Literal airplanes before literal cars.Number of parts required.
Two wheeled vehicles before four wheeled vehicles
we still need a better toilet and shower design to make things more automated and less time consumingLike a butt vaccuum?
Two wheeled vehicles before four wheeled vehiclesidk this one sounds right to me
idk this one sounds right to meFair.
first point always struck me as odd, though.
EDIT: Actually, looking it up, airplanes were NOT invented before cars. Though there were methods of air travel before airplanes, such as the zeppelin and hot air balloons, and many of those came before cars.
Ok phew for a second I thought I actually learned something from CEIn the 1990s, the Brussels sprouts industry nearly collapsed because of how nasty they were. So a Dutch scientist named Hans van Doorn identified exactly what chemical made them taste bad, and producers everywhere begane genetically engineering better tasting Brussels sprouts, which are what people eat today.
Wouldn't it be backwards if we invented cars before bicycles?No, it would be weird if we invented bicycles before inventing four-wheeled bicycles that didn't take lots of practice to ride without breaking your face.
No, it would be weird if we invented bicycles before inventing four-wheeled bicycles that didn't take lots of practice to ride without breaking your face.Again number of parts.
Like, how does somebody get the idea to make a bicycle and in the brainstorming process settle on two wheels "just in case this turns out to not be impossible" instead of the common sense design?
Again number of parts.Do you think my argument is "it takes more parts, therefore it must have been invented sooner"?
By your argument the bicycle would be invented before the wheel.
Do you think my argument is "it takes more parts, therefore it must have been invented sooner"?No Im saying that the more complicated the underlying structure of a machine is the later it will be developed.
My argument is that it's a more intuitive design. Who is going to decide to accelerate themselves to never before heard of speeds on a thing that will not stand up on its own no matter how hard you try?
Actually, you guys got me distracted there. Chariots came before either.
My argument is that it's a more intuitive design. Who is going to decide to accelerate themselves to never before heard of speeds on a thing that will not stand up on its own no matter how hard you try?I mean, if you roll a single wheel down a hill it does the same thing a bike does, so I don't think it was a totally alien concept lol
I would assume the first prototypes for a foot-powered vehicle most likely did have 3-4 wheels because as you said it just seems like common sense. But over many iterations they probably came to realize that it takes a lot less energy to move two wheels than to move four and obviously the physics of it work out, so boom here's your bicycleIm pretty sure I recall there being an early version of the car that was quite literally two bicycles and a belt fed by steam engine.
Im pretty sure I recall there being an early version of the car that was quite literally two bicycles and a belt fed steam engine.Some turn of the century McGuyver shit
Some turn of the century McGuyver shitI want to say it worked pretty well but I read that book like thirty five years ago.
I don't see why it wouldn't work, but stopping was probably a challengeHeel of a shoe nailed to a board that worked as a lever that the rider could press against the tire was the first braking system.
Beats the Flintsones method of turning an armadillo upside-down and stepping on itEspecially for the armadillo.
Like a butt vaccuum?