing this. It is totally unlike the intentional instability of a modern jet fighter.

Maybe in spherical cow land, but in the real world bicycles don't get very far without a human to maintain balance. It would fall over the first time it had to ride over a piece of debris on the road.

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

#494

Post by hermitdev »

garethrees wrote: post #388
hermitdev wrote: post #330

> City roads at the time were paved with cobblestones, which were good for horses but too bumpy for bicycles. This is one of the draws for the Paris-Roubaix spring classic race, a +200 mile, single day race with dozens of sections of rural cobble stones. Though, generally well maintained, the roads are narrow and brutal on modern road racing carbon-fiber bikes on 23mm wide tires. Lots of attrition from accidents. Typ…

> Typically pretty wet weather for the (spring) race Paris–Roubaix is certainly memorable when it's wet and muddy, but the last time it happened was in 2002! Early spring is the driest part of the year in north-eastern France, and so the usual conditions for the race are dry and dusty. See the Inner Ring: https://inrng.com/2016/04/rain-for-roubaix/

Sadly, I've not been able to see the race in quite a while. At least in my region, NBC sports doesn't seem to carry it anymore. Previously, Universal sports did, which I somehow lost after comcast aquired them.

One of my favorite images of the race is Bob Roll literally riding in the ditch, covered in mud [0]. Think it epitomizes the race.

[0] https://images.app.goo.gl/K8CHHQMGA245iZt48

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

#495

Post by rdtwo »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #470
carry_bit wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If any necessary and non-substitutable material or equipment is based on petroleum chemistry, then we won't be able to do that. I'd love some nuclear engineering experts to chime in on it here; my uneducated guess is that it's extremely unlikely that there isn't a hard petroleum dependency somewhere in there.

Just think of all the protective equipment. What do you think it’s made of?

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

#496

Post by Animats »

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.

The coal-powered steam locomotive era and the nuclear power era overlap. We almost did go from coal to nuclear. Especially in the UK, which had little domestic oil or gas in the 1950s.

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

#497

Post by a0-prw »

I think he underestimates the horse. If you live in a mostly horse and human powered society where the infrastructure to support your means of transport is ubiquitous (ie, stables, smiths, feed supply, etc), there would be zero reason to consider a clumsy first iteration of the bicycle as promising.

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

#498

Post by cmendel »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #465
monktastic1 wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://jacek.zlydach.pl , yes? I eagerly await this piece. I can think of a lot of people (and groups) who would find it enlightening!

Yes. I see you have an e-mail address in your profile; I'll drop you an e-mail when I'm done with it.

Hey person, I hope it wouldn't be to presumptuous for me to also ask for an email about this? I'd be very interested in what all you have to say.

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

#499

Post by TeMPOraL »

cmendel wrote: post #498
TeMPOraL wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I see you have an e-mail address in your profile; I'll drop you an e-mail when I'm done with it.

Hey person, I hope it wouldn't be to presumptuous for me to also ask for an email about this? I'd be very interested in what all you have to say.

Not at all! But since you don't have your e-mail published in your profile, you need to mail me so I know where to send the notification :).

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

#500

Post by Armisael16 »

mantap wrote: post #493
Armisael16 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bicycles are entirely stable without a rider as long as they’re moving. The human is only really necessary to provide motive power. There are a ton of videos showing this. It is totally unlike the intentional instability of a modern jet fighter.

Maybe in spherical cow land, but in the real world bicycles don't get very far without a human to maintain balance. It would fall over the first time it had to ride over a piece of debris on the road.

Objectively not true. Here’s a video of a unmanned bike rolling over a curb without any trouble: https://youtu.be/oZAc5t2lkvo?t=145s

Stuff on the road will only knock the bike over if it stops the motion of the bike first. The need for motive power was already acknowledged.

Post reply on HN