High-quality (higher carbon) steel required for frame, chain and gears was not abundant enough and cheap enough until late XIX century.
Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)
11–20 of 72 posts
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)
#12A more stark example: why did we wait 2,000 years for the elevator? Archimedes had invented every component necessary in the 200s BC. It took til the 1800s for a dude named Otis to add one extra part that made it practical and safe, and soon they were everywhere.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)
#13I think the author is missing another major factor: the early bicycle doesn't solve any problem satisfactorily. A velocipede at best saves you a bit of energy going flat or downhill, with relatively little increase in speed, with a relatively high capital expense. Compared with walking and horses, it doesn't help much. You have to get all the way to the safety bicycle (with pneumatic tires) before you have something…
There is even a bigger factor, the environment, Bicycles are only as good as the roads you're riding them on.
Off-road bicycle is a far more sophisticated and modern invention that builds on massive supply chain and production capabilities to be produced competitively compared to price of horse of yester-years.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)
#14It’s not at all immediately obvious as to why the bicycle stands upright or turns. The physics is non-trivial and, based on the drawings, offsetting the center of the wheel from the axis of thw wheel being turned was not a thing. But it is this feature, that allows the modern bike to maneuver. Counter-steering is very unintuitive. If you lack the underlying physics or, in fact, personal experience, the bicycle sounds…
Yes. If one had never seen a bicycle, and were not told in advance that it works, one naturally would expect balancing upon its seat to be no easier in motion than at rest.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)
#15It’s not at all immediately obvious as to why the bicycle stands upright or turns. The physics is non-trivial and, based on the drawings, offsetting the center of the wheel from the axis of thw wheel being turned was not a thing. But it is this feature, that allows the modern bike to maneuver. Counter-steering is very unintuitive. If you lack the underlying physics or, in fact, personal experience, the bicycle sounds…
[flagged]
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)
#16I think the author is missing another major factor: the early bicycle doesn't solve any problem satisfactorily. A velocipede at best saves you a bit of energy going flat or downhill, with relatively little increase in speed, with a relatively high capital expense. Compared with walking and horses, it doesn't help much. You have to get all the way to the safety bicycle (with pneumatic tires) before you have something…
Apparently buttons in buttonholes as a clothing fastener were not a thing until 1300 ce. Maybe that fact is false but, if true, it's crazy to me it took until 1300 ce to think of putting a "button" through a hole.
Maybe the issue is the defintion of "button" but still.
There's this non-serious book, "How to Invent Everything: A Survival Guide for the Stranded Time Traveler", which describes things you could introduce if you were beamed back in time. Things you could actually make and just took people to think of (vs like a smartphone that requires high-tech). "Buttons" was one of them.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)
#17I think the author is missing another major factor: the early bicycle doesn't solve any problem satisfactorily. A velocipede at best saves you a bit of energy going flat or downhill, with relatively little increase in speed, with a relatively high capital expense. Compared with walking and horses, it doesn't help much. You have to get all the way to the safety bicycle (with pneumatic tires) before you have something…
Apparently buttons in buttonholes as a clothing fastener were not a thing until 1300 ce. Maybe that fact is false but, if true, it's crazy to me it took until 1300 ce to think of putting a "button" through a hole. Maybe the issue is the defintion of "button" but still. There's this non-serious book, "How to Invent Everything: A Survival Guide for the Stranded Time Traveler", which describes things you could introduce…
The problem is the seams. Seam durability has been the driving force in a lot of "obvious" clothing inventions over the ages, and is why things like medieval crotchless hose were around for so long.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)
#18A more stark example: why did we wait 2,000 years for the elevator? Archimedes had invented every component necessary in the 200s BC. It took til the 1800s for a dude named Otis to add one extra part that made it practical and safe, and soon they were everywhere.
Electric motors so every building didn't need its own steam engine, and cheap interchangeable parts manufacturing for the mechanisms that needed to be perfectly consistent in every installation to be reliable.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)
#19High-quality (higher carbon) steel required for frame, chain and gears was not abundant enough and cheap enough until late XIX century.
Agreed, and also chain and fasteners specifically require the ability to mass produce very small, very strong, very consistent parts. This necessarily needs production lines with consistent tooling and quality assurance.
Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)
#20I wonder if the idea of the balance required for two wheels was an impediment to invention and use. for example, I think one-wheeled devices / unicycles are crazy and only someone with a lot of time, energy and motivation will to learn to balance and use one. But nowadays computers make it possible for normal people to use them without as much skill. We might have a "why did we wait so long for simple one-wheeled tra…
why did we start with main+tail rotor helicopters? Nowadays 4-rotor quadcopters appeared and have taken over The quadcopter advantage is in it's mechanical simplicity, but having fewer longer blades is better for aerodynamic efficiency(at the expense of max airspeed). This matters less at RC scale, but at full size, even an all-electric helicopter will likely have more range than a quadcopter with the same batteries.
4 rotors is also a much more difficult “controls” problem. Helicopters actually glide reasonably well if their engine cuts off. They’re not super insanely unstable.
Quadcopters are basically obligate fly-by-wire vehicles which necessitate at least pneumatic PID controllers if not computer chips to fly.
You can make a helicopter work reasonably well a lot earlier in a pre-computer “tech tree” than you can a quadcopter.