3 ms·
it's hard to imagine people getting a bicycle this much wrong http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gianluca_Gimini-Velocipedia-5.jpg http://w
by LoSboccacc 11y ago
it's hard to imagine people getting a bicycle this much wrong http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gianluca_Gimini-Velocipedia-5.jpg http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gian...
not that I'd draw it with perfect mechanical fidelity, but there are bicycle defining parts missing there.
- buro9 11y agoThat's not very wrong, it's just missing things (rear triangle, drivetrain). At least you could ride downhill on it (though stopping may be an issue).
- amadvance 11y agoI would say it's one of few that could not break as soon you get on :) It really looks like as a history bicycle, where you used foots to push. http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/064/812/iFF/hobby-horse.jpg?1397180995 http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/064/812/iFF/hobby-hors...
- skykooler 11y agoAlso known as a "Velocipede".
- userbinator 11y agoFor a lot of people, "bicycle defining parts" probably means "two wheels and a seat", which is what all the drawings have in common. I wonder what a machine learning algorithm would do with those renders if asked to identify pictures of bicycles, since all the drawings and renders are unmistakably bicycle-ish to people but also not "perfect" bicycles.
- Someone 11y agoFor comparison, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle#1817_to_1819:_the_draisine_or_velocipede https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle#1817_... also has bicycle defining parts missing, but we call it an early bicycle, anyways.