|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"The Stability of the Bicycle"
"Simon Brooke" wrote in message . uk... "Phil Holman" writes: This is why Jobst specified to lift the bicycle onto one's shoulder. That way it eliminates the random steering tendency of negative trail. The considerations are then just gyroscopic moment and mass imbalance. If gyroscopic considerations are dominant then one should observe steering in opposite directions for forward and backward rotating wheels. Please try that. OK, done that. My conclusions a (i) It's extremely sensitive to angle. If the projected axis of the head tube does not pass exactly through the contact patch, castering effects overwhelm other effects, either forward or backward (i.e. if you lift the back of the bike higher than the critical angle, it's easy to walk the bike backwards; if lower than the critical angle, it's easy to walk the bike forwards. (ii) If the bike is held at the critical angle where the projected axis of the head tube passes through the contact patch, it was impossible for me to control the bike by leaning it when moving either forwards or backwards, at least at normal walking speeds. Once again, it's easy for me to set up the camera and take a quicktime movie so that you can observe this for yourself, although I imagine it's equally easy for you to get your own bike out and try it. I suggest you do so, and report your results. I'm thinking you have the front wheel resting on the ground. The instruction was to have the bike resting on your shoulder with top tube angled down just enough for the stationary front wheel to stay straight ahead (not touching the ground). Spin the front wheel forward and lean to the left and the steering will turn to the left under both mass imbalance and gyroscopic effect. Now spin the wheel backwards and lean to the left and the wheel will turn in the direction of the dominant force. Left and it's mass imbalance, right and it's gyroscopic effect. My result was left but I can see where a much shorter stem, regular brake levers and a heavy front wheel could result in it turning right. Phil Holman |
Ads |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"The Stability of the Bicycle"
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:51:24 -0700, Carl Fogel wrote:
Nothing in Sylvia Plath's work is helpful, but you might turn to "Jabberwocky" and watch the mome raths outgrabe. 'Outgrabe' is past imperfect; you would watch the raths _outgrab_, or seek for evidence that they had _outgribben_. Don't they teach you *anything* in American schools? (There! Not a hint of alliterative chanting! Just a straightforward slant-rhyme pun to illustrate the sort of lisp that Jobst loathes.) Ah, that explains a lot. [excellent post, BTW. Respect.] -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to ;; LISP as to make no difference. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"The Stability of the Bicycle"
Simon Brooke writes:
After all, pushing a bike forward by teh saddle is a learned skill and people who haven't learned it don't find it easy. There is a simple way to control a bike pushing it by the saddle. Hold the nose of the saddle and use it to apply torque---you can now readily control the direction of front wheel. That is, apply a clockwise torque to turn to right, counterclockwise to turn left. Joe |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"The Stability of the Bicycle"
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:26:34 +0000, Phil Holman wrote:
I'm thinking you have the front wheel resting on the ground. The instruction was to have the bike resting on your shoulder with top tube angled down just enough for the stationary front wheel to stay straight ahead (not touching the ground). Spin the front wheel forward and lean to the left and the steering will turn to the left under both mass imbalance and gyroscopic effect. Now spin the wheel backwards and lean to the left and the wheel will turn in the direction of the dominant force. Left and it's mass imbalance, right and it's gyroscopic effect. My result was left but I can see where a much shorter stem, regular brake levers and a heavy front wheel could result in it turning right. I tried it with a hill bike which happened to be indoors as my road bike (which I've done all the rest of my tests on) is in the shed. This has a relatively heavy tyre and short stem; nevertheless my results accord with yours: spinning the wheel either way does not make an appreciable difference - mass imbalance overwhelms it. Once again, I would be happy to film this and post a quicktime. Jobst? -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"The Stability of the Bicycle"
Simon Brooke writes:
In spite of clearly outlining a method for assessing gyroscopic effect on bicycle steering, without trying to ride or control a bicycle going backwards, you persist in performing a useless experiment. That rear steering vehicles are inherently unstable is well known. That is why forklifts (rear steering vehicles) are driven backwards when traveling fast from place to place. Wheeling a bicycle backwards is doubly unstable because it is rear steering and has conflicting caster and gyroscopic forces. OK, I've just been out and tried to do this. It's most amusingly difficult. Hold the bicycle by the saddle and push it backwards. In my relatively brief experiments, as soon as the bicycle went off course sufficiently to make a conscious controlling input, I got an oscillation which rapidly increased in magnitude. I'm not sure what this proves. After all, pushing a bike forward by teh saddle is a learned skill and people who haven't learned it don't find it easy. So possibly with more practice I would have done better. But going backwards, all the the forces which _may_ contribute to bicycle stability are against you. Try it. It's quite surprising how very difficult it is! So let me repeat: Place the bicycle on the shoulder such that it rests there in the crotch of top and seat tube, top tube sloping forward just enough to make the wheel stay straight ahead with the frame in a vertical plane. Lean the bicycle to either side with the wheel not turning and note that it responds as one would like steering to do, turning to the side to which it is leaned. Spin the wheel forward and there is no change although the response is sharper. Spin the wheel rearward and the gyroscopic moment overwhelms the caster or trail effect completely as the wheel steers the "wrong" way. I think that is a conclusive test. Jobst Brandt |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"The Stability of the Bicycle"
"Simon Brooke" wrote in message news On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:26:34 +0000, Phil Holman wrote: I'm thinking you have the front wheel resting on the ground. The instruction was to have the bike resting on your shoulder with top tube angled down just enough for the stationary front wheel to stay straight ahead (not touching the ground). Spin the front wheel forward and lean to the left and the steering will turn to the left under both mass imbalance and gyroscopic effect. Now spin the wheel backwards and lean to the left and the wheel will turn in the direction of the dominant force. Left and it's mass imbalance, right and it's gyroscopic effect. My result was left but I can see where a much shorter stem, regular brake levers and a heavy front wheel could result in it turning right. I tried it with a hill bike which happened to be indoors as my road bike (which I've done all the rest of my tests on) is in the shed. This has a relatively heavy tyre and short stem; nevertheless my results accord with yours: spinning the wheel either way does not make an appreciable difference - mass imbalance overwhelms it. Once again, I would be happy to film this and post a quicktime. Jobst? Yes please do, a picture is worth a 1000 words. Phil Holman |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
"The Stability of the Bicycle"
Simon Brooke writes:
I'm thinking you have the front wheel resting on the ground. The instruction was to have the bike resting on your shoulder with top tube angled down just enough for the stationary front wheel to stay straight ahead (not touching the ground). Spin the front wheel forward and lean to the left and the steering will turn to the left under both mass imbalance and gyroscopic effect. Now spin the wheel backwards and lean to the left and the wheel will turn in the direction of the dominant force. Left and it's mass imbalance, right and it's gyroscopic effect. My result was left but I can see where a much shorter stem, regular brake levers and a heavy front wheel could result in it turning right. I tried it with a hill bike which happened to be indoors as my road ^^ Please explain what "it" is in this context. As was mentioned in the first paragraph above, you seem to have the front wheel on the ground which is not "it" the experiment I outlined. Your responses seem like trying to put a finger on a glob of mercury in a watch glass... can't quite put your finger on it, or slippery as and eel. bike (which I've done all the rest of my tests on) is in the shed. This has a relatively heavy tyre and short stem; nevertheless my results accord with yours: spinning the wheel either way does not make an appreciable difference - mass imbalance overwhelms it. Once again, I would be happy to film this and post a quicktime. So, stop threatening and post it so we can see what you are doing. I'm afraid that what you might test and show, judging from the stream of misinterpretations I've seen up to now. Jobst Brandt |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"The Stability of the Bicycle"
Carl Fogel wrote:
wrote in message ... [snip fascinating bicycle physics] Once more, how does one pronounce "maths" (aloud)? Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, You dare to ask how "maths" is pronounced? I warned you! This is not my fault . . . Perhaps we need more polymaths here or a field trip to Klamath's Falls? You're following Goliath's example, Gath's grave-filler, grimly going ignorant into great battle. (That's also a feeble example of Old English verse, which favored strong alliteratve pairs bridging an internal line gap. It leads to chanting passages from "Beowulf.") Nothing in Sylvia Plath's work is helpful, but you might turn to "Jabberwocky" and watch the mome raths outgrabe. Whatever they are, they're not my favorite fishes, the ancient coelacanths, whose living existence came out after Carroll. (Drat! Another chantable Old English line, hack-work and hideous!) Double-drat!) Ah, you may quibble, there's an internal -n- that should disqualify "coelacanths" from this half-learned "-aths" list, lack-witted and lengthy. (Drat again!) A mere internal -n- is famously of no consequence to linguistics and etymology. The brothers Grimm were actually more interested in how Western languages changed than in the fairy tales that they collected. Jakob found predictable patterns of change, one of which is that t's slowly became th's, which then turned into d's: t-- th-- d The obvious example is how both ends of "dent-" change as it evolves into "tooth." That dental -n- (a linguistic pun--see what your tongue touches when you say "dennnn-tal") was dropped without any qualms as it turned into "tooth" in not only Indo-European history but also this tiny-minded treatise, tiresome and terrible. (Drat once more!) An anonymous linguistic law explains the importance of any single letter or sound when words change. Our more coherent grunts may be divided into two sound groups, the true consonants, which are short and unsustainable, like -p- or -k- or -t-, and the true vowels, which are sustainable, like -eeeeeeee-. (Hmmm, are there are vocalic consonants? Yesss! There are more vowels, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your a-e-i-o-u and sometimes y.) The etymological rule of thumb is that consonants count for very little when words slowly change, while vowels hardly count at all. (It's not quite engineering.) Thus the -n- that vanished as "dent-" became "tooth" doesn't bother word-freaks any more than the black hole of schwa, the high-falutin' term for the laziest possible vowel toward which all vowels tend. (Schwa? Relax everything in your mouth, even to the point of letting your tongue hang out, say "uhhhh," and you'll see where most vowels end up. D'yuh see thuh point uhv thuh lessuhn? It's uh simple wuhn tuh illuhstrate. Duh! We skip, swallow, and slur sounds until someone says "Huh?" and then repeat ourselves--more loudly, if not more clearly, a bit like long threads on rec.bicycles.tech.) (The -oo- to -ee- change in t**th for plurality rejoices in the name of internal vowel gradation. This is strongest in old, once-powerful words, often animal names like mouse to mice, goose to geese, and swan to swine-- Oops, see how easily linguistics trips us up? Only embittered feminist authorities suggest a progression from swain to swine. Vowel gradation also survives in stout old short verbs like run-ran, speak-spoke, say-said, sweep-swept, weep-wept, hang-hung, swim-swam, and lie- Um, just a moment . . . Lay? Laid? Lee? Lie-reclined! Normal verbs merely add -ed.) As I'm sure everyone still recalls, I was sneaking "coelacanth" into a rec.bicycles.tech post on the pronunciation of "maths." I suggest that I drop my dead fish and that we all take our baths and go for our usual rides on the bicycle paths. Otherwise, I'd have to address the question of the voiced versus voiced "-ths" and we'd have to hold the ritual dictionary burning required at the beginning of any good linguistics class, lest we forget how we actually speak, start quoting the lexicographer's printed attempts to define "proper" pronunciation as opposed to reality, and end up sounding like a bad production of "My Fair Lady." If we don't drop this "maths" business soon, we'll be accused of talking out of our -aths. (There! Not a hint of alliterative chanting! Just a straightforward slant-rhyme pun to illustrate the sort of lisp that Jobst loathes.) (Try saying those last two words quickly three times.) Carl Fogel Are you part of the Gene Daniels school of Usenet posting? -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"The Stability of the Bicycle"
A Muzi wrote in message ...
Are you part of the Gene Daniels school of Usenet posting? Dear Andrew, A Google search suggests that you suspect a "gene daniels" of cocaine-induced ravings: "For further proof of the corrosiveness of coke, read any of the assorted 'thoughts' of Gene Daniels" Let me assure you that my ravings are Coke-induced, the 32-oz bottle being preferred. I fear that the fellow in question would be appalled to learn that anyone likened his posts to mine. Incidentally, I found to my horror that the otherwise reliable Sheldon Brown failed to scale his gear-inch calculator down to the clown-cycle 4-inch wheel level that you mentioned elsewhere in the Dahon thread (see how easily even decent people are caught up in depravity?), so I'm about to plead publicly with him to reveal all that he knows about honest-to-God circus-clown bicycles. Carl Fogel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A song for Carla | John Harlow | Mountain Biking | 3 | May 10th 04 02:29 PM |
Those bicycle builders big mistake! | Garrison Hilliard | General | 30 | December 23rd 03 06:03 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |