Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.rootsofprogress.org

31–40 of 72 posts

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

#31

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

I hate to burst your bubble, but...

The Wright Brothers started in a bicycle workshop, as did practically every auto maker, in Europe, in the early days. The bicycle workshop was the cradle for many things.

The Wright Brothers were not good for progress. Their game was patents. They were rent seekers, as in 'patent trolls', not innovators. This is why so much early aviation switched to Europe.

With the bicycle the Wright Brothers patented the left-hand thread. This is needed on a bicycle to prevent one of the pedals working its way lose over time and is how it works today.

This was 'target practice' for the Wright Brothers, their innovation was in slowing down technological progress by patenting solutions that were not entirely innovative.

Yet we have invented this story where the Wright Brothers are the heroes, and anyone that questions that might as well be communist, or whatever the slur of the times may be, 'Spanish' maybe. Please mod me down in flames for being un-American, without hesitation!

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

#32
post #29

>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.

It wasn't so much tarmac, it was just anything passable between towns.

When the trains came along (to replace the canals), people just took the magic teleportal that was the train, same for goods traffic. This led to there being nobody using the 'road', with the road becoming reclaimed by nature. The way between towns was the train, with road not being an option, except to get you to the train station.

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

#33
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.

Also, four points of failure isn't a particularly enticing feature for an already slightly terrifying aircraft if you're actually going to be in it.

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

#35
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…

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.

Upgrade that 'maybe' to 'definitely'. The disc loading on a helicopter is typically much lower than on a quad (excepting crazy designs like the giant human-powered quad) which makes it significantly more efficient for the same overall size.

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

#36
post #30

> 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 t…

Merchants, sheperds, peasants and the like travelled for sure to nearby towns to sell their goods.

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

#37
post #29

>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.

It wasn't so much tarmac, it was just anything passable between towns. When the trains came along (to replace the canals), people just took the magic teleportal that was the train, same for goods traffic. This led to there being nobody using the 'road', with the road becoming reclaimed by nature. The way between towns was the train, with road not being an option, except to get you to the train station.

I don't think there was ever a situation of roads getting overgrown.

The canals and trains were part an parcel of the industrial revolution. That if anything led to more road traffic.

Yes it may not be long distance, but it's still to the nearest town/train station.

It's like suggesting that a local road next to a motorway suddenly doesn't get used. It won't get used by long distance traffic. But it attracts traffic from people wanting to get to the motorway etc.

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

#39

A 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.

I think it was the automatic emergency brake.

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

#40
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…

Transport museums in the UK are fascinating because they are full of machines that didn't solve any problem satisfactorily. My local museum has the bicycle well represented along with much else of the times, early lawn mowers, sewing machines and everything else.

The boss of Trek says the product (the bicycle) has been fit for purpose for a century. I think he is right, even though I am not riding anything before 1989, when indexed gears, decent brakes and many user improvements came along thanks to Shimano, a favourable Yen and the mountain bike 'fad'.

As for 'beats walking', the pre-war roadsters with nickel plated steel, hub gears, lights, a pump, mudguards and big springs in the seat, on OG Dunlop cotton sidewall tyres, I would take the bicycle any day over walking, particularly if the streets are full of horse manure.

This was the biggest time for cycling in the UK, the car took over after the war. Meanwhile, in the USA, the car had ousted the bicycle, street car and train to a huge extent, putting them on life support.

Back to the transport museum, the amount of experimentation for things like brakes is wild, with many unlikely designs after WW2, when I expected something more recognisable. Then there was no innovation from Europe apart from minor iterative improvement until the Japanese showed everyone how it is done, with Shimano being the dominant player, with Suntour as the plucky underdog. Innovation was then like the latte 90s for PC's, everything would be out of date within six months and you would need to upgrade.

There was nobody with a master plan, guiding the cycling boom along, it was just a convergence of shared interests, with 'mountain biking' being a response to bicycles no longer being welcome on the roads.

BMX also played a part, as that 'fad' resulted in chro-moly 4130 steel frames, welded in the Taiwanese Province (tm) rather the usual lugs and brazing used in the West. The BMX factories provided the capacity and they had the tooling for mountain bikes, so that played a part in the 'secret plan' to engineer a boom (as if).

In the context of mountains of machinery and incredible innovation of peak Industrial Revolution, and my personal recollection of the MTB boom, I don't believe there is a 'lived silver thread' that explains all, only historians can weave together a narrative that sort of makes sense.

Incidentally, the bicycle is still the cradle of innovation. Clothing is an interesting area, typically, in a given era, cycle clothing, including shoes, helmet, sun glasses, gloves and 'lycra' is on a different technology level to anything the likes of Nike or Adidas are doing. Hydro-formed aluminium, carbon fibre and much else is far more advanced on two wheels than on four, where the vehicle weight is 100x lighter.

Post reply on HN