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? (2019)

blog.rootsofprogress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)

#21

Post by koziserek »

m463 wrote: post #5

I 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…

what works in 100g - 5kg drone does not work for much heavier machines.

- Small UAVs are mainly controlled by varying RPM of each rotor

- Full-scale machines keep ~constant RPM optimal for rotor aerodynamics and change angle of attack for each blade for control (collective and cyclic changes).

With big inertia and no alien materials technology, it isn't possible to apply 'quad' design for your average SAR helicopter.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)

#25

Post by Ekaros »

kopirgan wrote: post #22

Incredible to think that barely ten years after bicycles were somewhat perfected as useful, Wright brothers started testing their early plane designs.

It might be that both really needed similar level of metallurgy and precision machining. After all limiting thing about aeroplanes was the power to weight ratio of engines. So more so that enablers of both were only available at that time.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)

#26

Post by mrheosuper »

koziserek wrote: post #21
m463 wrote: post #5

I 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…

what works in 100g - 5kg drone does not work for much heavier machines. - Small UAVs are mainly controlled by varying RPM of each rotor - Full-scale machines keep ~constant RPM optimal for rotor aerodynamics and change angle of attack for each blade for control (collective and cyclic changes). With big inertia and no alien materials technology, it isn't possible to apply 'quad' design for your average SAR helicopter.

There is quadcopter with variable pitch blade.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)

#27

Post by jdmitch »

avidiax wrote: post #4

I 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…

I think you are partly right, but I also think the mechanical advantage of the bicycle, even the velocipede, was significantly underestimated. You say it saves "a bit of energy going flat or downhill" but some quick calculations suggest it is twice as energy efficient just balancing along, and 3 to 4 times more efficient pedalling. These advantages aren't always realised, especially over shorter distances, but I would have thought they would be quite clear over any longer distances, or when carrying a heavy load. Perhaps this is where initial unreliability became an issue though, as the advantage of saving energy on a long journey bt bicycle would be outweighed if it was prone to breaking down, given it would be unlikely to find someone who could repair in those early days.

I think a fundamental inability to intuitively grasp the potential mechanical efficiency of the concept must have been a major barrier though.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)

#28

Post by bondarchuk »

m463 wrote: post #5

I 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…

>another analogous musing -- why did we start with main+tail rotor helicopters?

In fact we started with autogyros.

Also the Fw 61 ("the first successful, practical, and fully controllable helicopter" though I don't know the history in detail) has two equal-size counter-rotating rotors similar to a quadcopter.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)

#29

Post by benj111 »

>And historically, roads didn’t improve until after bicycles became common—indeed it seems that it was in part the cyclists who called for the improvement of roads.

I don't know about other countries, but in the UK it was the cyclistists that led the call for tarmaced roads.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019)

#30

Post by mrob »

Quothling wrote: post #9

> I think the deepest explanation is in general economic and cultural factors. I would say that this is very on point. Even during the renaissance "inventing" was a hobby for the aristocracy, as the author gets around with Giovanni Fontana. I'm not sure if a bicycle would've been a "cool" invention at the time. Because what would you do with it? For the majority of people there was very little need for personal mobil…

>there was very little need for personal mobility in society

People regularly traveled to nearby market towns. There's still a strange omission: why didn't anybody in Europe invent the Chinese-style wheelbarrow, with the single central wheel? This seems to be the closest equivalent to a cargo bike that works well without modern materials. It's well suited to moving modest quantities of goods over poor roads, unlike the European wheelbarrow which is optimized for quick loading/unloading, and best suited to moving things short distances.

Post reply on HN