one-eyed_jim
Old School Grand Master
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoningNeil":2pwxwnkm said:Yes... and?one-eyed_jim":2pwxwnkm said:the example you give assumes what you're trying to prove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoningNeil":2pwxwnkm said:Yes... and?one-eyed_jim":2pwxwnkm said:the example you give assumes what you're trying to prove.
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.one-eyed_jim":ptu8pqoq said:I'll quote this passage from Witt and Wilson's "Bicycle Science" which corresponds quite well to my understanding of the different factors involved in steering and balancing:
That's David Jones's paper, mentioned by Geoff above.Neil":jzhlfkcx said: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.
Yes. You?one-eyed_jim":3uavj9k4 said:That's David Jones's paper, mentioned by Geoff above.Neil":3uavj9k4 said: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.
Did you actually read it?
This test completed the ingredients for a more complete theory of the bicycle. In addition to the rider's skill and the gyroscopic forces, there are, acting on the front wheel, the center-of-gravity lowering torque (figure 6) and the castoring forces; the heavier the bicycle's load the more important these become. I have not yet formalized all these contributions into a mathematical theory of the bicycle, so perhaps there are surprises still in store; but at least all the principles have been experimentally checked.
Of course: it's a classic. I must've read it a dozen times over the years.Neil":25u1nun7 said:Yes. You?
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.one-eyed_jim":1g6s1xks said:Of course: it's a classic. I must've read it a dozen times over the years.Neil":1g6s1xks said:Yes. You?
I'm bowing out at this point. It's fairly clear that you don't really understand most of what you write, and that makes it hard for me to justify the time spent replying.
No hard feelings.
Okay, I'll try one more time.Neil":mn0yay6o said: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.
And therein lies your big mistake in your triumphant rebuttal - because that was not what I was doing.one-eyed_jim":32525x4d said:Okay, I'll try one more time.Neil":32525x4d said: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.
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.
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.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.
?one-eyed_jim":32525x4d said:You're the one who opened this exchange. You might at least have the decency to do your homework.