Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
17-12.-2004, 10:14 PM
|
#106 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
Mark McN wrote: > Boredom compels me to throw a thought experiment into the mix. > > You're riding a non-steering bike. This is difficult, so before > too long - a matter of seconds, even - you find yourself beginning > to fall to one side or the other. > Automagically the steering is restored. Which way do you turn the > handlebars to stop falling? Which direction are you now going in? You turn them towards the side to which you are falling. You are now turning in that direction. > You've changed direction. Has counter-steering happened? No. It was not required in this case because the C of G was already off to the side of the contact patch. It sounds very like my earlier description of normal steering. If I want to turn right I simply stop preventing the bike falling to the right until I've reached the desired lean angle. I think we then agreed (rather no-one disagreed) this was countersteering in disguise. -- Dave... |
|
|
17-12.-2004, 10:25 PM
|
#107 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
On 17 Dec 2004 01:03:23 GMT, Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com> wrote: >Aparrently yes, according to someone that replied to me, but I couldn't see >how. I think I'm missing something about this whole countersteering lark. I'm missing something, too, and it is this: in what way is calling it "countersteering" anything other than pointless pedantry? To say that a bicycle cannot be steered left without first placing the rider's CoG to the left of the contact points is self-evidently true. This is a long way from the description of "countersteer" as a deliberate and conscious act to precipitate a violent turn, as described in some books. Look at it this way: you are teaching someone to ride a bike. Do you: (a) go into a long discussion about "countersteer" and how you have to steer the "wrong" way first, or (b) put them on a bike and let them work it out for themselves, a process which has been known to take as long as an hour for a 4-year-old child... Last night on the way home I tried to steer my bike without using countersteer. It was quite easy, I just leaned my body to the left and steered left and the bike started to turn, but I have a recumbent so the handling dynamics are very different. As far as I'm concerned this is one of those urc "the weather is too cruddy to ride the bike so let's all have a good argument instead" arguments ;-) Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
|
|
|
17-12.-2004, 10:43 PM
|
#108 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
David Martin wrote:
> What about a swing? Surely it is impossible for a swing to start moving from > rest if there is always a net resultant of 0. It's for reasons like this that Chris Malcom and myself (and others, I think) have not been completely categorical about the absolute impossibility of balancing a bike that cannot steer. It is actually possible to generate small net forces by vigorous acceleration of various body parts in different directions. If you remember the last time you started a swing moving from scratch, it requires fairly violent movement of legs and torso to generate a very slight movement. In theory, these sort of things might enable someone to balance a non-steering bicycle (equivalently: steer without countersteering), and no doubt somewhere in the world there are people who can do it. If you think you are one of them, then it will be easy to test, just by overtightening your headset as I have repeatedly suggested. It is certainly not part of the normal control of bicycles, because only a vanishingly small proportion of riders have this ability. James -- If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of giants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/ |
|
|
|
17-12.-2004, 10:46 PM
|
#109 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I'm missing something, too, and it is this: in what way is calling it > "countersteering" anything other than pointless pedantry? To say that > a bicycle cannot be steered left without first placing the rider's CoG > to the left of the contact points is self-evidently true. This is a > long way from the description of "countersteer" as a deliberate and > conscious act to precipitate a violent turn, as described in some > books. Maybe so, but Simon is not just debating the semantics, he really seems to believe that he has a method for balancing a bicycle that is physically different from the standard method of steering the contact patch under the rider. James -- If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of giants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/ |
|
|
|
17-12.-2004, 11:03 PM
|
#110 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
Paul - xxx wrote:
> If I stick my arm out whilst standing I do not move to the right > to compensate. While standing you have a wide base to push against. Your postural muscles are able to resist the force moving your body to the right. You can move your C of G if you have something to push against. > Same on a bike. Stick arm out left and the > bike will move to the left, fall over ineffect. Different on a bike as you have nothing to push against. > Sod it, I've had enough of this. I do find these petulant outbursts rather childish. If you're interested in the physics stay with it. If not, why bother to contribute in the first place? > I disagree that one needs to counter-steer to initiate a turn on > a bicycle or motorcycle. It is done, I do it, but it isn't > necessary. > > I doubt anyone can or will persuade me otherwise. So do I. -- Dave... |
|
|
|
17-12.-2004, 11:06 PM
|
#111 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
On 17/12/04 12:43 pm, in article 32g2gcF3jd0l3U1@individual.net, "James
Annan" <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote: > It is > certainly not part of the normal control of bicycles, because only a > vanishingly small proportion of riders have this ability. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Apart from yourself, how many people do you know who have spent as long trying to ride an unsteerable bike as tehy did learning to ride a steerable bike? The reason it is not part of normal cycle control is that cycles tend to have steering. How would wobblebikes relate to this arguement? ...d |
|
|
|
17-12.-2004, 11:15 PM
|
#112 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
dkahn400 composed the following ...
> Paul - xxx wrote: > >> If I stick my arm out whilst standing I do not move to the right >> to compensate. > > While standing you have a wide base to push against. Your postural > muscles are able to resist the force moving your body to the right. You > can move your C of G if you have something to push against. > >> Same on a bike. Stick arm out left and the >> bike will move to the left, fall over ineffect. > > Different on a bike as you have nothing to push against. er .. the ground .. same as standing only it's the bike, which you're in intimate contact with, and it's contact area with the ground that you're pushing against. >> Sod it, I've had enough of this. > > I do find these petulant outbursts rather childish. If you're > interested in the physics stay with it. If not, why bother to > contribute in the first place? I disagreed that counter-steering was necessary to turn a bicycle. No-one has added anything to the thread, despite numerous attempts, that proves it one way or the other, we all appear to be using very, very similar arguments in support of each others case, and simply repeating them differently. I'm getting fed up with repeat and counter repeat of the same things. -- Paul ... http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php (8(!) Homer Rules ...  "A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using." |
|
|
|
17-12.-2004, 11:32 PM
|
#113 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
David Martin wrote:
> On 17/12/04 12:43 pm, in article 32g2gcF3jd0l3U1@individual.net, "James > Annan" <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>It is >>certainly not part of the normal control of bicycles, because only a >>vanishingly small proportion of riders have this ability. > > > Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Yes. If you spent as many minutes thinking/reading about it as writing about it you would not have had to ask such a stupid question. James -- If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of giants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/ |
|
|
|
17-12.-2004, 11:37 PM
|
#114 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
Paul - xxx wrote:
> I disagreed that counter-steering was necessary to turn a bicycle. > > No-one has added anything to the thread, despite numerous attempts, that > proves it one way or the other No, several people have posted thorough, clear and coherent arguments as to why is it an essential component of the control of a bicycle. A handful of terminally clueless numpties have proved that they are incapable of understanding the elementary concepts involved. No real surprise there: that is what usenet is generally like. The only vaguely surprising aspect to me is why people are so keen to parade their ignorance around in public. I blame Clarkson. James -- If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of giants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/ |
|
|
|
17-12.-2004, 11:48 PM
|
#115 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
On 17/12/04 1:32 pm, in article 32g5cgF3m4mpsU1@individual.net, "James
Annan" <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote: > David Martin wrote: > >> On 17/12/04 12:43 pm, in article 32g2gcF3jd0l3U1@individual.net, "James >> Annan" <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> It is >>> certainly not part of the normal control of bicycles, because only a >>> vanishingly small proportion of riders have this ability. >> >> >> Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? > > Yes. > > If you spent as many minutes thinking/reading about it as writing about > it you would not have had to ask such a stupid question. So, your evidence for only a tiny proportion of people being able to do something most have never tried is..? (assuming ability is meant in the sense of nascent ability rather than refined skill) Lets take your psentence in two halves: >>> It is >>> certainly not part of the normal control of bicycles, Obviously correct, but why? >>> only a >>> vanishingly small proportion of riders have this ability. You have provided no evidence for this. and furthermore you have provided no evidence for the casual link between the two. It mat well be argued that the ability to balance a non-steering bicycle is not part of the normal control of bicycles, becasue bicycles are not non-steering and thus have alternative modes of steering that are more useful (can make tighter turns etc). So the assertion that most people cannot balance a non-steering bicycle, even if it were true, would still not be causal. ...d |
|
|
|
17-12.-2004, 11:56 PM
|
#116 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
"Paul - xxx" <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:32g4g4F3l2ufiU1@individual.net... > dkahn400 composed the following ... > > Paul - xxx wrote: > > > >> If I stick my arm out whilst standing I do not move to the right > >> to compensate. > > > > While standing you have a wide base to push against. Your postural > > muscles are able to resist the force moving your body to the right. You > > can move your C of G if you have something to push against. > > > >> Same on a bike. Stick arm out left and the > >> bike will move to the left, fall over ineffect. > > > > Different on a bike as you have nothing to push against. > > er .. the ground .. same as standing only it's the bike, which you're in > intimate contact with, and it's contact area with the ground that you're > pushing against. No, different. The contact point of the bike and the ground allows rotation - that with feet doesn't. Ie if you try and push a bike sideways, even at the bottom, it will fall over with even the tiniest force, but if you try and push a pair of feet sideways it doesn't. cheers, clive |
|
|
|
17-12.-2004, 11:59 PM
|
#117 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
James Annan composed the following ...
> Paul - xxx wrote: > > >> I disagreed that counter-steering was necessary to turn a bicycle. >> >> No-one has added anything to the thread, despite numerous attempts, that >> proves it one way or the other > > No, several people have posted thorough, clear and coherent arguments as > to why is it an essential component of the control of a bicycle. A > handful of terminally clueless numpties have proved that they are > incapable of understanding the elementary concepts involved. No real > surprise there: that is what usenet is generally like. The only vaguely > surprising aspect to me is why people are so keen to parade their > ignorance around in public. I blame Clarkson. What's not surprising is your slide into derogatory terms even during a light-hearted disagreement over something that we all agree happens most of the time. Just not all the time, and which isn't necessary .. Bye. -- Paul ... http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php (8(!) Homer Rules ... "A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using." |
|
|
|
18-12.-2004, 12:17 AM
|
#118 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
>> What about a swing? Surely it is impossible for a swing to start
>> moving from rest if there is always a net resultant of 0. > > <snippity> It is actually possible <snippity> <simpleton> So on the bike, by leaning to the left we can make the bike go left without having to move the steering. Presumably it's only a small lean but once it's started gravity helps with the rest? Thinking about falling off my bike again, I could probably make a non steerable bike fall whatever way I wanted to. To eliminate any possibility of countersteering being involved I could do it stationary too. If I can make a bike lean the way I want it to turn without countersteering does it not follow that I could turn without countersteering. This thread's stupidly long so I presume it isn't this simple. When someone disagrees with my post could you just explain what on earth you mean by 'countersteering' first. thx. ps I thought countersteering was briefly turning right to go left. My simple method of turning without countersteering is leaning left while steering left. </simpleton> |
|
|
|
18-12.-2004, 12:22 AM
|
#119 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
Mark Thompson composed the following ...
> ps I thought countersteering was briefly turning right to go left. My > simple method of turning without countersteering is leaning left while > steering left. SPOT ON, THAT MAN ... Have a balloon .. -- Paul ... http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php (8(!) Homer Rules ... "A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using." |
|
|
|
18-12.-2004, 02:25 AM
|
#120 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Turning without countersteering: photographs and test results
Paul - xxx wrote:
> dkahn400 composed the following ... > > Paul - xxx wrote: > >> Same on a bike. Stick arm out left and the > >> bike will move to the left, fall over ineffect. > > > > Different on a bike as you have nothing to push against. > > er .. the ground .. same as standing only it's the bike, > which you're in intimate contact with, and it's contact > area with the ground that you're pushing against. Think carefully about this. We're considering someone sticking their left arm out, first standing then rolling along in a straight line on a bike. I claimed that as the arm moves to the left there must be an equal reaction to the right, according to Newton's third law. You pointed out that when you do it standing up (as the actress said to the bishop) your body does not move to the right. I claimed that this was because your postural muscles are able to resist this force by exploiting the wide base and pushing against the floor. You did not disagree with this claim but suggested that a cyclist could also push against the floor. Perhaps you could explain in greater detail how this is mechanically possible because I simply cannot see it. For example, if you are standing normally and I start to push you over you are able to resist. I will be able to push quite hard before there is any movement. The wider your stance, the harder I will have to push to make you move. If your feet are close together I will be able to push you over quite easily, but you will still be able to resist a push of a few pounds. Now imagine you are seated on your bicycle. I am standing beside you and you are leaning very slightly against me, almost upright. The slightest push from me will topple you. You are in intimate contact with the bike and its contact area with the ground. Short of putting a foot down or grabbing hold of me there is nothing you can do to resist that push. I'm going to try this with my kids when I get home. Why don't you have a go yourself? It's not a difficult experiment or a dangerous one - you can put a foot out as soon as you begin to fall. > No-one has added anything to the thread, despite numerous > attempts, that proves it one way or the other, we all appear > to be using very, very similar arguments in support of each > others case, and simply repeating them differently. I don't agree with that. I at least am trying to advance the argument by clarifying my position and trying to understand yours. Where I see flaws in that I am pointing them out. As Guy pointed out none if this matters very much in practical terms. It won't alter the way you ride your bike. I simply find it interesting for its own sake. -- Dave... |
|
|
Linear Mode
