Here we go again

[Neil]

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:

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]

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.

That's David Jones's paper, mentioned by Geoff above.

Did you actually read it?

 

[Neil]

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.

That's David Jones's paper, mentioned by Geoff above.

Did you actually read it?

Yes. You?

From the last paragraph - almost conclusion, if you will:-

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.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

Yes. You?

Of course: it's a classic. I must've read it a dozen times over the years.

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.

 

[Neil]

Yes. You?

Of course: it's a classic. I must've read it a dozen times over the years.

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.

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.

Ad hominem all you like, s'all the same to me.

 

[Rod_Saetan]

Won't somebody think of the Children!!!

 

[one-eyed_jim]

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.

You're the one who opened this exchange. You might at least have the decency to do your homework.

 

[Neil]

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".

 

[one-eyed_jim]

Neil, I sincerely regret wasting my time replying to you. I won't make that mistake again.

My apologies to the innocent bystanders.

 

[GeoffApps]

Me, riding my AventuraTT, travel so slowly that gyroscopic effect doesn't come into play.

Even though I think about it from time to time, it's one less thing for me to worry about ...