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

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

#461

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:48 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #283

runarberg wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not entirely correct. If you are a farmer you (or a someone working with you) still need to travel for numerous reasons, including to bring your products to market, to round up your animals, to buy equipment and supplies, etc. You say they had horses for those types of traveling, except they most likely didn’t. Only a successful farmer could afford a horse. And even if they had a horse, chances were it was bu…

You say they had horses for those types of traveling, except they most likely didn’t. Only a successful farmer... We can't make a universal rule like this. Everyone has a particular mental image of how farming worked long ago, but circumstances varied. Horses can eat a wide variety of plants, including something that is growing wild right outside your door. The density of farmers probably had more to do with whether…

Horses could bot be used for farming until the invention of the harness which was actually pretty late (steam tractors were not far behind). Until then oxen were used which could use a simple yoke. Even after the complex harness oxen were generally more practical for farm use.

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

#462

Post by lmm » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:51 PM UTC

bosie wrote: post #456

lmm wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll generally just lock the rear wheel to something, sometimes through the luggage rack - there's no real way to lock the frame, but it hasn't been a problem yet (I suspect it's a less attractive target for thieves than a conventional bike). Moving it around a building is pretty much the same as an upright - it's a little longer but still just about fits in trains, bicycle racks etc., and you can wheel it around upr…

I found moving it around in buildings (HP Velotechnik Speedmachine) quite a lot more cumbersome than my regular trekking bicycle. Fitting it through doors/elevators (especially with panniers) but I guess that is what you are eluding to, wheeling it upright and all that. Did you ever bring it on a train in the UK?

Obviously it's a little longer than an upright (possibly helps that I'm fairly short), so the threshold for how tight a corner is before I have to put it vertical is a little lower than it would be for an upright. But I was mostly thinking of cases where you'd have to do the same either way - my building's lift is too small to fit any kind of bike without putting it vertical on its rear wheel.

And yeah I take it on UK trains fairly often.

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

#463

Post by bluGill » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #241

runarberg wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not entirely correct. If you are a farmer you (or a someone working with you) still need to travel for numerous reasons, including to bring your products to market, to round up your animals, to buy equipment and supplies, etc. You say they had horses for those types of traveling, except they most likely didn’t. Only a successful farmer could afford a horse. And even if they had a horse, chances were it was bu…

“...including to bring your products to market, to round up your animals, to buy equipment and supplies, etc.” No... Farmers didn’t bring their products to market unless they were running a plantation, ie they were very large operators, which were few and far between and would certainly nit having been riding a bicycle - those guys would be going in a nice two horse cart. The small guys sold to a local buyer who hand…

By the 1850s the local blacksmith was making nothing. The industrial revolution was in full force "back east". Factories could make and ship product cheaper than the local blacksmith. The local blacksmith was a repair shop (after the car they almost all became mechanics) and fine tuning to fit. Before the industrial revolution there were very few blacksmiths, you made it yourself on the farm or did without.

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

#464

Post by ajuc » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:54 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…

You can buy 1kg of titanium for $10 on the internet. It's not that exotic.

And bicycles made out of wrought iron would work perfectly fine. First bicycles were made out of wood and durability wasn't their main issue.

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

#465

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

monktastic1 wrote: post #460

TeMPOraL wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just might put it up on my blog. Need to collect references for the things I've been saying first. I first need to finish and ask someone to proofread my long overdue post on my views about advertising industry.

http://jacek.zlydach.pl , yes? I eagerly await this piece. I can think of a lot of people (and groups) who would find it enlightening!

Yes. I see you have an e-mail address in your profile; I'll drop you an e-mail when I'm done with it.

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

#466

Post by tabtab » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

When the materials and manufacturing options (MMO) are dodgy and limited, you have to come up with almost a perfect design to take advantage of what's available. There's less room for error.

When MMO got better, you could get a lot "wrong" and still have a useful device.

In other words, early on you have two obstacles: MMO and finding a good enough design. As time goes on and MMO improves you only have one obstacle: design, meaning progress is faster or at least shows enough promise to motivate further experiments.

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

#467

Post by carry_bit » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 5:11 PM UTC

crygin wrote: post #364

TeMPOraL wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is incidentally yet another reason why it's very important to ensure stability of our technological civilization. We've pulled ourselves by the straps of our boots a couple hundred meters into air now; it's not safe to stop pulling. Given big enough shock to economies and populations, we'll regress not a decade or three, but all the way to the beginning of industrial revolution - you can't build the technology…

Perhaps more critically, we've burned most of the easily-accessible fossil fuels, which means that if we drop below a critical threshold we won't be able to reboot from scratch because there will be insufficient high-energy-density material available.

I wonder how difficult it would be leapfrog oil and go straight to nuclear power.

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

#468

Post by lmm » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

davesmith1983 wrote: post #453

lmm wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can track stand at lights, ride down stairs and going round a 90 degree bend is easy. I can almost turn in the bicycles own circle on my old mountain bike. If I need to bail of the bike, I can just drop the bike and roll off. Recumbent handling is different but has its advantages. Steep downhills are easier (while there's no bike I'd be happy riding down stairs on, if I was forced to pick I'd take my chances on t…

>This is "you're holding it wrong" logic. Nope. I did cycle regularly, got my bike fitted, and all that. But there's no getting away from the fundamental physics of pressure = force / area. Nope sorry it isn't the "your holding it wrong logic". If you do any physical activity that you are unused to you will have slight pains etc. I recently started Thai boxing again and loans behold my body hurt after the workout. Pr…

> If you do any physical activity that you are unused to you will have slight pains etc.

It's not about being used to it - I'd been cycling for years. There will always be muscle soreness from using your legs, but an upright brings a totally unnecessary set of aches and pains in other places - wrists, taint, shoulders, neck - because of the awkward hunched position and the fact that you're supporting your body weight on a handful of tiny contact points. I made the switch to a recumbent and even with far less experience than I'd had on an upright, I was easily riding twice as far per day before things became too uncomfortable to continue - and I was able to stop needing padded shorts or gloves as well, which means less luggage when touring or less need to store special clothes in the office.

> Derailleur gearing has had over 110 years of development and improvement.

Derailleurs having so much history of development is precisely why I expect hub gears to take over as they go through their own years of development and improvement.

> They are cheap, reliable and easy to fix and almost never go wrong.

They jam or fall out of alignment pretty often, so I wouldn't say "almost never go wrong". Yes an experienced cyclist can fix them pretty easily, but it's a barrier for newcomers and for non-enthusiast commuters who just want something to get them to/from work.

> Sure the Rolls Royce is better and will last 20 life times but it costs 100 times and the cheap Ford will do most of what you want. If we compare Shimano hub gears (which have a terrible reputation) they are more expensive and less reliable and give you less gears.

The technology trickles down though. If you go back far enough then things like ABS, electric windows, or fuel injection were something you'd only find on the Rolls Royce (because carburettors were cheaper and more reliable and just required a little bit of manual adjustment occasionally); now you find those things in the cheap Ford too. It'll be the same for bicycles: right now you only find good hub gears on the Rolls-Royce tier tourers, but that will change as the technology gets cheaper.

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

#469

Post by monktastic1 » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #465

monktastic1 wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://jacek.zlydach.pl , yes? I eagerly await this piece. I can think of a lot of people (and groups) who would find it enlightening!

Yes. I see you have an e-mail address in your profile; I'll drop you an e-mail when I'm done with it.

Thanks. Already subscribed to your feed :)

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

#470

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

carry_bit wrote: post #467

crygin wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps more critically, we've burned most of the easily-accessible fossil fuels, which means that if we drop below a critical threshold we won't be able to reboot from scratch because there will be insufficient high-energy-density material available.

I wonder how difficult it would be leapfrog oil and go straight to nuclear power.

If any necessary and non-substitutable material or equipment is based on petroleum chemistry, then we won't be able to do that. I'd love some nuclear engineering experts to chime in on it here; my uneducated guess is that it's extremely unlikely that there isn't a hard petroleum dependency somewhere in there.