Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by admax88q » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

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…

Neither of those is necessary for a basic bicycle. A wooden frame with a fixed gear ration and chain or belt would work just fine for moderate riding

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

#192

Post by jdfellow » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

A lot of the discussion here is about materials and manufacturing, which certainly wasn't available until the late 19th century to make and produce bicycles.

But the real title of the article should have been, and the real unanswered question, is "Why did we wait so long for the draisine?" An all-wood two-wheeled single-track vehicle that was just kicked along like a scooter. This was invented in 1817, and the article postulates that cultural reasons kept it from being invented in the classical or medieval times, and even in the Renaissance where ideas for human-powered carriages were floated, no one came up with a draisine because of cultural reasons.

That's an insufficient explanation, I think. What other reasons could have kept the draisine from being invented in classical Greece, or medieval Germany, or any other time and place before the 19th century? Technological arguments fall flat as the original draisine didn't use any tech that hadn't existed for millennia.

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

#193

Post by dockd » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

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…

And let's not forget the pneumatic tire; Wikipedia suggests they were invented 1847-1888. (It says they were invented to help make bicycles/tricycles comfortable.)

If anyone thinks these tires aren't important, then why are almost all vehicle tires still pneumatic?

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

#194

Post by Animats » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

entee wrote: post #108

Animats wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. And one point that cannot be stressed enough. Good steel, in quantity, only goes back to 1880. Lots of things that "could have been built in antiquity" foundered on that basic fact. Before Bessemer, steel was as exotic as titanium is now. The alternatives are not good. Cast iron? Too heavy and too brittle. Wrought iron? Maybe, but not that great. Lead? Too soft. Brass? Could work, but expensive. A king's kid m…

I often wonder as I am building/fixing something (often my bicycle as it happens) and I happen to toss an extra screw in the trash how miraculous a simple screw of this type would have been to a middle-ages craftsman. The precision of keeping all those threads perfectly spaced is one thing, but the technology to make them in such volume at these sizes (often quite tiny), and in volumes so as to make them essentially…

"The precision of keeping all those threads perfectly spaced is one thing"

Making the first precision screw requires a "screw originating machine".[1][2] This is a special-purpose device which can make a better screw than the ones used in building it. Then you can install the first precision screw in a lathe and make more screws in harder metals. This is how precision is bootstrapped.

[1] https://chestofbooks.com/home-improvement/workshop/Turning-M... [2] http://collection.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/co46546/tool-...

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

#195

Post by jdfellow » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

hadlock wrote: post #173

loeg wrote: post #71

Bicycle chains are really complicated and have tons of moving parts.

Bicycle chains are pretty complicated, but steam powered devices (mills, saws, etc) were using flat leather belts for decades, and rope drive existed as well. Many modern bicycles come with belt drives. Also periodically people produce shaft drive bicycles which require a bit more machining, but have few moving parts and are quite reliable.

Leather belt drives were used for early motorcycles (1890s-1910s) even while the roller-chain was already in wide use for bicycles.

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

#196

Post by trhway » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

the Ancient Greeks and Romans could have attached paddles to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile and basically get something like that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddle_steamer

That is why i wondering what should i attach to what to get a [preferably cold] fusion :)

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

#197

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #178

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What killed the Chinese iron industry wasn't the lack of a Bessemer converter. What killed them was the mandarin bureaucracy. The mandarins saw that some commoners were getting rich in the iron industry, declared it to be contrary to the proper order, and shut it down. (Source: "The Victory of Reason" by Rodney Stark.)

Commoners got rich in commerce and in agriculture and landlording for most of Chinese history. A merchant legendarily put the first emperor's father on the throne of Qin in the third century BC. The merchants were despised, as merchants everywhere are; the rich farmers weren't. And a hereditary distinction between commoners and nobles was gone by the tenth century. So I'd want to hear a little more context to the cla…

[deleted]

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

#198

Post by sylk » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #182

galaxyLogic wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next: nano-tech

Femtotech! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtotechnology

GRIIIIIIIIIFFFFITH! (Cue berserk soundtrack)

But for real, interesting read. Thanks for linking that.

Would love to see some applications of such a thing.

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

#199

Post by timonoko » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

ben7799 wrote: post #167

timonoko wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not understand. These was no road perse in 1929, just two deep grooves for carriages and cars. It was impossible to bike on that. The first coast-to-coast american biked on railroad tracks. They were bumpy obviously but evidently much better than any roads.

This is ridiculous. Bicycles were near 50 years old by 1930. There was a ton of riding done before nicely paved roads were everywhere. The Tour De France is happening right now, it was first run in 1903 and covered 1500 miles, with riders doing up to 250 miles in one day. Bicycles do fine on dirt roads & trails, pavement is absolutely not required. Bicycles have adapted to better roads over time but they never requir…

Horse-and-carriage type roads were very particular. The middle was very soft and the grooves were quite narrow. You just cannot see them anywhere nowadays. I bicycled from Finland to Yugoslavia in 1971 often trying to ride on those kind of roads. Occasionally I used old Roman Empire roads. They were "paved" but made of big slippery plates and even more difficult to ride on.

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

#200

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 9:36 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #66

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…

Right. And one point that cannot be stressed enough. Good steel, in quantity, only goes back to 1880. Lots of things that "could have been built in antiquity" foundered on that basic fact. Before Bessemer, steel was as exotic as titanium is now. The alternatives are not good. Cast iron? Too heavy and too brittle. Wrought iron? Maybe, but not that great. Lead? Too soft. Brass? Could work, but expensive. A king's kid m…

The technologies developed in ancient China are staggering, the more so as they'd been largely fogotten by / rendered invisible to the Chinese themselves.

A find of the past few years has been Joseph Needham's truly epic Science and Civilisation in China. Begun in 1954, still in production -- the series is not yet completed, 7 volumes, 27 books. Simon Winchester (also author of The Perfectionists, mentioned in this thread, has an excellent biography, The Man Who Loved China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Civilisation_in_Ch...