Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

67% Positive

Analyzed from 406 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#why#bicycle#rotor#doesn#wheel#nowadays#another#bit#energy#relatively

Discussion (6 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

avidiaxabout 1 hour ago
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.

belZaah7 minutes ago
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.
m463about 1 hour ago
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.

LandStander18 minutes ago
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.

tetrisgm24 minutes ago
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
lunatunaabout 1 hour ago
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.