3 ms·

Correct me if I’m wrong but the materials science and the actual design of a bicycle aren’t actually that simple, right? That’s why there were so many zany iter

Correct me if I’m wrong but the materials science and the actual design of a bicycle aren’t actually that simple, right? That’s why there were so many zany iterations of bicycles until we landed on the most common form we see today?

cogman10 6y ago
Yup. https://www.liveabout.com/bikes-an-illustrated-history-365776 https://www.liveabout.com/bikes-an-illustrated-history-36577... For one thing, iron is pretty much a minimum requirement for bikes. Iron was really expensive right up till the point where we learned out to use coal forges. That meant that early bikes were going to be made out of wood. That's pretty much a non-starter. You can't have wooden peddles. But then, if you want to talk about really modern bikes, you need chains. Chains aren't simple to manufacture, particularly by hand. You need uniformity and consistency. For that, you need manufacturing machines. And let's not forget the tires. Wooden tires simply don't work well or last for too terribly long (no good having tires that rot. Not to mention how incredibly rough that ride must have been). Rubber is a relatively late invention that was needed to make inflatable tires.
- flubert 6y ago
  Some historian somewhere must have come across records of how long a chariot wheel lasted. It seems like that would have as close to a similar loading as a bicycle. 100 miles? 1,000?
- jrwoodruff 6y ago
  Also, wooden tires wouldn't have much traction. Most (all?) vehicles at this time were not in any way self-propelled. They were pulled or pushed along by an horse, human or other power source. Anyone that's ridden a big wheel can attest that traction is difficult using hard materials for tires.
kevinpet 6y ago
I think the article glosses over a few critical points. Pedals and cranks break today on cheap bicycles. The cost of good steel decreased by a factor of 6 between about 1855 and 1875.

cogman10 6y ago

Yup. https://www.liveabout.com/bikes-an-illustrated-history-365776 https://www.liveabout.com/bikes-an-illustrated-history-36577... For one thing, iron is pretty much a minimum requirement for bikes. Iron was really expensive right up till the point where we learned out to use coal forges. That meant that early bikes were going to be made out of wood. That's pretty much a non-starter. You can't have wooden peddles. But then, if you want to talk about really modern bikes, you need chains. Chains aren't simple to manufacture, particularly by hand. You need uniformity and consistency. For that, you need manufacturing machines. And let's not forget the tires. Wooden tires simply don't work well or last for too terribly long (no good having tires that rot. Not to mention how incredibly rough that ride must have been). Rubber is a relatively late invention that was needed to make inflatable tires.

flubert 6y ago
Some historian somewhere must have come across records of how long a chariot wheel lasted. It seems like that would have as close to a similar loading as a bicycle. 100 miles? 1,000?
jrwoodruff 6y ago
Also, wooden tires wouldn't have much traction. Most (all?) vehicles at this time were not in any way self-propelled. They were pulled or pushed along by an horse, human or other power source. Anyone that's ridden a big wheel can attest that traction is difficult using hard materials for tires.

kevinpet 6y ago

I think the article glosses over a few critical points. Pedals and cranks break today on cheap bicycles. The cost of good steel decreased by a factor of 6 between about 1855 and 1875.