You questioned whether I read it, as if it blew my position out of the water, and I quoted the trailling section / paragraph verbatim for you, still referencing and including gyroscopic forces.
Okay, I'll try one more time.
If you'd read and understood what Jones writes, you would realise that the effect of the gyroscopic moment of the front wheel isn't to increase the inertia of the bike/rider system, but to create a steering torque that turns the front wheel in the direction of lean. I've mentioned that several times above in the thread, including in the last paragraph I quoted from Whitt and Wilson. That you quote that paragraph triumphally as a rebuttal only demonstrates that you don't understand the context from which you've removed it.
And therein lies your
big mistake in your triumphant rebuttal - because that was not what I was doing.
I never cited that document as a huge rebuttal. There's your big strawman.
All I ever said about it was this:-
And no doubt we can quote or find various theories on this - see this doc that isn't so quick to dismiss gyroscopic effects in assisting balancing bikes.
Which is all true - that document isn't quick to dismiss gyroscopic effects in assisting balancing bikes. It may start off that way - may even have the middle that way, but doesn't actually conclude that way.
Even the bit where he experimented trying to cancel out the gyroscopic effect of the front wheel (by having a wheel turn in the opposite direction, alongside) if you read between the lines, suggests such a thing - his words don't - I'll buy - but the results do. He did it in order to disprove any notable gyroscopic effect, but in the end it didn't - because when experimented on riderless, it did
have an effect - just like the loop.
And the salient difference? No weight from a rider. Which becomes countered as speed increases. Hence my inclusion of motorcycles in the debate.
You're the one who opened this exchange. You might at least have the decency to do your homework.
Lecturing me on decency? Physician, heal thyself.
You were the one introducing ad hominem into the "exchange".