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

431–440 of 515 posts

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

#431

Post by kingludite »

j-conn wrote: post #408
kingludite wrote: post #396

Its a lovely article, I much enjoyed reading it. I now think of it as part of a long list of scattered around publications that tried to describe the same process. Each with their own flower bed of opinions I don´t agree with and soiled with technical misconceptions. Having red a good number of patents and an interest in the innovation process I had to giggle a bit how the 100 year old design was described as THE bic…

Would love to hear more about your mods! Have any photos? Just curious as a layman who rides one nearly every day.

If I ever chose to do something commercial it will be a race against the replicators. Ideally they only take notice when a concept takes off. You could even get the patents?

Not to offend you at all but its an interesting cultural phenomenon to just ask for the fruits of ones labor when it comes to innovation. If you would bring a large bag of money to the conversation I would still be reluctant to share. I'm not at all sure what role I could play in manufacturing.

It sort of reveals what happens with most inventions from raw to polished. I probably wont produce or share anything. There must be millions of iterations of this formula ranging from not very good to stuff that blows the mind. All taken to the grave.

I suppose the inventor catch 22 joke is that one could potentially make a lot of money with ideas if one had the funds to gamble. Inventors are of course dreamers so don't expect anything to happen. We are all missing out on much more than we could possibly imagine.

In all fairness, if you look at what is out there my ideas do not make for a much better vehicle. If you simply add an aerodynamic body to a recumbent bicycle then put some electrical assist on it there is very little need for further efficiency.

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

#432

Post by DoctorOetker »

mikepurvis wrote: post #86
loeg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For human-scale power, I am not sure a bicycle without bearings or pneumatic tires works other than as a curiosity. Pretty much all modern rideshare bicycles do not have pneumatic tires, FWIW. Ride quality suffers, but it's not an awful tradeoff for short trips with whatever squishy compound they use now.

Yeah but the alternative in antiquity wasn't "whatever squishy compound", it was wood, perhaps with a metal strap around it, like a carriage wheel.

It's interesting that wood is considered impractical for a bicycle... but somehow practical for a carriage?

Carriages used to have suspensions (made from some elastic whale bone I believe).

If someone would attempt to build a bicycle in a time of carriages with carriage wheels, I would then expect this person to also copy (at least in analogy) the suspension systems for carriages of that time, if not on the first try at least on the second...

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

#433

Post by roelschroeven »

mrob wrote: post #310
nickbauman wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Roman pavers you would ride on today are 2000 years old, remember. Back then they were in much better shape, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads#/media/File:Pompei...

That still looks very uncomfortable without pneumatic tires.

I wouldn't want to ride on such a road with a racing bike or a normal city bike; but with at mountain bike with suspension and perhaps somewhat fatter than normal tires I think riding there would not be too uncomfortable.

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

#434

Post by angus-prune »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #401
StavrosK wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not?

Because "unused muscle atrophy" applies very much to our technology as well. A lot of knowledge surrounding technological processes isn't really captured beyond institutional culture and individual memory. So if there isn't demand for some specific technology, the capacity and knowledge to build it will wither and die with the organizations and people who built it. We can't do a Saturn V today. We might be able to do…

I remember reading that some of the textile techonology that enabled the arctic/anarctic expeditions in the early 20th century has already been lost.

They're having to analyse the garments in medical scanners to work out how the fabrics work.

The idea that technology that enabled the equivalent of the space race could be lost within a century is quite sobering.

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

#435

Post by michaelt »

Balgair wrote: post #124
scrooched_moose wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Toaster Project is a good example of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODzO7Lz_pw https://www.amazon.com/Toaster-Project-Attempt-Electric-Appl... He attempted to build the basic components of a toaster from scratch. Smelting metal, molding plastic, etc. The book is a tough recommendation because he sortof gives up on the later parts and limps to a finish, but overall its a fascinating look at how difficult t…

HTME on Youtube also goes into the process of making seemingly simple things and the time and effort it takes: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfIqCzQJXvYj9ssCoHq327g One of the more famous videos is where it takes them ~$1500 and 6 months to make a chicken sandwich and they still used a lot of equipment that they didn't make themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URvWSsAgtJE

  it takes them ~$1500 and 6 months
  to make a chicken sandwich
I watched that video and there's nothing really explaining what went into that price. Did they include the flights to the coast to gather salt? Hiring the boat? Renting an apartment to boil the sea water down?

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

#436

Post by dllthomas »

tomstuart wrote: post #264
indenturedsmile wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a source, and maybe I'm misremembering, but I think compilers (for software) and CPU production tooling (for hardware) both bootstrap off their own performance. A better compiler can compile itself more efficiently, same for CPU/chip layout systems.

You’re exactly right about this. Of course compilers which compile themselves come with their own risks! https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358210

Risks which can be ameliorated: https://dwheeler.com/trusting-trust

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

#437

Post by pbhjpbhj »

JackFr wrote: post #203
deathanatos wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The horse, with its four (not two!) legs is an even more ridiculous comparison. The comparison is, as I understood it, the rider balancing on the horse itself. I've only ever done this myself with saddle and stirrups, so I don't know if this is significantly more difficult without those. I think you're being a little generous with the canoe. Boarding a canoe without a dock (that is, climbing in from the water) is t…

But a canoe floats, as a horse stands. A bicycle simply does not stand up on its own.

Surely it can, it's just a case of finding the balance point? [Ignoring macroscopic effects of the Earth rotating, etc.]

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

#438

Post by Steltek »

davesmith1983 wrote: post #57
simulate wrote: post #44

In 100 years will we wonder why recumbent bicycles took so long to catch on? MIT's David Gordon Wilson, the writer of the excellent book Bicycling Science, had been advocating for recumbents as a more efficient design to replace traditional modern bicycles for decades. http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-designer-inventor-author-bike-b... and https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/bicycling-science-third-editi...

I've ridden many different types of bicycle from fixed gears, single speed mountain bikes and more traditional mountain bikes and racing bikes. Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) and the handling is atrocious. Yes they are maybe more efficient but they are not pleasant to ride. TBH the current design is efficient enough, is well understood both in terms of the technolo…

> Almost all improvements now are iterative.

Improvements are directed to where the money goes. UCI racing rules hold back experimentation outside of concept bikes. E-bikes may have broken the dam open and we'll start to see a lot of interesting things come out in that direction.

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

#439

Post by bluGill »

nine_k wrote: post #100
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…

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.

Leather belts would work fine if you made them wide enough. I'd expect a canvas belt to be used instead - wide again being key. I'd expect to need a the belt to be a couple cm wide to work. A chain is better, but this should work.

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

#440

Post by selimthegrim »

anongraddebt wrote: post #243
thaumasiotes wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reply, now deleted, pointed out that AnimalMuppet's "source" appears to be more of a work of ideologically-motivated fiction than a source of credible information, as described in the Amazon reviews: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RKTM14HNQUUFO

Stark's book, while polemical and shoddy (in a non-trivial number of places), is not really any worse than much of the literature he sets out to make straight. A significant number of works that are often cited as authoritative regarding the historical issues Stark focuses on, end up citing patently inaccurate accounts from the 19th century. For example: for whatever reason, a non-trivial number of authors from the 2…

Joseph Needham is hardly a fount of objectivity and lack of bias too.
Post reply on HN