Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results

Trevor Barton

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:59:55 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> If you want to look at it that way, there is no substantive difference
> between countersteering and the normal weaving involved in keeping the
> bike upright - all you are doing is using the normal weaving motion to
> place the bike such that it leans into the turn you are about to make.
> It's just assigning a label to something which is an intuitive part of
> riding and cannot be taught.

Quite. And what's more, steering at all is generally optional as
well, in that the geometry of most bikes makes the bike do it for
you, hence the ability to ride most bikes hands free, although some
are more difficult to others. Never tried it on a bent, though,
because I've never tried the dark side.

> Full-on countersteer, used to make very
> sharp turns, is something I've never really tried.

The only reason to deliberately and conciously countersteer is
to rapidly shift the wheels out from under your centre of mass,
so that you can tilt more quiclky and therefore enter a turn
more quickly. Ultimately you're limited by the maximum downward
acceleration of your centre of mass, but to achieve that you'd have
to lift both tyres off the ground BMX style.

--
Trevor Barton

James Annan

Dave Kahn wrote:
> A couple of threads back I suggested an idea that I thought would
> provoke some fierce refutations but nobody seemed to pick up on it.

On the contrary, it seemed like a completely clear and straightforward
description of how a bicycle works, and was wholly uncontroversial.

It is only Simon who claims to be able to move his CoG from side to side
at will on top of the contact patch, rather than moving the contact
patch from side to side under him like everyone else. His claim is
physically equivalent to saying he can ride a bike with the steering
locked straight. It mighht be possible for such a bicycle to be ridden
in some exceptional cases, for specific values of "rider" and "bicycle",
but it certainly isn't something that most people can do, and therefore
it cannot be how bicycles normally work. Indeed, he seems very dubious
about his own ability to do it, but does not seem to understand the
immediate relevance it has to his claims.


From Sheldon Brown:

Countersteering
When a bicycle turns, it must lean into the direction of the turn
so that the tilt of the bicycle and rider counterbalances the
"centrifugal force" created by the act of turning.

In order to turn left, you start by turning the handlebars to the
right for a moment. This moves the front wheel out to the right of the
center of gravity, so the bike will start to fall to the left. This is
immediately follwed by turning the handlebars to the left to cause the
bike to remain in balance, which also creates the desired left turn.
"Countersteering" refers to the momentary motion of the handlebars in
the opposite direction of the desired turn.


From "Steering in bicycles and motorcycles", J. Fajans, Am. J. Phys. 68

James Annan

David Martin wrote:

> On 15/12/04 10:05 pm, in article 32bqmjF3kgpqdU1@individual.net, "James
> Annan" <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

>>http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjame...tersteering.jpg
>
>
> Which way was the bike travelling? I'm not sure from this photo whether one
> can argue anything much.

You are right, it is not very clear, but it is the only picture on
offer...riding a road bike through a puddle on a dry road would probably
be clearer, but dry roads in Scotland can be hard to find!

Since my lines obscure the tracks rather, I had another go with just one
line:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjame...ersteering1.jpg

That line was intended to follow the main straight track down the bottom
half of the picture (guided by the pattern in the track). Of course I
ignored the wobble of the front wheel at the bottom of the picture and
followed the heavvier rear wheel track. It seems clear enough to me that
at about the position of the arrow, the front tyre track is somewhat to
the right of the line - not a huge amount, and the fat tyre on soft
ground gives rather indistinct edges to the track, but nevertheless
there is more track on the outside of the line than the inside, exactly
as expected from the standard description of how a bicycle works.

IMO the deviation of the front tyre to the right is actually clearer on
the original photo with no distracting lines.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Paul - xxx

James Annan composed the following ...

> It is only Simon who claims to be able to move his CoG from side to side
> at will on top of the contact patch, rather than moving the contact
> patch from side to side under him like everyone else.

I think most people do ride innacountersteeringstylee .. However, there are
times when a turn can be made without countersteering, but they are the
exception, rather than the norm.

Many riders can, and do, keep cycles as vertical as possible, ie don't
change contact patch, when cornering, especially on very wet or icy roads,
and use a counter-balance of their weight to get round a turn. Turns of
this nature are generally very slow turns, often in a foot-down stylee.
Counter-steering is mostly used to initiate a turn anyway, not to maintain
it.

There are also times, especially whilst riding fast off-road, when a turn is
initiated without recourse to any steering, counter or otherwise ..

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

dkahn400

Paul - xxx wrote:

> Many riders can, and do, keep cycles as vertical as possible,
> ie don't change contact patch, when cornering, especially on
> very wet or icy roads, and use a counter-balance of their weight
> to get round a turn.

The C of G is still inside the track of the wheels. You still have to
account for how the rider managed to move his C of G to one side.
--
Dave...

James Annan

James Annan wrote:

>

>
> From "Steering in bicycles and motorcycles", J. Fajans, Am. J. Phys. 68


That's annoying. Half my post vanished. The full ref is Vol 68 No 7, pp
654-659, 2000.

And the quote taken directly from the abstract was supposed to be:

"Steering a motorcycle or bicycle is counterintuitive; to turn right,
you must steer left initially, and vice versa. You can execute this
initially counter-directed turn by turning the handlebars explicitly

Simon Brooke

in message <tl31s0lus9gk3uvfoc0bsuortb38og75i9@4ax.com>, nobody
('nobody@nowhere.com') wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:45:36 +0000, Simon Brooke
> <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
> The photograph that is offered is worthless. There is insufficient
> contrast to be able to distinguish the front and rear tracks clearly,
> and the wide tyres don't help either.
>
> It would be better if you repeated the trial on a hard, level surface
> on a bike with narrow tires.

I agree, and I shall get round to it.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (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.

Mark Thompson

> In order to turn left, you start by turning the handlebars to the
> right for a moment. This moves the front wheel out to the right of the
> center of gravity, so the bike will start to fall to the left. This is
> immediately follwed by turning the handlebars to the left to cause the
> bike to remain in balance, which also creates the desired left turn.
> "Countersteering" refers to the momentary motion of the handlebars in
> the opposite direction of the desired turn.

So the only reason we countersteer is to lean the bike over? If we can
also lean the bike over just by shifting our weight then a countersteer is
not necessary to initiate a turn. The question is, is it possible to shift
our body to the side without also turning the handlbars?

I haven't tried it, but I think I could probably fall off a bicycle that
had the handlebars locked in position.

I think we can shift our bodyweight to lean the bike and initiate a turn
without needing to countersteer.

Paul - xxx

dkahn400 composed the following ...
> Paul - xxx wrote:
>
>> Many riders can, and do, keep cycles as vertical as possible,
>> ie don't change contact patch, when cornering, especially on
>> very wet or icy roads, and use a counter-balance of their weight
>> to get round a turn.
>
> The C of G is still inside the track of the wheels. You still have to
> account for how the rider managed to move his C of G to one side.

errr by moving his legs, arms, feet, body.

What about no-handed riding? I can use knees, thighs, feet etc to weight or
un-weight a pedal, side of seat, etc all without hands on the bars and still
turn a corner. Lean over, witt hands still off the bars, and the bike will
lean over and initiate it's own turn. The body can then straighten slightly
to balance, and the bike will continue that turn. All no hands on bars, all
achieved with no countersteering.

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Paul - xxx

James Annan composed the following ...
> James Annan wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>> From "Steering in bicycles and motorcycles", J. Fajans, Am. J. Phys. 68
>
>
> That's annoying. Half my post vanished. The full ref is Vol 68 No 7, pp
> 654-659, 2000.
>
> And the quote taken directly from the abstract was supposed to be:
>
> "Steering a motorcycle or bicycle is counterintuitive; to turn right,
> you must steer left initially, and vice versa. You can execute this
> initially counter-directed turn by turning the handlebars explicitly

I disagree that we 'must' use countersteering .. when we can obviously also
steer without counter-steering.

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Paul - xxx

Clive George composed the following ...
> "Paul - xxx" <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:32di9uF3kbf6lU1@individual.net...
>> James Annan composed the following ...
>>> James Annan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> From "Steering in bicycles and motorcycles", J. Fajans, Am. J. Phys.
>>>> 68
>>>
>>>
>>> That's annoying. Half my post vanished. The full ref is Vol 68 No 7, pp
>>> 654-659, 2000.
>>>
>>> And the quote taken directly from the abstract was supposed to be:
>>>
>>> "Steering a motorcycle or bicycle is counterintuitive; to turn right,
>>> you must steer left initially, and vice versa. You can execute this
>>> initially counter-directed turn by turning the handlebars explicitly
>>
>> I disagree that we 'must' use countersteering .. when we can obviously
>> also steer without counter-steering.
>
> I think what you think of as steering without counter-steering is merely
> steering withough explicitly countersteering - during the normal course of
> riding in a straight line, the bike wobbles a little tiny bit, and all you
> do is unconsciously use one of those wobbles to provide the necessary
> countersteer to initiate your turn.

I guess we'll have to disagree then ..

> Like what Dave said a few posts ago, more than once.

I've just installed a new OS on my old computer, so haven't actually read
any of the newsgroup for the last couple of days or so.

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Clive George

"Paul - xxx" <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:32di9uF3kbf6lU1@individual.net...
> James Annan composed the following ...
> > James Annan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> From "Steering in bicycles and motorcycles", J. Fajans, Am. J. Phys.
68
> >
> >
> > That's annoying. Half my post vanished. The full ref is Vol 68 No 7, pp
> > 654-659, 2000.
> >
> > And the quote taken directly from the abstract was supposed to be:
> >
> > "Steering a motorcycle or bicycle is counterintuitive; to turn right,
> > you must steer left initially, and vice versa. You can execute this
> > initially counter-directed turn by turning the handlebars explicitly
>
> I disagree that we 'must' use countersteering .. when we can obviously
also
> steer without counter-steering.

I think what you think of as steering without counter-steering is merely
steering withough explicitly countersteering - during the normal course of
riding in a straight line, the bike wobbles a little tiny bit, and all you
do is unconsciously use one of those wobbles to provide the necessary
countersteer to initiate your turn.

Like what Dave said a few posts ago, more than once.

cheers,
clive

Mark Thompson

> I think what you think of as steering without counter-steering is
> merely steering withough explicitly countersteering - during the
> normal course of riding in a straight line, the bike wobbles a little
> tiny bit, and all you do is unconsciously use one of those wobbles to
> provide the necessary countersteer to initiate your turn.

Don't we use the wickle countersteering thingies to correct the wobble tho,
so by using a wobble to start of a lean into a turn we stop
countersteering?

Clive George

"Paul - xxx" <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:32dj41F3l6ffoU1@individual.net...

> >> I disagree that we 'must' use countersteering .. when we can obviously
> >> also steer without counter-steering.
> >
> > I think what you think of as steering without counter-steering is merely
> > steering withough explicitly countersteering - during the normal course
of
> > riding in a straight line, the bike wobbles a little tiny bit, and all
you
> > do is unconsciously use one of those wobbles to provide the necessary
> > countersteer to initiate your turn.
>
> I guess we'll have to disagree then ..

Ok, what situation are you thinking about then? Describe a turn without
countersteer.

> > Like what Dave said a few posts ago, more than once.
>
> I've just installed a new OS on my old computer, so haven't actually read
> any of the newsgroup for the last couple of days or so.

Fair enough - I was mostly preempting Dave complaining entirely reasonably
that nobody was listening to him again!

cheers,
clive