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 that beats walking for someone that is not a cycling enthusiast.
It's a bit like the question of why the steam engine wasn't invented earlier. It was invented to pump water out of coal mines. Being 2% efficient (for the original model) didn't matter, since it was only used to mine its own fuel. I don't think we'd ever get to modern steam and later internal combustion engines without coal deposits making the initial prototype feasible, and then funding continual improvements.
By that sort of logic, we are lucky that European aristocrats were bored and enjoyed scary proto-bicycles, or we'd still not have them today. The final safety bicycle is practically a Segway by comparison with four wheel carriages.
There is even a bigger factor, the environment, Bicycles are only as good as the roads you're riding them on.
Off-road bicycle is a far more sophisticated and modern invention that builds on massive supply chain and production capabilities to be produced competitively compared to price of horse of yester-years.
Apparently buttons in buttonholes as a clothing fastener were not a thing until 1300 ce. Maybe that fact is false but, if true, it's crazy to me it took until 1300 ce to think of putting a "button" through a hole.
Maybe the issue is the defintion of "button" but still.
There's this non-serious book, "How to Invent Everything: A Survival Guide for the Stranded Time Traveler", which describes things you could introduce if you were beamed back in time. Things you could actually make and just took people to think of (vs like a smartphone that requires high-tech). "Buttons" was one of them.
The problem is the seams. Seam durability has been the driving force in a lot of "obvious" clothing inventions over the ages, and is why things like medieval crotchless hose were around for so long.
I think you are partly right, but I also think the mechanical advantage of the bicycle, even the velocipede, was significantly underestimated. You say it saves "a bit of energy going flat or downhill" but some quick calculations suggest it is twice as energy efficient just balancing along, and 3 to 4 times more efficient pedalling. These advantages aren't always realised, especially over shorter distances, but I would have thought they would be quite clear over any longer distances, or when carrying a heavy load. Perhaps this is where initial unreliability became an issue though, as the advantage of saving energy on a long journey bt bicycle would be outweighed if it was prone to breaking down, given it would be unlikely to find someone who could repair in those early days.
I think a fundamental inability to intuitively grasp the potential mechanical efficiency of the concept must have been a major barrier though.
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.
It might be that both really needed similar level of metallurgy and precision machining. After all limiting thing about aeroplanes was the power to weight ratio of engines. So more so that enablers of both were only available at that time.
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!
When the Wright Brothers first came to Europe in 1908, their prototype could fly for several kilometers of controlled flight. The best European prototypes at that time were absolutely inferior, which is why the Wright Brothers immediately managed to sign contracts with European companies. They introduced the three-axis control system which was a major innovation, basically the opposite of a patent troll.
> 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.
This just isn't true. The Wright Brothers solved fundamental problems in aviation that no one else did.
The three axis control mechanism is still what every plane uses today. They literally had to invent that notion. Adverse yaw is something that every single pilot learns about and handles.
They discovered the notion of stalling (literally they were the first to identify the notion and use the term) and the relationship between angle of attack and stalling. This is the sort of thing that will 100% kill you immediately when you fly, but if you know what to do it's part of routine training.
And that's just the start of it. You should read "What the Wright Brothers Did and Did Not Understand About Flight Mechanics—In Modern Terms" by Fred E.C. Culick
"The Centaur Crank is first screwed up to a shoulder on the axle with right and left-handed threads, so that the pressure of the foot tends to make it all the more secure ; whilst, to prevent its loosening by “ back-pedalling,” a slightly tapered conical pin is driven through both crank and axle, and secured with a nut."
Do you know the patent number? I searched the USPTO but found no bicycle related patent by either of the Wright brothers.
I think the interesting thing is that within 25 years or so of the invention of the "bicycle proper" the bike engineers (the Wright brothers) had already invented the airplane.
You know if you tap on the text at the top, it takes you to an article that expands upon the question. In this case you'll find that article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the materials bottleneck!
Agreed, and also chain and fasteners specifically require the ability to mass produce very small, very strong, very consistent parts. This necessarily needs production lines with consistent tooling and quality assurance.
> 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 mobility in society. I know we have this nice fantasy idea of towns having taverns and getting visitors, but in reality, most towns didn't even get what we'd consider a modern pub until the industrial revolution. Sure there were ale houses, but an ale house wasn't a permanent establishment, it was simply whomever had most recentely brewed beer. You'd bring your own chair, and your own cup. So even if you had a bicycle you would frankly have nowhere to go.
>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 the European wheelbarrow which is optimized for quick loading/unloading, and best suited to moving things short distances.
It’s not at all immediately obvious as to why the bicycle stands upright or turns. The physics is non-trivial and, based on the drawings, offsetting the center of the wheel from the axis of thw wheel being turned was not a thing. But it is this feature, that allows the modern bike to maneuver. Counter-steering is very unintuitive. If you lack the underlying physics or, in fact, personal experience, the bicycle sounds utterly mad. It doesn’t make sense. Which is why people did not work on it.
Yes. If one had never seen a bicycle, and were not told in advance that it works, one naturally would expect balancing upon its seat to be no easier in motion than at rest.
I would imagine the lack of good road infrastructure, and a society built around the idea of being hyper local were large factors contributing to not having much of a need
Cool to see a history of engineering development of something I take for granted. The present game of engineered complexity and incompatibility would make an interesting second part.
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 transportation?"
---
another analogous musing -- why did we start with main+tail rotor helicopters?
Nowadays 4-rotor quadcopters appeared and have taken over.
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.
4 rotors is also a much more difficult “controls” problem. Helicopters actually glide reasonably well if their engine cuts off. They’re not super insanely unstable.
Quadcopters are basically obligate fly-by-wire vehicles which necessitate at least pneumatic PID controllers if not computer chips to fly.
You can make a helicopter work reasonably well a lot earlier in a pre-computer “tech tree” than you can a quadcopter.
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.
>another analogous musing -- why did we start with main+tail rotor helicopters?
In fact we started with autogyros.
Also the Fw 61 ("the first successful, practical, and fully controllable helicopter" though I don't know the history in detail) has two equal-size counter-rotating rotors similar to a quadcopter.
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.
>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.
Carlton Reid, the guy who started the trade website BikeBiz, is my source for this, and his is a name to look out for, his writing is consistently good and his advocacy based on a knowledge of history. I am just paraphrasing what I have learned from his telling of the early days of the CTC (Cycle Touring Club).
There were many cycle touring clubs, and this was how men met women without their mothers being around!
The trains connected communities as never before and what we call the 'A roads' that connect towns had nobody using them, simple as that. Why would you go on an arduous journey that would take all day when the train would get you there in twenty minutes?
At the time there were no local authorities to look after the roads, it was each parish to its own, with the locals doing the work. Toll roads were the solution to the problem of maintenance, and toll roads were the 'A roads'. When they no longer had customers, due to the trains, they were done.
As for the bicycle and the reopening of roads, this had a lot to do with men chasing women, before the bicycle you were somewhat restricted to the gene pool in your village, with the bicycle there were neighbouring villages. It wasn't all about getting to the factory for work, there was this huge leisure/dating aspect to early cycling culture.
Trains were 10x faster than horses and men - at walking speed - on rough roads. The toll roads just withered and died. Confronted with a mountain, the train would just blast through, whereas the road would be a treacherous mountain pass, no tunnel, cutting or massive bridge provided. Trains were rocket ships.
Before that, canals had their own quirks of geography, with much of it to do with feeding or resting horses. The signs are for the next horse stop, not the nearby town.
With many a British town the town centre can be dated by when the canal arrived and when the railway arrived, since the buildings in the town centre start in local stone, then you get slate from the canal arriving and then brick, because the train made it to town.
It is incredible that so much of the final mile was by horse and cart. Only with 21st century goggles on does your idea of induced vehicular traffic make sense, trains were just too good.
> Carlton Reid, the guy who started the trade website BikeBiz, is my source for this, and his is a name to look out for, his writing is consistently good and his advocacy based on a knowledge of history. I am just paraphrasing what I have learned from his telling of the early days of the CTC (Cycle Touring Club).
I'll just note if there's one thing I've learned from studying a lot of history writing, it's that being a good writer has little correlation with establishing a ground truth. Indeed, there may be a negative correlation. You're almost certainly more likely to perceive somebody who can craft a compelling narrative as a "good writer". Compelling narratives are entertaining and satisfying. Reality can be a lot more boring. I find that a very significant portion of history writing takes a few tiny scraps of real information from primary sources (which could itself be embellished!) and extrapolates to what society must have been like, and does so in a way that makes it sound interesting.
This is not a commentary on Carlton Reid specifically. I have not read his writing. But I think this is a general principle to be aware and careful of. The reality is that in most cases we don't have a comprehensive historical record, especially for anything predating the 20th century, and history writing involves a lot of plausibly but not necessarily truthfully filling in the gaps. People telling you "this is what society was like" sates your curiosity a lot better than "we don't really know tbh".
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 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 that beats walking for someone that is not a cycling enthusiast.
It's a bit like the question of why the steam engine wasn't invented earlier. It was invented to pump water out of coal mines. Being 2% efficient (for the original model) didn't matter, since it was only used to mine its own fuel. I don't think we'd ever get to modern steam and later internal combustion engines without coal deposits making the initial prototype feasible, and then funding continual improvements.
By that sort of logic, we are lucky that European aristocrats were bored and enjoyed scary proto-bicycles, or we'd still not have them today. The final safety bicycle is practically a Segway by comparison with four wheel carriages.
> we are lucky that European aristocrats were bored and enjoyed scary proto-bicycles
There is a lesson there that is relevant today because our economy has forgotten it: to have innovation you need people to have spare time.
There is even a bigger factor, the environment, Bicycles are only as good as the roads you're riding them on.
Off-road bicycle is a far more sophisticated and modern invention that builds on massive supply chain and production capabilities to be produced competitively compared to price of horse of yester-years.
for rough roads, fat-tires are the way to go
How rough before even that's not enough, and were typical roads at the time of this quality?
Also, consider when vulcanised rubber and inflatable tires were invented.
Apparently buttons in buttonholes as a clothing fastener were not a thing until 1300 ce. Maybe that fact is false but, if true, it's crazy to me it took until 1300 ce to think of putting a "button" through a hole.
Maybe the issue is the defintion of "button" but still.
There's this non-serious book, "How to Invent Everything: A Survival Guide for the Stranded Time Traveler", which describes things you could introduce if you were beamed back in time. Things you could actually make and just took people to think of (vs like a smartphone that requires high-tech). "Buttons" was one of them.
The problem is the seams. Seam durability has been the driving force in a lot of "obvious" clothing inventions over the ages, and is why things like medieval crotchless hose were around for so long.
I think you are partly right, but I also think the mechanical advantage of the bicycle, even the velocipede, was significantly underestimated. You say it saves "a bit of energy going flat or downhill" but some quick calculations suggest it is twice as energy efficient just balancing along, and 3 to 4 times more efficient pedalling. These advantages aren't always realised, especially over shorter distances, but I would have thought they would be quite clear over any longer distances, or when carrying a heavy load. Perhaps this is where initial unreliability became an issue though, as the advantage of saving energy on a long journey bt bicycle would be outweighed if it was prone to breaking down, given it would be unlikely to find someone who could repair in those early days.
I think a fundamental inability to intuitively grasp the potential mechanical efficiency of the concept must have been a major barrier though.
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.
Incredible to think that barely ten years after bicycles were somewhat perfected as useful, Wright brothers started testing their early plane designs.
It might be that both really needed similar level of metallurgy and precision machining. After all limiting thing about aeroplanes was the power to weight ratio of engines. So more so that enablers of both were only available at that time.
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!
When the Wright Brothers first came to Europe in 1908, their prototype could fly for several kilometers of controlled flight. The best European prototypes at that time were absolutely inferior, which is why the Wright Brothers immediately managed to sign contracts with European companies. They introduced the three-axis control system which was a major innovation, basically the opposite of a patent troll.
> 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.
This just isn't true. The Wright Brothers solved fundamental problems in aviation that no one else did.
The three axis control mechanism is still what every plane uses today. They literally had to invent that notion. Adverse yaw is something that every single pilot learns about and handles.
They discovered the notion of stalling (literally they were the first to identify the notion and use the term) and the relationship between angle of attack and stalling. This is the sort of thing that will 100% kill you immediately when you fly, but if you know what to do it's part of routine training.
And that's just the start of it. You should read "What the Wright Brothers Did and Did Not Understand About Flight Mechanics—In Modern Terms" by Fred E.C. Culick
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/What-the-Wright-Brothe...
This has nothing to do with being American or not.
> With the bicycle the Wright Brothers patented the left-hand thread.
I tried to verify that a couple of years ago, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42709428 . It does not seem to be true.
https://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Fa... says "Wilbur and Orville were in the vanguard of those manufacturers that offered right-hand threads on one crank arm and left-hand threads on the other" but not the inventors.
I was also able to find earlier uses of left-handed threads for bicycles, like in this 1881 book, at https://archive.org/details/indispensablebic00stur/page/14/m...
"The Centaur Crank is first screwed up to a shoulder on the axle with right and left-handed threads, so that the pressure of the foot tends to make it all the more secure ; whilst, to prevent its loosening by “ back-pedalling,” a slightly tapered conical pin is driven through both crank and axle, and secured with a nut."
Do you know the patent number? I searched the USPTO but found no bicycle related patent by either of the Wright brothers.
The Smithsonian has a great book called "Wheels and Wheeling" that covers the early history of bicycles. Fascinating stuff.
https://repository.si.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/02b8e94...
I think the interesting thing is that within 25 years or so of the invention of the "bicycle proper" the bike engineers (the Wright brothers) had already invented the airplane.
Previously...
Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39774253 - March 2024 (238 comments)
Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? (2019) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25331858 - Dec 2020 (83 comments)
Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20443822 - July 2019 (492 comments)
Jenny Draper has a good video on the history of the bike as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7C9YUwPtGk
High-quality (higher carbon) steel required for frame, chain and gears was not abundant enough and cheap enough until late XIX century.
You know if you tap on the text at the top, it takes you to an article that expands upon the question. In this case you'll find that article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the materials bottleneck!
Agreed, and also chain and fasteners specifically require the ability to mass produce very small, very strong, very consistent parts. This necessarily needs production lines with consistent tooling and quality assurance.
> 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 mobility in society. I know we have this nice fantasy idea of towns having taverns and getting visitors, but in reality, most towns didn't even get what we'd consider a modern pub until the industrial revolution. Sure there were ale houses, but an ale house wasn't a permanent establishment, it was simply whomever had most recentely brewed beer. You'd bring your own chair, and your own cup. So even if you had a bicycle you would frankly have nowhere to go.
>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 the European wheelbarrow which is optimized for quick loading/unloading, and best suited to moving things short distances.
Merchants, sheperds, peasants and the like travelled for sure to nearby towns to sell their goods.
It’s not at all immediately obvious as to why the bicycle stands upright or turns. The physics is non-trivial and, based on the drawings, offsetting the center of the wheel from the axis of thw wheel being turned was not a thing. But it is this feature, that allows the modern bike to maneuver. Counter-steering is very unintuitive. If you lack the underlying physics or, in fact, personal experience, the bicycle sounds utterly mad. It doesn’t make sense. Which is why people did not work on it.
Yes. If one had never seen a bicycle, and were not told in advance that it works, one naturally would expect balancing upon its seat to be no easier in motion than at rest.
I would imagine the lack of good road infrastructure, and a society built around the idea of being hyper local were large factors contributing to not having much of a need
Cool to see a history of engineering development of something I take for granted. The present game of engineered complexity and incompatibility would make an interesting second part.
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 transportation?"
---
another analogous musing -- why did we start with main+tail rotor helicopters?
Nowadays 4-rotor quadcopters appeared and have taken over.
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.
4 rotors is also a much more difficult “controls” problem. Helicopters actually glide reasonably well if their engine cuts off. They’re not super insanely unstable.
Quadcopters are basically obligate fly-by-wire vehicles which necessitate at least pneumatic PID controllers if not computer chips to fly.
You can make a helicopter work reasonably well a lot earlier in a pre-computer “tech tree” than you can a quadcopter.
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.
>another analogous musing -- why did we start with main+tail rotor helicopters?
In fact we started with autogyros.
Also the Fw 61 ("the first successful, practical, and fully controllable helicopter" though I don't know the history in detail) has two equal-size counter-rotating rotors similar to a quadcopter.
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.
There is quadcopter with variable pitch blade.
>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.
Carlton Reid, the guy who started the trade website BikeBiz, is my source for this, and his is a name to look out for, his writing is consistently good and his advocacy based on a knowledge of history. I am just paraphrasing what I have learned from his telling of the early days of the CTC (Cycle Touring Club).
There were many cycle touring clubs, and this was how men met women without their mothers being around!
The trains connected communities as never before and what we call the 'A roads' that connect towns had nobody using them, simple as that. Why would you go on an arduous journey that would take all day when the train would get you there in twenty minutes?
At the time there were no local authorities to look after the roads, it was each parish to its own, with the locals doing the work. Toll roads were the solution to the problem of maintenance, and toll roads were the 'A roads'. When they no longer had customers, due to the trains, they were done.
As for the bicycle and the reopening of roads, this had a lot to do with men chasing women, before the bicycle you were somewhat restricted to the gene pool in your village, with the bicycle there were neighbouring villages. It wasn't all about getting to the factory for work, there was this huge leisure/dating aspect to early cycling culture.
Trains were 10x faster than horses and men - at walking speed - on rough roads. The toll roads just withered and died. Confronted with a mountain, the train would just blast through, whereas the road would be a treacherous mountain pass, no tunnel, cutting or massive bridge provided. Trains were rocket ships.
Before that, canals had their own quirks of geography, with much of it to do with feeding or resting horses. The signs are for the next horse stop, not the nearby town.
With many a British town the town centre can be dated by when the canal arrived and when the railway arrived, since the buildings in the town centre start in local stone, then you get slate from the canal arriving and then brick, because the train made it to town.
It is incredible that so much of the final mile was by horse and cart. Only with 21st century goggles on does your idea of induced vehicular traffic make sense, trains were just too good.
> Carlton Reid, the guy who started the trade website BikeBiz, is my source for this, and his is a name to look out for, his writing is consistently good and his advocacy based on a knowledge of history. I am just paraphrasing what I have learned from his telling of the early days of the CTC (Cycle Touring Club).
I'll just note if there's one thing I've learned from studying a lot of history writing, it's that being a good writer has little correlation with establishing a ground truth. Indeed, there may be a negative correlation. You're almost certainly more likely to perceive somebody who can craft a compelling narrative as a "good writer". Compelling narratives are entertaining and satisfying. Reality can be a lot more boring. I find that a very significant portion of history writing takes a few tiny scraps of real information from primary sources (which could itself be embellished!) and extrapolates to what society must have been like, and does so in a way that makes it sound interesting.
This is not a commentary on Carlton Reid specifically. I have not read his writing. But I think this is a general principle to be aware and careful of. The reality is that in most cases we don't have a comprehensive historical record, especially for anything predating the 20th century, and history writing involves a lot of plausibly but not necessarily truthfully filling in the gaps. People telling you "this is what society was like" sates your curiosity a lot better than "we don't really know tbh".
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.
excellent