Who invented dual-pivot brakes?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Jeff, May 31, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jobst Brandt

    Jobst Brandt Guest

    Peter Chisholm writes:

    >> So everything is just improvements and nobody's really innovating anything?

    > 'Everything' and 'nobody' and 'anything' are big words..

    I think those words fall directly out of your claim that there are no inventions because there is
    nothing new in technology.

    > Most things these days seem to be improvements on existing designs, not genuine inventions. The
    > auto was just an improvement of the horse drawn cart, but the internal combustion engine was an
    > invention, IMO.

    That sounds like sour grapes. Invention is the process of applying observed needs with an
    appropriate mechanism to perform the task, be that by combining previously unrecognized synergies or
    a claw hammer that can pull nails as well as drive them. The Wright Brothers combined a special
    version of an internal combustion engine, with an appropriate flying machine to make a powered
    aircraft with horizontal, vertical, and turns controls that no one had put together before. That was
    a large series of inventions that required great scientific learning and practical skills.

    You are stretching "improvement to existing designs" to extremes. Similarly a cell phone is only a
    better two paper cups with a string between them in that respect. CD's are more than an extension of
    Edison's wax cylinders.

    Your complaint sounds vaguely similar to those who believe that garage mechanics know more about
    cars than the engineers that design them.

    Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA
     


  2. On 11 Jun 2003 12:57:49 GMT, [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:

    >BUT rmember that the Wright Bros were 'garage mechanics', not engineers...

    Actually, to steer this back on topic, they were bike wrenches. Not car garage workers.

    Jasper
     
  3. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > BUT rmember that the Wright Bros were 'garage mechanics', not engineers...

    Nothing could be further from the truth.
     
  4. Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    >
    > BUT rmember that the Wright Bros were 'garage mechanics', not engineers...
    >

    The Wright brothers may have also been bicycle shop proprietors, but they were some of the finest
    engineers of their age - especially in their chosen field of aeronautics. They studied the latest
    scientific research in the field, created experimental laboratory models and made thorough and
    precise measurements to further scientific knowledge as necessary, and used sound engineering
    methodology to transform scientific theory into practical applications. For example, they
    performed many tests of airfoil shapes with scale models in a wind tunnel before building full
    scale prototypes. They were far from the "tinkerers" that you imply. And if you can't tell the
    difference ...

    Mark McMaster [email protected]
     
  5. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Qui si parla
    Campagnolo) wrote:

    > mark-<< but they were some of the finest engineers of their age - especially in their chosen field
    > of aeronautics.
    >
    >
    > << They studied the latest scientific research in the field, created experimental laboratory
    > models and made thorough and precise measurements to further scientific knowledge as necessary,
    > and used sound engineering methodology to transform scientific theory into practical applications.
    >
    > But they were not formally trained engineers, correct?? College trained engineers..

    Two things are worth pointing out:

    1) Regardless of their educational background, the Wrights took an exceedingly methodical and
    scientific ("engineering") approach to the design and construction of their airplane. They built
    numerous gliders to test their ideas, the already-mentioned wind tunnel, etc.

    2) There were very few schools with an aeronautical engineering departments at the turn of the
    century. Like none. The Wrights did the best thing under the circumstances, which was do the
    research, correspond with the experts in the field (they talked to Otto Lilenthal and studied his
    work with gliders), and figured out the math.

    3) (bonus thing) They lived in an era, where, for better or for worse, formal education was rarer,
    and self-taught students could and did regularly become experts and great contributors to
    scientific knowledge. Nowadays engineering schools are easier to find, easier to get into, and
    more accessible to more people (in the developed world, at least).

    3) (Anever was good at math) Unlike most posters here in rbt (including myself), when confronted
    with the technical details of an engineering problem in their field, they would understand the
    problem, the associated math, and the ramifications of the problem at a level equivalent to
    any engineer. They used the Scientific Method carefully, methodically, and in a way that would
    have invited publication in research journals had they been so inclined (maybe they were; I
    don't know) It is this engineering style and aptitude that separates the Wright brothers from
    most of the people in this ng, not their Latin-inscribed wall candy.

    > << They were far from the "tinkerers" that you imply. And if you can't tell the difference
    >
    > Geez, you can imply a lot from a 11 word sentence..
    >
    > Peter Chisholm

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...