Current Events > Why do we keep inventing stuff out of order?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Literal airplanes before literal cars.

Two wheeled vehicles before four wheeled vehicles

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Literal airplanes before literal cars.

Two wheeled vehicles before four wheeled vehicles

Number of parts required.

we still need a better toilet and shower design to make things more automated and less time consuming

GuerrillaSoldier posted...

we still need a better toilet and shower design to make things more automated and less time consuming

Like a butt vaccuum?

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Two wheeled vehicles before four wheeled vehicles

idk this one sounds right to me

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.

MarbyIsBack posted...

idk this one sounds right to me

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.

Fair.

Ok phew for a second I thought I actually learned something from CE

boomgetchopped3 posted...

Ok phew for a second I thought I actually learned something from CE

In 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.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

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.

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?

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

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.

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.

By your argument the bicycle would be invented before the wheel.

divot1338 posted...

Again number of parts.

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"?

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.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

Do you think my argument is "it takes more parts, therefore it must have been invented sooner"?

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.

No Im saying that the more complicated the underlying structure of a machine is the later it will be developed.

I dont have a clue what your reasoning is. Not that it matters because mine matches up with the actual timeline.

Also, unicycle.

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 bicycle

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

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

DipDipDiver posted...

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 bicycle

Im 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.

Inventors tend to adapt existing technology.

Wright brothers being the exception.

divot1338 posted...

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

DipDipDiver posted...

Some turn of the century McGuyver shit

I 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 challenge

DipDipDiver posted...

I don't see why it wouldn't work, but stopping was probably a challenge

Heel 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.

Bigwheel style.

I read a lot of biographies as a kid.

Beats the Flintsones method of turning an armadillo upside-down and stepping on it

DipDipDiver posted...

Beats the Flintsones method of turning an armadillo upside-down and stepping on it

Especially for the armadillo.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/274c83c6.jpg

divot1338 posted...

Like a butt vaccuum?

So the 3 seashells are really just buttons to control the intensity of teh suck?