Why didn't the Romans invent the bicycle?
>>64976159Walking was cheaper.
>>64976159Because they didn't have rubber?
pneumatic tires, tubular metal extrusions, and arc welding
>>64976185Let me guess, you need more?
>>64976159i'm pretty sure wagons were the bicycles of those days
>>64976159Its an invention of the industrial revolution. You need metallurgy with quality and precision that was not available before 1870s.
>>64976185>needing rubberlmao
>>64976159Cause they hated us niggas
>why didn't the romans develop the bicycle?lack of metallurgical knowledge>why didn't the romans develop the steam engine/train?lack of metallurgical knowledge>why didn't the chinese develop the printing presslack of metallurgical knowledge>why didn't the chinese develop the gun?lack of metallurgical knowledge>why did my girlfriend leave me complaining I was more interested in alloys than our relationship?lack of metallurgical knowledge>why didn't X develop Ylack of metallurgical knowledge
>>64976194>>64976207>Casting is a 7,000-year-old process. The oldest surviving casting is a copper frog from 3200 BC.
>>64976236You have no idea how shit and expensive metal work was +200 plus years ago.
>>64976201I'm pretty sure a horse would be the bicycle of the day.
>>64976159Because the boneshaker sucked ass, and it was dropped as soon as it stopped being a fad. Imagine an even earlier, shittier boneshaker.
>>64976253More like an H-scooter. The H stands for hay.
>>64976235OK but a high schooler can make a bike using the metal working facilities Was Rome dumber than a high schooler?
Walking machines are easy to make, totally possible for roman era tech. Adding pedal drive would be more difficult, though probably still possible.These machines also weren't very popular because they require better roads than either two track carts or walking. A good roman road might be suited for it, but most roads even in roman times probably weren't better than those of the 19th century.
>>64976281No many romans would also have been able to make a bike with a modern high school metal shop and some guidance.
>>64976301Source?
>>64976310They weren't idiots. As you said its easy to make a bike when you have tools and materials.
>>64976289Bicycles suck without rubber my dudes. You think your wood wheel is gonna be tractiony enough to catch an edge like inline wheels require?
>>64976159Didn't have interchangeable parts.
>>64976325Hence why nobody liked the dandy horse, or the velocipede, or any other non-rubber-rimmed two-wheeler.
>>64976236>just cast a bike chain bro
>>64976334It's also why cart designs reigned supreme since the only viable way to turn was to TURN rather than lean.
>>64976207This is like saying you can't make a plane becuase t has to be made from aluminium (i.e. you're a retard). You can make a bicycle out of wood. No need for chains or rubber, just use rope.
>>64976316But they never made bikes
>>64976356What a fucking retarded take. Said like a loser that never build anything. Material science has been a huge gatekeeper for technological break throughs. You can't make a powered airplane without steel, as no motor with enough horse power can be made with out it. You cannot make a bike from wood only. You can make a hobby horse. Any modern wooden bikes you see have bottom bracket and other parts in steel. Any bike you build with wood and a rope chain would break so quickly its unusable.
>>64976371And why is that?
>>64976356do you have any idea of how shitty using a rope instead of a chaindrive is in terms of power rentability? You lose at least 50% of your energy because the rope will slip.
>>64976379Because they didn't try hard enough
>>64976159They didn't have a way to make ball bearings and there are a lot of things you can't make without ball bearings.
>>64976236Casting isn't precise enough. You usually find tiny defects on the surface where the metal cooled unevenly or the cast wasn't perfectly smooth. An artisan would need to polish the piece to give it that shiny finish. The process also tended to be destructive with clay casts being destroyed. Sand casting didn't develop until around the time of the Ottoman Empire and our first written account was in The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices by Ismail al-Jazari in 1206 AD. Even then, it wasn't until Whitworth made machining precise enough for interchangeable parts that bikes would be anything but a toy for the rich.
>>64976281>the metal working facilitiesYou mean MODERN metal working facilities? With tools precise down to the millionth of an inch and produce 10 horsepower with no strain on the user?
There’s a neat historical paper I read a year or so ago regarding why only a small fraction of cultures ever “invented” the wheelbarrow. Huge swaths of Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas carried things on their head and back all the time and never had a wheelbarrow. The conclusion was basically that massive amounts of the world are not remotely practical for wheelbarrow usage without modern terraforming and road construction. Several of these cultures that lacked wheelbarrows still had chariots, or four wheeled carts, or wagons, but a wheelbarrow made as heavy as they would have had to make it with the materials at the time would immediately get stuck in mud, or be more work than carrying the item to bring up hills, or so on. Modern farms are obviously still muddy, but a lot of them are made extremely flat with bulldozing and other industrial equipment that we might assume has always existed in the back of our head, but obviously hasn’t. The historical farm environment would’ve been much hillier. I’m pretty sure you can make a functional bicycle without modern metallurgy. I’m pretty sure the bicycle that would end up being produced would function to some degree, and I’m sure that degree would be less than walking in most of the world.
>>64976212They didn't have springs either.
>>64976477>I’m pretty sure the bicycle that would end up being produced would function to some degree, and I’m sure that degree would be less than walking in most of the world.Correct, now I'm imaginging a time traveller trying to explain his amazing era correct Roman Bicycle that barely works and is slower than walking to Roman Engineers who proceed to point out all the flaws and how it makes no sense. "And if you want to go anywhere fast, why not just get a horse?".
>>64976159they knew about joggers way before they got the technology to make themno need to make something if it just gets stolen
>>64976185https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariotry_in_ancient_Egypt
>>64976477Infrastructure is a wild drug and the worst thing about modernity is that people assume our methods are the only ones. Incans carried stones up mountains by hand to perfectly align structures with the sun (btw the structures still stand to this day), Aztecs controlled flooding in what is now Mexico City via massive water management tools that the Spanish lost, and as you pointed out countless cultures carried loads by hand as the feasibility of heavy roadway construction was unfeasible.
>>64976477Well, technically, Africans did invent a wheeled vehicle. It's called a chukudu, and it resembles a giant angled kick scooter, for carrying freight.
>>64976595>technically, Africans did invent a wheeled vehicle50 years ago. There were actual cars driving around in africa before they "invented" two boards with wheels attached
>>64976159This is so kino, i love this. I'd love to see a modern take on this.
>>64976235The Greeks probably could have figured it out.
>>64976677They probably did and then rightly assumed it would be far too expensive to make.
>>64976677Yeah but there was no gay sex to be had in such a concept so they never pursued it. Little did they know cyclists would become the gayest subspecies of man
>>64976159Bearings and bushings. Making something that can spin with little wear efficiently enough to make cycling worth it over walking or horses is something we only figured out with the industrial revolution. You can make a bike with wooden wheels and frame, you can make a bike with a belt instead of a chain (in fact, fuck the chain, we penny farthing), but if your bearings are shit, your bike is shit and you'll be better off either walking if you don't carry shit or with a wheelbarrow if you do. >>64976235>roman bicycleBearings>roman steam engineBearings, you can make a primitive steam engine with bronze parts but no bearings means no spin>chinese printing pressI literally had an educational kit of a printing press as a kid, mostly wooden parts, you had to carve letters yourself out of potatoes but you can sub for more wood, and you don't even need bearings. It's such a simple idea I'm pretty sure it was developed but then the developer was killed because giving common man access to text would make common man too strong to control. Many such cases. >chinese gunChink hubris, they were so enamored with "powder go fwosh", "powder in box go boom" and "powder in box with hole go up" that they didn't think of checking what happens if powder in box with hole with rock in hole.>girlfriendI think that's not lack of metallurgical knowlege, that's lack of wood
>>64976235>>why didn't the romans develop the steam engineThe romans did have a rudimentary steam engine, but they thought it was little more than a novelty/street performance thing. You also need physics and concepts such as energy generation and conservation/mechanical know-how in order to really start on mechanizing society.>>64976805>Bearings and bushingsThe romans had ball bearings and the associated hydraulic fluids to go with it. Emperor Nero had engineers design a rotating banquet hall so he could wine and dine his guests. See: https://phys.org/news/2009-09-nero-rotating-banquet-hall-unveiled.html
>>64976159Their bearings were shit-tier (no ball bearings)
>>64976915We have sleeve bearings and those work great. We used them on all manners of carriages, carts, and wagons since the advent of wood on wood bearing surfaces
>>64976805China had moveable type printing since 1040AD. What they didn't have were printing presses.
>>64976513A chariot is not a bicycle.
>>64976431Bikes were invented in the 1800s
>>64976212>all that chain slackYeah.
>>64976159because the greeks didn’t
>>64976236A cast bike chain would either weight 100kg or break in seconds
big oatgreco confederation of bit engineering
>>64976159Read the history of bicycle.Parts needed for modern bicycle (wire spoke wheel, rubber tiers, chain) all were invited during 19th century.
https://shop.renold.com/pages/industrial-history
>>64976185>Because they didn't have rubber?Neither did your father.
>>64976805Behold, Roman bearings
>>64981839Unless you count Velocipedes, and I don't because they didn't have pedals, bicycles were invented in 1866. Note that this is AFTER Joseph Whitworth's 3 plate method and measuring screw which were invented in 1830s and 1840. Also after the first power lathes came out in the mid 1700s but that's less relevant. Honestly, /k/ should know about Joseph Whitworth. He basically invented sub-MOA rifles.
Your mother wasn't born yet :^)>>64976235I'd add that it's also a conceptual and needs problem. It's the same with why it took till the middle ages to invent the wheelbarrow in Europe and the 1st century for China to have its own weird version with a giant wheel in the middle used for moving people.
>>64976382That slippage would just mean the bicycle is slow to start. Once you get up to speed the transmission won't slip. Or you know, you can apply some intelligence and cover the interface with something rough. Sand. Rayskin, little metal spikes. Or alternatively, just use gears for transmission.
>>64983430>That slippage would just mean the bicycle is slow to startWhich is a problem because bikes are gyroscopically stabilized. No seriously, the wheels act as gyroscopes which keeps you from falling over despite only two points of contact with the ground. > Once you get up to speed the transmission won't slipIt will when you try to stop. > Or you know, you can apply some intelligence and cover the interface with something rough. Sand.Falls off given time> Rayskin, Expensive>little metal spikes.Damages the parts it's connecting to. >just use gears for transmission.Romans couldn't produce gears like that at an affordable rate. In fact, we wouldn't see gears cheap enough to put on personal transports until the late 1800s.
>>64976159probably too hard to implement tiny chain drive
>>64976159Because bikes require an industrial revolution in gear making
>>64976805Wood is certainly a choice for a girlfriend, Master Pygmalion, but personally I prefer the certainty of steel.
>>64983473you could cast gears and cotter pin things that would be threaded
>>64976477Sure, there's a limit to the usefulness of certain inventions but that isn't the whole story. You can't use that excuse for most inventions for the Romans after all. The Romans had roads and paved streets. They had no wheelbarrow. Besides, any culture can just temporarily lay down some slabs in a building site. There's also a whole swathe of inventions which require zero infrastructure to work, the industrial revolution was full of them, especially those in the textile and farming industry. Inventions just require time and serendipity, that's all. There's no magic solution and there's no "tech tree", beyond what's absolutely required. Nothing was stopping the Romans from making a spinning wheel, windmill, seed drill, mechanical calculators, printing, heliograph, gunpowder etc. They just didn't, because no one nearby invented it.
>>64983460>Which is a problem because bikes are gyroscopically stabilizedJust push with your feet. That's enough speed to stabilize and start the process.>It will when you try to stop.What kind of stupid bicycle has no brakes and needs to use the pedals? Are you stupid or just a hipster? Have you never seen a real bicycle before? I hope you realize the hub on a bike slips when stopping or slowing down.>Falls off given timeGlue.>RayskinOh no a small strip of rayskin is "expensive"! The horror!>Damages the parts it's connecting to. So change the rope every few months. Also the size of the spikes is nowhere near what you're imagining, you need very small spikes for grip, the size of a sieved grain of sand, it's negligible damage, a rope will need to be changed from being out in the open sooner than from damage from a pulley with a rough surface.>GearsRomans had gears, just not the high precision metal gears you're thinking off. Those gears were made of wood and powered their water wheels, mills and mines.Have you considered just not being an idiot and just thinking for a second? These answers appeared the moment I read them. Some of these are incredible, can you even explain how you thought the first two didn't make you feel incredibly retarded even as you were writing them? No really, have you never cycled before?
>>64983566>Romans had gears, just not the high precision metal gears you're thinking off.NTA but he said "Romans couldn't produce gears like that at an affordable rate. ", which going off the water wheel counter-example sounds correct
>>64983773Yeah, just look at how expensive it would be to make these things!
>>64983801Large wooden gears are cheap, yesHow about very small ones for a bicycle?
>>64983821Can, you, right now, imagine cutting out a few of these? How long do you think it will take?
>>64983821It's a bicycle not a watch. No really, have you never seen a bicycle before?
>>64983872>No really, have you never seen a bicycle before?The Harleys? No, I'm not a degenerate. I don't date a tramp.
>>64983566>Just push with your feet. That's enough speed to stabilize and start the process.That's called a Velocipede. Those existed. They sucked. >What kind of stupid bicycle has no brakes and needs to use the pedals? Ones that existed before Bowden Cable systems. >Glue.Cracks and flakes off from repeated flexing. >Oh no a small strip of rayskin is "expensive"! The horror!It is when you have to replace it regularly and are competing with horses. >So change the rope every few months. Also the size of the spikes is nowhere near what you're imagining, you need very small spikes for grip, the size of a sieved grain of sand, it's negligible damage, a rope will need to be changed from being out in the open sooner than from damage from a pulley with a rough surface.Then the spikes don't produce enough grip and you're back to square one. >Romans had gears, just not the high precision metal gears you're thinking off. Those gears were made of wood and powered their water wheels, mills and mines.Wouldn't scale down properly. There's a reason bike chains and gears were always metal and it's because wood gears that small would break. >>64983801Yeah, those gears would essentially be the size of popsicle sticks. They're breaking real easy.
>>64983953>That's called a Velocipede.You push with your feet to start, and then cycle. Seriously, are you retarded?>Ones that existed before Bowden Cable systemsThere are plenty of brakes that don't use bowden cables. That you said this just reveals how smoothbrained you are. The moment you hit a problem you just think it can't be solved because you literally have zero problem-solving skills and can't even do something as basic as "can't use this type of brake brake, maybe use a different brake?">Cracks and flakes off from repeated flexing. The glue is on the pulley you absolute retard.>replace it regularly[citation needed] >competing with horses.The question here is whether it can be done. The first bicycles didn't compete with horses either. They filled a different niche, that of being able to move without needing a horse. That's the entire point of a bicycle, you idiot.>Then the spikes don't produce enough gripThey will, you already admitted sand works, therefore spikes the size of sand will work better than sand itself.>gearsThey're not that small, have you seen the size of the sprockets on a bicycle? Also there's really nothing stopping them from making it out of metal. For example a single legionary's equipment would use up much more iron than single theoretical Roman bike.a single
>>64984022>size of the sprockets on a bicycleNta but those are tiny for wooden gears>>64984022>a single legionary's equipment would use up much more iron than single theoretical Roman bikeA legionnaire would also be more useful.Creating mostly circular gears out of metal is far more effort than forging the equipment
>>64976198Riding a bicycle over cobblestones with those? Christ, my ass hurts just from thinking about that.
>>64984075You can just put the seat on a leaf spring or suspend it on some ropes. Or just put a cushion on the seat. It's so simple, I'm surprised you didn't think of that.
>>64984022>You push with your feet to start, and then cycleYou push with One foot because the other is on the bike. If both feet are low enough to touch the ground then the bike wasn't adjusted to your size. >"can't use this type of brake brake, maybe use a different brake?"Not my job to suggest a brake. That's on you. >The glue is on the pulley you absolute retard.Oh that's way worse. The pully it'self can be made of hardwood but the rope has to be flexible. You're going to shear right through it in like a week. >[citation needed]The only time you get rough shagreen it's because it's untreated. >The question here is whether it can be done.That's not OP's question. Certainly, some super rich noble could have created a bike or something similar but he wouldn't because it would be a massive waste of time and money. >They will, you already admitted sand works, therefore spikes the size of sand will work better than sand itself.Actually, since you specified the pulley would be the gripping surface the spikes would absolutely destroy the rope. Come to think of it, the spikes would destroy the rope anyway but being repeatedly punctured is way worse. > Also there's really nothing stopping them from making it out of metal.Repeatable precision. Specifically in the bike chain since you need it to link onto the sprocket. If every link doesn't fit on every sprocket the chain will derail. That means the sprocket needs to be perfect and every link of the chain needs to be perfect down to about a thousandth of an inch. And I covered casting on this thread before. You can ctrl+f it. >how smoothbrained you areThere's no need for rudeness.
>>64984125>You can just put the seat on a leaf springNo you can't. Rome didn't have metal springs. All their torsion artillery was horse hair. > suspend it on some ropesSucks ass as suspension. > Or just put a cushion on the seat.What kind of cushion material are you talking about?
>>64981839Modern metalworking is from the 1800s.
>>64984139>You push with One foot Glad you agree it's not a problem then.>Not my job to suggest a brake. You took on this "job" because you're a retard with zero intelligence and can't do simple things like this.>PulleyNo idea what you're imagining but no doubt it's something stupid.>That's not OP's question. But it is what's being asked in this conversation: OP->because you need metallurgy -> no -> yes -> etc. Not to mention people have made plenty of things which were expensive and pointless. Why can't a bicycle be one of those?>Rough surface/spikes destroying thingsNot really, the spikes would go between the weave, so it just grips the rope. As long as surfaces aren't sliding, the damage would be little. Even if it was true, you would just replace the rope every few months. >ChainsWho said anything about chains? You make the gears out of metal.Also you can just make e.g. a strip of "chain"-mail, than use a pulley with many little teeth, if you really want to. It might slip a bit but who cares?
>>64983483Casting isn't precise enough. Rome also didn't have the casting tech to make iron gears.
>>64984154Rome didn't have metal springsThey were capable of making swords, so of course they can make a leaf spring. They were also perfectly capable of making iron/steel wires. Oh sure, you can argue that their steel isn't strong enough. That's fine, they can just make it thicker or layer them. Yes it's really that simple. They also had brass and bronze, and that can be made into springs easily.>>64984154>Cushion materialFeathers, linen, wool. I'm sure the Romans can figure something out. You do know they did have cushions back then, right? Seriously, where are you going with this? Just hoping for a gotcha? Throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks?
>>64984188>Glad you agree it's not a problem then.You will not be able to get up to a stable speed with one foot. >You took on this "job" because you're a retard with zero intelligence and can't do simple things like this.Or I know you're going to fail and refuse to humor you. >No idea what you're imagining but no doubt it's something stupid.Since it's your idea you might as well try to illustrate it in MS Paint. >Why can't a bicycle be one of those?Because Horses. >Not really, the spikes would go between the weaveIdeally but we don't live in an ideal world. Some of the spikes would inevitably hit strands of rope dead on a break them. >Even if it was true, you would just replace the rope every few months.More like few days with a strong chance of the rope tearing mid trip. >Who said anything about chains? You make the gears out of metal.The gears would not work without a chain. There's simply no point in having a gear.
>>64976677>The Greeks probably could have figured it out.They had a simple steam engine but it was a novelty and way too expensive and far too weak to use industrially.
>>64976159why invent anything when you can just throw more slaves at the problem?
>>64984198I would like to point out that sand casting is very precise. You don't know shit. Also it's very repeatable. Modern style gears would be the problem. But you can just design a simple gear with a lot of clearance.
>>64984211>so of course they can make a leaf spring.No. Springs require a metal purity and knowledge of tempering that Rome simply didn't have. Blast furnaces that could make such pure metal wouldn't exist until about 1200 AD. >Feathers, linen, woolWould get crushed under the weight of the rider and do nothing for the bumps in the road.
>>64984223>I would like to point out that sand casting is very preciseRomans didn't have sand casting. First recorded instant of sand molds for casting was in 1206 AD
>>64984212>You will not be able to get up to a stable speed with one foot.I was suspicious while reading this thread but this cements it. MFW when this guy has spent hours arguing about bicycles and he's has never even used one! Man, this is just sad.
>>64984211Jesus dude. NTA, but stay down.
>>64983917>No, I'm not a degenerate. I don't date a tramp.You don't date the bicycle, you dally with her.
>>64984238So...you have a video of getting up to speed without pedals?
>>64984248Like a true Victorian Gentleman.
>>64984233You can't be serious, what do you think they cast into then? How did you think the Everybody made thousands of identical bronze castings? It's sand, it's literally right there.
>>64984252There's an art to being a respectful but unrepentant cad about town.
>>64984255ClayStone Metal
>>64984233Sand molds were used in China around 500 AD
>>64984255>You can't be serious, what do you think they cast into then?Clay or stone. The Lost Wax method is a good example of this. You'd make a wax model, cover it in clay, melt and pour the wax out, and pour metal in. Stone was reusable but you had to hand carve the shape into it. Not very precise.>It's sand, it's literally right there.It also doesn't normally hold a shape very well. You need to figure out exactly the right moisture content to make sand hold a shape well enough to pour molten metal into it. Too little and it's literal dust in the wind. Too much and it's basically wet mud.
>>64984294China is China, Europe is Europe. It's unlikely that China would share it's manufacturing technology with Europe much like how they horded silk moths.
>>64976159The bicycle is a technology which is only useful because it's cheap. All these ideas of how you can build a roman bike are extremely expensive (and way shittier). want to go cheap? it's called walking. want to go fast? it's called a horse. who would want a shitty rattly bike worth ten thousand daily wages to run down roman cobblestone streets? it wouldn't even be useful for leisure because romans wouldn't think it was cool.
>>64987094>Page 10 bumplmao
>>64976159I've never actually seen one of those WWI era bicycles before. Very interesting. For a lot of people it was the first "war vehicle" they'd ever seen
>>64987097>umm banned for necroing threads sweaty. locked
>>64976159It depends on what you mean by "bicycle". The Romans could've had something similar to a Running Machine or Dandy Horse, obviously they would've been aware that utilizing wheels was more efficient for speed than your own legs. But what I think prevented them from taking this concept a step further was likely politics. Equestrians were a privileged class in Roman society and had more power in the Senate than even other Patrician classes, they were essentially predecessors of the modern Knight. Owning a horse was considered paramount to the Romans, Bicycles are capable of easily reaching the speeds of horses, so it's likely the Roman elite wouldn't have wanted the special status of the horse to be usurped by plebs in the first place. Even if some pleb managed to build a bicycle, they probably would've been allowed to sell it, but likely also would've received ridicule for making what in their eyes would've just been a poor-man's horse.
>>64988189>modern KnightI meant medieval knight, obviously knights don't exist anymore
>>64982296
>>64988189Imagine a Roman Fliz...
>>64976159they did you can buy one herehttps://romanbicycles.co.uk/
>>64988189Without the proliferation of smooth roads similar to modern asphalt roadways or finished concrete paths, riding a bicycle with solid wood wheels lacking suspensions is going to be an extremely bumpy ride if you go go past the speed of someone walking at a brisk pace.Picrel is an example of the countless Roman roads, riding over such a road with even a modern bicycle with inflatable rubber tires and a modern suspension system would be a bothersome enough task, to do so with a contraption like the Dandy Horse would be torturous before it falls apart due to the sheer stress.
>>64988918Images like this really make me feel this strange sort of nostalgia for a life I never experienced. I'm sure Germans have a word for it.
>>64988918It can be done, even if a road like that limits your practical speed to just 10 mph, that's still faster than walking
>>64976159Because horses were better for the terrainHave you tried riding a bike for even 1 mile off smooth pavement?
>>64988973>Have you tried riding a bike for even 1 mile off smooth pavement?many times, mountain and gravel bikers do it all the time in fact
>DUUUUH THEY COULDN'T DO IT MUH TERRAIN!everyone ITT is fat. Bicycles were literally invented before most roads were even paved
Yeah, and those bikes have elaborate suspensions, and even then it can be mostly downhill.Try riding a bike across a large field with long grass, lumps and divers, maybe after it rains, and the bikes main advantage (energy efficiency) falls below walking
>>64988993Funny how they're not riding them
>>64976281To a Roman a bicycle is an unknown unknown. To a modern high schooler it's a well known and at least basically understood device. It sounds so simple to us because we already know it. Someone actually has to come up with the idea and get it out there. If you went back and gave the Romans a simple bicycle it's a safe bet they'd be examining it to figure out how it works then building their own equivalent as soon as they got the basics down. Even if they can't get the chain drive working belts might be able to fill the gap. The lack of rubber wouldn't be pleasant but I don't think that would outweigh potential benefits and I'd expect them o fine an alternate solution. I'd expect concepts, materials, and techniques from their siege engines to make their way into their bicycle production.
>>64990032A great weapon related example of this is Jörg Sprave's "Instant Legolas". The concept of a simple repeater magazine added to a bow sounds so simple and like it'd be such an easy and useful concept in the ages where archery was a key facet of warfare. Instead of some Greek, Roman, Mongol, English, French, or other engineer figuring it out centuries ago some jolly old German nerd who loves slingshots developed it in modern times. If you took that concept to the armies of antiquity they'd cream their pants over it immediately. And yes, someone produced one with methods and materials that would be available to a medieval craftsman just to show it could be done.
>>64989003You're an idiotBicycles were invented before most roads were paved. Roman terrain wouldn't have been an issue for these things. You are fat.
>>64990083Dirt roads were actually smoother than cobblestone with the Romans preferring cobblestone because it tended to outlast the destination of said roads.
>>64984233the real problem is that the cast gears would be pretty brittle and precision casting would make the product really costly
>>64984255>It's sand, it's literally right there.You don't just cover a model in sand to make a sand mold, stuuuupid. You need a sand box to squeeze the sand together. It's not like clay where you just have to press it onto the wax model.
>>64976235/thread>>64976281Can the high schooler make the steel from bog iron?
>>64990601Italy didn't even have bog iron. It all had to be mined out of the mountains.
>>64976235Care to explain what special metallurgical knowledge stopped the Chinese from attaching their moveable type to a press? You know, given that wooden presses have been around for a long time, and we have hobby wooden printing presses exist.
>>64984249>>64988980>>64988993It's bizarre, a lot of these posts leave me wondering whether the naysayer has even seen someone use a bicycle before. Which of course makes him the perfect authority on bicycles. But really, how is that even possible? Where can you get internet access but not bicycles? I assume even the Indians have bicycles.
>>64991211Woodblock stamps tend to disintegrate with repeated use. This rarity actually made Japanese woodblock prints more valuable as each one was part of a limited and unique run. >>64991243You realize you're referencing multiple anons, right? It's entirely possible you're just wrong.
>>64976235>>64991365>Woodblock stamps tend to disintegrate with repeated use.Okay, that's cool, but what was the special metallurgical knowledge that stopped the Chinese from attaching their WOODEN moveable type to a press?
>>64990353Probably most of the penultimate highest quality Roman roads were made of stamped gravel, which also makes for a hard, durable and smooth road. They didn't last centuries of course.
>>64991365You would need someone who>entered 4chan>entered this low traffic board>entered this low traffic thread that almost saged out multiple times>never cycled>never saw a bicycle>keeps saying stupid stuff that even someone who's never seen a bicycle could just google>decided to try his luck on trying to bullshit people on a subject he knew absolutely nothing aboutYeah, it's the same guy. I mean, just the fact he's never seen a bicycle is already astronomically low. Unless you want to tell us of a place where bicycles are really uncommon?
>>64991632NTA but who exactly are you even referring to who has never seen a bicycle? It seems like there may be a misunderstanding here.
>>64991672Why are you pretending you can't follow the quote chain and see who it is?
>>64991696Are you implying that these poster>>>64984249>>>64988980 >>>64988993right here have never seen a bicycle?No offense anon but you might be mentally retarded
>>64991701NTA>>64984249 is demanding proof of something so obvious and farcical it proves he's never used a bicycle.>>64988993 Is replying to >>64988973, someone who clearly has never used a bicycle>64988980has no quotes but is referring to a poster who has clearly has never used a bicycleCan you explain why you didn't follow the quote chain of >64988993 and notice the existence of >>64988973? I can only suspect you have never used a bicycle, to be so unable detect something that would be obvious to a cyclist.>>64984249 and the entire quote chain is the biggest one of course, there's so many questions that raise questions about not just his lack of cycling experience, but whether his IQ reaches double digits..
>>64991549>WOODEN moveable...because the wooden movable type blocks would disintegrate. Same as the woodblocks for the woodblock prints. >>64991591From my own experience with gravel the road would be unlevel in a year. Normally, this doesn't matter because you're walking or in a car but bikes are more sensitive to rolling resistance. >>64991724Look, all this would be easy to prove with a video and the fact you don't present one suggest that you CAN'T. By kicking up a fuss you just seem suspicious. >demanding proof of something so obviousSo show us. There's got to be a million videos of biking out there and the fact that you haven't shown us one is telling.
>>64976235>>64991817Okay, that's cool, but they're not going to disintegrate any faster if attached to a press instead of pressing by hand. The purpose of the press isn't to create massive pressure, it's just convenient.So, what was the special metallurgical knowledge that stopped the Chinese from attaching their wooden, eventually disintegrating, moveable type to a press?
>>64991365>Woodblock stamps tend to disintegrate with repeated use. This rarity actually made Japanese woodblock prints more valuable as each one was part of a limited and unique run.nigga you watching David Bull Woodblock printing vidyas on youtube or something? what's that have to do with roman bikes?
>>64991817>video argumentBicycles are for cycling. No one is going to film themselves doing something so pointless and specific as pushing a bike with only one foot specifically to show it is stable. Especially since it will also have to be done in an airtight manner, which implies keeping the other foot off the pedals. And no, I'm not going to dox myself for the sake of an internet argument. Just the fact that you're insisting so hard on this point like as if you think it's actually real point is actually quite hilarious.Also I note that there's been no denial against the fact that he doesn't cycle despite many accusations, or any attempted explanation for saying so many things that imply he has never cycled before.Like, why the fuck would anyone demand video evidence if he actually could cycle? A normal person wouldn't do that, you'll just say, "oh shit, my bad, [insert some shit excuse]".
>>64976159Because they also discovered Romanians and knew they would steal it
>>64991817>From my own experience with gravel the road would be unlevel in a year. Normally, this doesn't matter because you're walking or in a car but bikes are more sensitive to rolling resistance. You really have never cycled before have you? Cycles can handle a lot worse than unmaintained gravel roads.As an aside, do think the Romans were incapable of stamping down some gravel once a year? Why did you even write this down thinking it was a win?
>>64992061>You really have never cycled before have youYou keep saying this but you really can't seem to prove it. Despite how easy it would be to prove.
>>64992077I don't need to prove it, it's obvious. I'm laughing at you.How about you provide timestamped video evidence of you cycling instead? I thought not.
>>64976235>why didn't the chinese develop the gun????
>>64992008>which implies keeping the other foot off the pedalsExactly. Everyone does it with a foot on the pedals>>64991938Cost. Chinese has something like 20,000 characters compared to English's 26. It was easier to just carve out the entire page.
>>64992088Can't prove a negative. Obviously. Unless you want me to break out the goatfucker analogies.
>>64992100>Everyone does it with a foot on the pedalsNobody is going to keep their foot off the pedals because the only reason to do that is to prove an utterly retarded point that only people who don't cycle would say.
>>64992108>A video of him cycling is "proving a negative"Holy shit, I thought that poster was meming but he really was right, he really can't cycle.
>>64992124Nobody does it because it's incredibly hard with a modern bike. With modern tires. And modern bearings. And a modern frame. With modern build tolerances. And modern lubrication.So this Roman bike you're talking about, what does it have?
>>64992135You want me to entertain an ad hominem?
Imagine how strange and neat a Roman bicycle with some sort of belt drive rather than chain and torsion based suspension would be.
>>64992145>this Roman bike you're talking about, what does it have?No one is arguing that the Romans need to build an exact replica of a 21st century bike.
>>64992157Sorry, that's literally impossible according to some of the smoothbrains here.
Only rubber tires made bikes feasible.You want to ride on cobblestone roads with a wooden wheel go ahead.
>>64992156It's not really an "ad hominem" fallacy when half of your arguments are bullshit because of it. It's like arguing about photography with someone who is blind. Why even bother arguing with someone who just making shit up? You can do that infinitely. What's the point?
>>64992108Proving a negative is if he was asking you to prove you can't ride a bike.Here, he's asking you to prove you can.Which is very easy to prove.You just go ride a bike.
>>64992156Also, it's a perfectly legitimate response. It's a much easier task than what you was asking him. It shouldn't take more than a minute yet you'll rather throw a fit and wrongly accuse him of fallacy buzzwords instead.
