WI: Bikes invented 100 years earlier

[BlondieBC]

Actually, the greatest limitation to the bicycle was the terrain. Centuries earlier, Leonardo daVinci drew a bicycle-like pedal vehicle, but like many of his fantasy-like works, it went ignored.

The French called early bicycles velociped, a name to suggest speed. Had the roads been around, the mechanics would have followed. Even with ropes and cords instead of a chain, a vehicle that could coast downhill with speed would have taken off, if the roads were there.

How do you figure on terrain? It is not a major limitation on modern bikes, is there something different in the DaVinci bike that makes it a limitation? Unless the mud is too think I lose momentum or unless the grass is so thick I lose all speed, a bike is easy to do on poor terrain. Quite frankly, a cobble stone road is much harder to ride a bike on than a simple dirt path.

 

[carlton_bach]

How do you figure on terrain? It is not a major limitation on modern bikes, is there something different in the DaVinci bike that makes it a limitation? Unless the mud is too think I lose momentum or unless the grass is so thick I lose all speed, a bike is easy to do on poor terrain. Quite frankly, a cobble stone road is much harder to ride a bike on than a simple dirt path.

Even the most basic modern bike has pneumatic tires, a proper transmission and lightweight wheels running on ball bearings. Very likely also a gearshift and a saddle with spring suspension, though that's already a bit of a luxury. Without these, you need much more power to move the bicycle and keep it moving while you are much more likely to lose momentum on encountering any obstacle. Acceleration is a lot less convenient without a mechanical transmission, too.

Also, most modern dirt paths are better than eighteenth-century roads because they are less work out by traffic.

 

[wietze]

this discussion gave me a thought, we need to suggest something to discovery channel.



"What if" let them try to construct a 19th or 20th century item with tech from 2 centuries before.

 

[Mark E.]

Even the most basic modern bike has pneumatic tires, a proper transmission and lightweight wheels running on ball bearings. Very likely also a gearshift and a saddle with spring suspension, though that's already a bit of a luxury. Without these, you need much more power to move the bicycle and keep it moving while you are much more likely to lose momentum on encountering any obstacle. Acceleration is a lot less convenient without a mechanical transmission, too.

Also, most modern dirt paths are better than eighteenth-century roads because they are less work out by traffic.

Modern components produced by modern materials technology are indeed requirements for a "mountain bike" that can negotiate the rugged terrain that represented the norm before modern roads.

Basic bicycles, though, with many of the working features of the single-speed bikes of the sixties and earlier decades, and the ability to coast downhill, could have evolved much earlier. In fact, early bicycles did evolve slowly as pneumatic tires, transmissions, suspensions, etc. became available. Early vehicles functioned very poorly off of flat, even surfaces. Then there is the practicality. You can't zip around at 5-10 miles per hour in places crowded with people and animals. Or, you get into trouble; didn't President Thomas Jefferson get a citation for riding his horse too fast on the city streets?

In an environment where animals were so readily available for work, the concept of personal speed was not there until the railroads came along, and that was precisely when early bicycles came along.

In answer to the OP, if an 1860's style bike had come out 100 years earlier, it would have largely been ignored as a toy, and a rather dangerous one at that.

 

[BlondieBC]

Even the most basic modern bike has pneumatic tires, a proper transmission and lightweight wheels running on ball bearings. Very likely also a gearshift and a saddle with spring suspension, though that's already a bit of a luxury. Without these, you need much more power to move the bicycle and keep it moving while you are much more likely to lose momentum on encountering any obstacle. Acceleration is a lot less convenient without a mechanical transmission, too.

Also, most modern dirt paths are better than eighteenth-century roads because they are less work out by traffic.

I had cheap walmart bike. No gears. No hand breaks. Unless you count the simple chain as a transmission, No transmission, saddle was simply seat welded to metal. Trust me, no spring on this one, lot of shock to groin if hit something too hard. Don't remember tires wheel spokes that well, but nothing complicated.

Maybe ball bearings.

Yes, on rubber tires.


I have done it, it is doable. Now I may well have burned 2-3 more calories per mile than if modern dirt bike. But still, lot, lot more efficient than walking. And faster, really faster than I could have jogged the 3 miles.

 

[BlondieBC]

this discussion gave me a thought, we need to suggest something to discovery channel.



"What if" let them try to construct a 19th or 20th century item with tech from 2 centuries before.

It would work. Really make it a time travel show, I would not limit it to 2 centuries. Get some guy who claims he can make a better saddle than the crusaders. Take this engineer/hobbist and his shop mates, and give then a fully fitted 1100 AD shop and 2 weeks to make a better saddle. Put a prize on it, say give then 100K if they are right. Nothing if they are wrong. Be fun to watch. I would love to see the cross over episodes where say the bike show tries to make a better chariot or the like.

 

[BlondieBC]

Modern components produced by modern materials technology are indeed requirements for a "mountain bike" that can negotiate the rugged terrain that represented the norm before modern roads.

I think people are confusing the road conditions. The mountain bikers are intentionally finding the harder, more challenging trails. Much like rock climbers will climb up the cliff, not the back side of the cliff where it is a simple walk to the top. If you are riding the bike because it is your only means of transportation besides shoe leather, you select the easiest path. And I think people are making dirt paths to be worse than they are. Sure, right after a heavy rain it is a bit challenging. And if too bad, I could have walked. But most of the time, the dirt is as hard and flat as your kitchen floor. To be more precise, if you have the dirt basketball court that is used a lot where the dirt is 100% compacted, this is what the trails are like.

Now sure, a horse would have been better. But lets be fair, a well trained horse is still a better way to travel than a mountain bike. If I had had a horse, I would have used it. But a horse is vastly more expensive in the 1970's and early 1980's. So we are then down to costs. How much does it cost to make and maintain the bike compared to said horse? I can't answer this item.

Now to the cities, sure some cities may be too crowded, but back then a lot of Europe was small villages surrounded by fields. If cheaper than a horse, I bike is good way for a messenger to go from the village to the fields. Or to ride to the next village to pickup mail. Sure, if you need speed a horse works. If bunch of men, probably use a wagon. If bulk goods, use a wagon. After a very heavy rain with flooding, walking probably is better. But if just you are traveling, and the distance is 2-10 miles, a bike will be the best mode of transit short of a horse well over 90% of the time. The question is not would a primitive bike beat an expensive horse or modern technology. The question is "In areas with average quality dirt paths, can you get there faster with a bike?" Will you be less tired? In my experiences, the answer is a bike is faster and less tiring.

 

[carlton_bach]

I had cheap walmart bike. No gears. No hand breaks. Unless you count the simple chain as a transmission, No transmission, saddle was simply seat welded to metal. Trust me, no spring on this one, lot of shock to groin if hit something too hard. Don't remember tires wheel spokes that well, but nothing complicated.

Maybe ball bearings.

Yes, on rubber tires.


I have done it, it is doable. Now I may well have burned 2-3 more calories per mile than if modern dirt bike. But still, lot, lot more efficient than walking. And faster, really faster than I could have jogged the 3 miles.

Even the cheapest modern bicycles is world better than what even 1880s technology produced. It doesn't look complicated to us, but we tend to overlook complication that doesn't immediately affect us.

The key components of a bicycle that actually improves your travel ability off metalled roads are: lightweight spoked wheels (which you don't need to make out of steel, but historically usually did), a transmission drive so you don't have to pedal the wheels directly (usually a chain, other technologies also work, but it pretty much requires precision-machined high-grade metal), pneumatic tyres that can be repaired relatively easily, and ball bearings to reduce friction. Your bike had those - even the cheapest bike today has those for the simple reason that without them, it becomes drastically less useful.

 

[carlton_bach]

It would work. Really make it a time travel show, I would not limit it to 2 centuries. Get some guy who claims he can make a better saddle than the crusaders. Take this engineer/hobbist and his shop mates, and give then a fully fitted 1100 AD shop and 2 weeks to make a better saddle. Put a prize on it, say give then 100K if they are right. Nothing if they are wrong. Be fun to watch. I would love to see the cross over episodes where say the bike show tries to make a better chariot or the like.

The problems with that show would be a) most (good) modern craftsmen could easily make a better item simply because they have a superior understanding of engineering and b) we often don't know how exactly the original items were made in the first place. It would be down to a competition between the product of an artisan far better equipped than his ancestors versus something an archeologist and a retired cavalry officer put together one afternoon in Oxford because it looked like it worked.

Mind, I'd watch it. BUt I think an ISOT-based format "here are the materials available in 1200, build a bike/car/rifle/air conditioner" sounds more promising.