Live data from Hacker News

Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

rootsofprogress.org

91–100 of 515 posts

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

#91

>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…

Baffling, maybe. It's a good question, not because the answer is trite but because it's interesting.

The invention itself might have even occurred, or parts of it. If you pressed hard enough, maybe you might have gitten a decent prototype built in the bronze age.

History has to take its course, in a sense. It has to be.practical and economical to manufacture, acquire and use one. A major part of that is what it takes to build one that's good and cheap enough. Another part is the path (roads, good steel parts like hollow tubes). Then it needs to be invented in a way that can lead to some decent number being made, demand of some sort considering that it still sucks. Enough people need to learn to ride one... There need to be engineers around with an interest...

It's dense with trees, but forests assume trees are inevitable. Nothing here is really. Maybe the invention is, on some level. But things usually need to be invented into existence over many iterations, events and chains before they totally stick.

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

#92

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...

As a bent rider myself, I too am baffled.

In my mind from the very first instant I saw one (late 1970's or early 80's Dick Ryan was interviewed on broadcast TV [likely as a novelty] and I was captivated. My child mind saw this as 'proper evolution' and I had to have one.

Here's a great summary of the history of the recumbent bike:

https://www.lightningbikes.com/riders/martin-krieg/recumbent...

Some people are intimidated by change, others are energized by challenging the status quo. Those will always be my heroes.

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

#93
post #66

>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…

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.)

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

#94
1. Wheel technology: Hard tires instead of pneumatic tires are absolutely horrendous, especially on any vehicle without suspension. Wheel technology of the time usually consisted of solid wood or wood spoked tire with an iron/steel rim, it is heavy as balls and you have garbage traction.

2. Gearing: You need a reliable chain and reliable gears to get reasonable speeds out of anything with a wheel under a 4 foot diameter. While such technology did exist, it was similarly heavy, required constant maintenance and lubrication, and is prone to jumping a tooth and falling off. Without being able to change gears you got a single gear ratio which makes anything but flat terrain garbage. Also like a fixy you can't stop pedaling.

3. Material science: Available materials where much shittier and far more expensive which not only made the bikes easier to damage and more prone to flexing and warping, but it also made a bike even heavier than it already was. The labor costs of making tube steel is also pretty damn high as it required skilled labor and additional tools and modern welding didn't exist to attach two pieces of pipe together without weaker flat brackets at rivets or pins.

4. Storage and hauling capabilities: Bikes, especially really heavy bikes and fixys, can't hold a whole lot, due to both space and weight limitations. Throw an extra 50 pounds on your bike and go up some of the same hills as usual and you will be whipped. People didn't just travel 20+ miles to have a cup of tea on a whim, if you are going that far or farther you are going to be bringing supplies or goods, and if you are carrying more than just a few pounds it would be easier to walk.

5. Maintenance: Without ball bearings you need to constantly oil your bearings, which also means bringing oil with you. Drive chains are not standard and have to be built, repaired, and fitted on a custom basis and thanks to substandard materials and a flexible bike it would be prone to damage. Tires require a wheelwright to build and repair custom wheels fairly often for a luxury vehicle.

5: Fitness: People of those times weren't just a bunch of lard asses so walking 20 miles isn't a daunting or, in numerous cases these days, an impossibility. People might even run most of it at the time and get a faster average speed than a fixy bike anyways. If you can't walk, you definitely aren't biking that far.

6. Terrain: While modern mountain bikers can go offroad, a fixy heavy bike with no tread/traction and hard wheels would not make it half way through a mud puddle and going down any incline offroad with one is a quick way to crashing and dieing. You would be forced to forge new paths for your bike since existing roads are mostly rutted dirt and mud over uneven ground and are also already occupying the most convenient paths.

The only places a bike in the past would be useful is a well maintained and paved stone or wooden road, however any place with flat wooden or stone roads is also going to have everything you would want within walking distance. And if you both lived in a place with such roads and also wanted to go a significant distance, there would be plenty of wagon traffic that you could simply ride on and stay relatively clean and rested rather than getting yourself covered with horse shit flying off your wheels or slipping in some horse shit and crashing your bike and ruining your extremely expensive clothes.

So basically, it is expensive as hell for an inferior product with marginal benefits in extreme edge case uses. Image having to pay $8,000 for a walmart bike, not gunna find many takers.

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

#95
One possibly overlooked factor: the nature of travel has changed dramatically in the last 200 years. Right up until World War 1, my ancestors literally had no reason to ever go more than ten miles from home, and even that was rare. The entire extended family lived within a two mile radius. This was because they were all farmers, and farmers didn't need to travel often. Furthermore, if you did travel, well, you already had a horse. Which, to make a point not made in the article, didn't have to do with the cost of the horse; it had to do with the fact that you already needed to have a horse to farm. So the horse was a sunk cost. If you did travel frequently, it was likely because you were in the business of shipping goods, ie tobacco or cotton or some other agricultural staple from where it was grown to a port, and hence speed wasn't your primary concern; inexpensive transport for bulk goods was. For all that is awesome about bicycles, bulk transports they aren't.

So: at least one factor was economic, but of an indirect sort. We had to have a critical mass of population that needed to travel regularly farther than they could conveniently walk, and for which horses were not sunk costs.

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

#96
post #40
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relatedly, my favorite example of "why didn't this get invented before" is wheeled luggage which (from what I've read) wasn't sold until 1989, even though the wheelbarrow (the same basic idea) has been around since prehistoric times. IIRC, the reason it didn't appear sooner was a combination of a) getting reliable castors[1] for wheels that small is a non-trivial problem, and b) there wasn't much demand for it until…

Do you have an article or book you can link to on the subject? I'm very curious why there wasn't much demand for wheeled luggage until the 80's. Is it because people flew less? Because more people checked luggage more often and carry-on was less common? Because airports were smaller?

It doesn't apply until the 1980s, but for luggage as for many, many other things it's worth remembering that many technological (and thus expensive) effort-saving and conveniences make no sense if the work and incovenience can 'simply' be handled by servants, poor/cheap laborers or slaves. Much of technology only makes sense if manpower is expensive.

In Victorian era, if you can afford to travel where you need luggage, then you definitely can afford people to carry that luggage for you, and those people would have been cheaper than high quality bearings that wheeled luggage needs.

It's attributed to Agatha Christie (1890-1976) autobiography that in her younger years she never thought she would ever be wealthy enough to own a car – nor that she'd ever be so poor that she wouldn't have servants; and yet eventually she was in both these conditions at the same time.

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

#98
post #6

So it looks like there were attempts but they had fatal design flaws and technology (metallurgy) was immature. One question raised is why didn’t we see a trike come about before the bike? It’s more stable and propulsion via direct front pedal isn’t as awkward as the front pedal bike.

They did ish. (from the article https://rootsofprogress.org/img/early-bicycle-models.png)

I think the big problem is weight, you probably had to be fit to ride, so why pootle around on something safer and even heavier. Its like trying to get a mamil to ride a sit up and beg.

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

#99
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but I don’t think that was the factor here. Ancient technology was astoundingly precise (see the famous Antikythera mechanism). I think the problem was roads. If you combine bad (or nonexistent) roads with airless hard tires, the result is much much less useful than any modern bike on any modern road. The first bikes were indeed wooden with wooden wheels. No ball bearings, no hollow steel tubes etc. But streets.…

The Antikythera Mechanism was a completely exotic Roman artifact. It was the space shuttle of its time. Not really a fair comparison. Dually, Romans were known for their extensive roads system. My family home sites directly below the Ancient Roman frontier in Germany, where you can climb a mountain and still find a 10 foot wide stone road they built 2000 years ago mostly intact

As any cyclist who has been on cobblestones can tell you, the pavers used on Roman roads aren't friendly to bikes. This would be doubly true without a pneumatic tire. Amazing engineering but not suitable for a bicycle.

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

#100
post #66

>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…

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.

Post reply on HN