Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

Wheel technology improved: wire-spoke (aka tension-spoked) wheels replaced heavier designs; vulcanized rubber (1839) was needed for tires; inflatable tires weren’t invented until 1887. And it turns out that inventors were interested in the problem of human-powered vehicles, dispensing with the need for horses, for a long time before the modern bicycle. Even Karl von Drais, who invented the first two-wheeled human-powered vehicle after the Year without a Summer, had been working on the problem for years before that. Chains can be replaced with belts; some early designs even used treadles instead of pedals, and at least one design drove the wheels with levers, as on a steam locomotive. The earliest reference I have found is to Venetian engineer Giovanni Fontana, who in the early 1400s described a four-wheeled carriage powered by a driver pulling on a loop of rope connected by gears to the wheels (it’s unclear if he ever even attempted to build such a machine; Fontana sketched a lot of strange things). Ozanam’s book presented a proposed solution from another inventor: another four-wheeled carriage, driven by two people (one to steer, one to power the vehicle by stepping up and down on large treadles connected to the wheels by ropes, pulleys, and gears). But in 1817 (possibly motivated by the aforementioned food crisis and resultant shortage of horses, although this is unclear), he tried again with a new design: a two-wheeled, one-person vehicle that is a recognizable ancestor of the modern bicycle. Without pedals or gears, this proto-bicycle couldn’t achieve the speed or efficiency of modern designs. By around this time, bicycles were being made with metal frames, wire-spoke wheels, and solid rubber (not yet inflatable) tires. So, by the end of the 1880s, bicycles had evolved into the form we know them today, with (approximately) equal-sized wheels, pedals, chains, metal frames, wire-spoke wheels, and inflatable rubber tires. (Some commenters have suggested that it was not obvious that a two-wheeled vehicle would balance, but I find this unconvincing given how many other things people have learned to balance on, from dugout canoes to horses themselves.) It’s possible (I’m purely speculating here) that early mechanical inventors had a harder time realizing the fundamental impractiability of the carriage design because they didn’t have much in the way of mathematical engineering principles to go on, but then again it’s unclear what led to Drais’s breakthrough. It’s also plausible to me that wooden frames just weren’t light and strong enough to be practical (I certainly wouldn’t be eager to ride a wooden bicycle today). Wheel technology improved: wire-spoke (aka tension-spoked) wheels replaced heavier designs; vulcanized rubber (1839) was needed for tires; inflatable tires weren’t invented until 1887. And it turns out that inventors were interested in the problem of human-powered vehicles, dispensing with the need for horses, for a long time before the modern bicycle. Even Karl von Drais, who invented the first two-wheeled human-powered vehicle after the Year without a Summer, had been working on the problem for years before that. Chains can be replaced with belts; some early designs even used treadles instead of pedals, and at least one design drove the wheels with levers, as on a steam locomotive. The earliest reference I have found is to Venetian engineer Giovanni Fontana, who in the early 1400s described a four-wheeled carriage powered by a driver pulling on a loop of rope connected by gears to the wheels (it’s unclear if he ever even attempted to build such a machine; Fontana sketched a lot of strange things). Ozanam’s book presented a proposed solution from another inventor: another four-wheeled carriage, driven by two people (one to steer, one to power the vehicle by stepping up and down on large treadles connected to the wheels by ropes, pulleys, and gears). But in 1817 (possibly motivated by the aforementioned food crisis and resultant shortage of horses, although this is unclear), he tried again with a new design: a two-wheeled, one-person vehicle that is a recognizable ancestor of the modern bicycle. Without pedals or gears, this proto-bicycle couldn’t achieve the speed or efficiency of modern designs. By around this time, bicycles were being made with metal frames, wire-spoke wheels, and solid rubber (not yet inflatable) tires. So, by the end of the 1880s, bicycles had evolved into the form we know them today, with (approximately) equal-sized wheels, pedals, chains, metal frames, wire-spoke wheels, and inflatable rubber tires. (Some commenters have suggested that it was not obvious that a two-wheeled vehicle would balance, but I find this unconvincing given how many other things people have learned to balance on, from dugout canoes to horses themselves.) It’s possible (I’m purely speculating here) that early mechanical inventors had a harder time realizing the fundamental impractiability of the carriage design because they didn’t have much in the way of mathematical engineering principles to go on, but then again it’s unclear what led to Drais’s breakthrough. It’s also plausible to me that wooden frames just weren’t light and strong enough to be practical (I certainly wouldn’t be eager to ride a wooden bicycle today). Wheel technology improved: wire-spoke (aka tension-spoked) wheels replaced heavier designs; vulcanized rubber (1839) was needed for tires; inflatable tires weren’t invented until 1887. And historically, roads didn’t improve until after bicycles became common—indeed it seems that it was in part the cyclists who called for the improvement of roads.I don’t think horses explain it either. And it turns out that inventors were interested in the problem of human-powered vehicles, dispensing with the need for horses, for a long time before the modern bicycle. Even Karl von Drais, who invented the first two-wheeled human-powered vehicle after the Year without a Summer, had been working on the problem for years before that.Technology factors are more convincing to me. Chains can be replaced with belts; some early designs even used treadles instead of pedals, and at least one design drove the wheels with levers, as on a steam locomotive.So what’s the real explanation?To understand this, I dug into the history of the bicycle.The concept of a human-powered vehicle goes back many centuries. The earliest reference I have found is to Venetian engineer Giovanni Fontana, who in the early 1400s described a four-wheeled carriage powered by a driver pulling on a loop of rope connected by gears to the wheels (it’s unclear if he ever even attempted to build such a machine; Fontana sketched a lot of strange things).Another early concept was described in the book Bicycle by David V. Herlihy:More than three centuries ago, the distinguished French mathematician Jacques Ozanam spelled out the theoretical advantages of a human-powered carriage “in which one can drive oneself wherever one pleases, without horses.” Its owner could freely roam along the roads without having to care for an animal and might even enjoy a healthy exercise in the process. That was the twenty-third of some fifty “useful and entertaining” problems Ozanam identified and addressed in his famous Récréations Mathématiques et Physiques, published in 1696.Ozanam’s book presented a proposed solution from another inventor: another four-wheeled carriage, driven by two people (one to steer, one to power the vehicle by stepping up and down on large treadles connected to the wheels by ropes, pulleys, and gears).It seems that for centuries, the carriage was the model for human-powered vehicles. Presumably, all these attempts went nowhere because the machines were too large and heavy to be practical.The key insight was to stop trying to build a mechanical carriage, and instead build something more like a mechanical horse. His first attempts, beginning in 1813, were four-wheeled carriages like their predecessors, and like them failed to gain the support of authorities.But in 1817 (possibly motivated by the aforementioned food crisis and resultant shortage of horses, although this is unclear), he tried again with a new design: a two-wheeled, one-person vehicle that is a recognizable ancestor of the modern bicycle. It was also called the “velocipede” (from the Latin for “swift foot”) or the “draisine” (English) or “draisienne” (French) after its inventor; an improved version made by a London coachmaker was known in England as the “pedestrian curricle”.Without pedals or gears, this proto-bicycle couldn’t achieve the speed or efficiency of modern designs. It seems the reasons were a combination of the potential for injury and the general annoyance of the public that these things were being driven through pedestrian areas such as sidewalks and parks (some things never change; we’re repeating this today with the scooter wars in San Francisco and other cities).The next key advance didn’t come until decades later, when someone put pedals on the bike. Think of what it’s like to pedal a bike that’s in too low a gear: you pump your legs a lot without going very fast.The only solution was to make the wheel larger, leading around 1870 to the ridiculous-looking “penny-farthing” or “high-wheel” design with the huge front wheel, which you’ve probably seen and may associate with the late 1800s. By around this time, bicycles were being made with metal frames, wire-spoke wheels, and solid rubber (not yet inflatable) tires. Finally, in 1888, inflatable (pneumatic) tires were introduced by John Dunlop, cushioning the ride and eliminating the last advantage of the penny-farthing.So, by the end of the 1880s, bicycles had evolved into the form we know them today, with (approximately) equal-sized wheels, pedals, chains, metal frames, wire-spoke wheels, and inflatable rubber tires.So what can we conclude?First, the correct design was not obvious. (Some commenters have suggested that it was not obvious that a two-wheeled vehicle would balance, but I find this unconvincing given how many other things people have learned to balance on, from dugout canoes to horses themselves.) It’s possible (I’m purely speculating here) that early mechanical inventors had a harder time realizing the fundamental impractiability of the carriage design because they didn’t have much in the way of mathematical engineering principles to go on, but then again it’s unclear what led to Drais’s breakthrough.And even after Drais hit on the two-wheeled design, it took multiple iterations, which happened over decades, to get to a design that was efficient, comfortable, and safe.Second, advances in materials and manufacturing were probably necessary for a commercially successful bicycle. It’s also plausible to me that wooden frames just weren’t light and strong enough to be practical (I certainly wouldn’t be eager to ride a wooden bicycle today).But we can go deeper, and ask the questions that inspired my intense interest in this question in the first place. The same question can be asked of all of the key inventions of textile mechanization; Anton Howes, an economic historian who chimed in on the Twitter thread linked above, has noted of John Kay’s flying shuttle:Kay’s innovation was extraordinary in its simplicity. Kay faced no special incentives — he even innovated despite some formidable social and legal barriers.There are also other stories in which an early attempt at invention was demonstrated, the idea found no backers if it wasn’t already fully viable, and then development was dropped for decades. Maybe GDP per capita just has to hit a certain point before people even have time, attention and energy to think about new inventions that aren’t literally putting food on the table, a roof over your head, or a shirt on your back.Finally, there are cultural factors. I agree with both.Fully elucidating these economic and cultural factors is a major future project of this blog.Sources and further reading: Excerpt from Bicycle, by David V.