Spoke Fatigue Study

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

Where is the residual stress going to come from now that it has been
relieved? As I mentioned in an earlier response, the elongation
necessary to relieve residual stress is in the micro-inches and has no
significance to spoke tension. For practical purposes, tension is not
affected whether a house fly sits on the spoke or not. That's about the
size of it.

translation: i can't prove it [sic] - you'll just have to take my word
for it. funny how gross yielding sufficient to visibly bend a spoke is
now micro-inches.

Why? How much longer do *you* think my visibly bent spoke is now?

What do you mean by "sic" here? I'm not familiar with this usage.

--
Benjamin Lewis

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
--Matt Groening

Luns Tee said:

In article said:

Now that the spoke has yielded, it must have lower tension than
before. If you want balanced tension in the wheel, you must bring the
tension back up by turning the nipple. How do you know that this new
tension doesn't bring that overstressed region back near the yield stress?

Quoted message said:

It's an easy matter to imagine what's going on using a graph of
the stress vs. position.

................... Tensile yield

Tension^
| /\ /
| / \ /
---/----\----/-- neutral stress
| / \ /
Copression v / \/

Outside Inside of Bend
of bend

As shown, this would be for a spoke out of a box (not to
scale, peaks may not be in proportion, and other disclaimers apply )
Applying tension to the spoke will shift the graph upwards, with the
total area under the graph (with appropriate weighting for sectional
geometry ) equalling the applied tension. Adding enough tension to
stress relieve the spoke will mash the peaks of this into the tensile
yield ceiling, and after the tension is relaxed, those peaks are
flattened out.

Thanks for the detailed response, Luns. The key for me was this: "the
total area under the graph equalling the applied tension." That seems
intuitive.

So even if the entire length of spoke had residual stress, and you
brought the tension beyond yield, the curve would be flatter and the
peak stresses would be reduced. Bringing the spoke back to the same
average tension would result in lower peak stress.

We don't need to rely on the fact that local yielding only affects a
small portion of spoke, which is what the rest of the explanations
assume. When Benjamin's spoke elbows bent, the average tension had to
reduce significantly. So I can't understand the argument that yielding
doesn't change the average tension significantly, and your comment that
"the other 300mm of spoke having elasticity to make it look more like a
constant tension." If the changes due to yielding are small, then yes, I
can understand. But it seems we have evidence to the contrary.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Benjamin Lewis said:

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

Yield stress is an unacceptably
high for spokes that are to operate under millions of stress cycles
and it will cause failure.

logical disconnect. that it is bent does /not/ mean that bending is a
result of service tension. it's an assumption that is convenient to
your theory, but the fact remains that it's hard to build a wheel
without bending spokes on assembly, but this has nothing to do with
their stress in service.

So now I'm lying, am I?

i was responding to jobst's comment, not yours, wasn't i?

Quoted message said:

I mentioned in the original post that I took
special care *not* to bend the elbows during lacing. In fact, this is very
easy to accomplish. It may be difficult not to bend the rest of the spoke,
but that is irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the spoke elbow plastically deforms, as the picture shows, then it
reached yield stress.

/when/ did it yield jobst?

It yielded either during tensioning or during stress-relief. Having done
it myself, I am absolutely 100% certain of that.

well, i have 29 spokes here on my desk without apparent yielding, so
what do we conclude?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subsequent tensioning of the spoke guarantees
that the outside of the elbow, that changed from an obtuse angle to an
acute angle, remains at yield when wheel building is complete.

spoke tension alone does not change the angle. see
http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/Img_0267.jpg

out of 32 spokes, only 3 are bent - that can /only/ be a function of
build, not tension.

Absolutely and completely false, and I invite anyone else who does not
believe me to try the same experiment for themselves.

but benjamin, with respect, i have.

Quoted message said:

I can think of two explanations offhand for your spoke elbows not bending
-- the hub was already perfectly flush with them (seems improbable to me),
or you did not apply enough tension to bring them to yield.

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

logical disconnect. that it is bent does /not/ mean that bending is a
result of service tension. it's an assumption that is convenient to
your theory, but the fact remains that it's hard to build a wheel
without bending spokes on assembly, but this has nothing to do with
their stress in service.

So now I'm lying, am I?

i was responding to jobst's comment, not yours, wasn't i?

So what? You were talking about my spoke.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It yielded either during tensioning or during stress-relief. Having
done it myself, I am absolutely 100% certain of that.

well, i have 29 spokes here on my desk without apparent yielding, so
what do we conclude?

That either
- they did yield, but not enough to be obvious.
- that you didn't apply enough tension for them to yield.
- that you have a rare combination of spoke/hub that are already perfectly
flush after lacing.

That's what *I* conclude, anyway. *You* conclude that Jobst is wrong about
everything, regardless of any evidence or reasoning.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

out of 32 spokes, only 3 are bent - that can /only/ be a function of
build, not tension.

Absolutely and completely false, and I invite anyone else who does not
believe me to try the same experiment for themselves.

but benjamin, with respect, i have.

Anyone *else*, I said. I'm fully aware that with you it's hopeless.

--
Benjamin Lewis

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
--Matt Groening

In article <[email hidden]>,
Jim Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

I just now flipped through the third edition of the book and did not
see any attempt to provide evidence for stress relieving beyond the
general statement in the introduction that the techniques were arrived
at guided by engineering principles and results. Based on that and the
comments I have seen here, it seems to go something like this: "I was
suffering broken spokes, I started 'stress relieving' my spokes, they
stopped breaking." This fits my definition of "anecdotal" as it is
based on personal experience and takes the form of a short account of
an interesting incident.

Flipping through led you to publish your findings that Brandt's
book provides only anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of
temporarily increasing the tension on the spokes of a tensioned
and trued wheel. After you have read for comprehension come back
and tell us what you have found.

In a freshly laced and tensioned bicycle wheel the spokes do not
follow a straight line from spoke elbow to spoke nipple. At the
hub the spoke bends around the flange, and at the nipple the spoke
bends to align itself with the the nipple in the wheel rim. Both
these bends are within the elastic limit of the spoke material.
When installed on a bicycle and ridden the spokes cyclically are
unloaded and loaded, unbending and bending back, subjecting the
bends to a fatigue cycle.

By temporarily increasing the tension in the spokes of the newly
built wheel, the bends at the hub and nipple are stressed past the
yield point, the spoke material yields at these points, and when
the extra tension is removed the spokes are not bent in tension at
these points, but are actually bent; they will not return to
straight when removed from the wheel. When installed in a bicycle
and ridden he bends are not subject to bending and unbending while
the spoke is cyclically unloaded and loaded.

[...]

Quoted message said:

I think it is a fine, practical book. I don't think it offers any
proof of the effectiveness of stress relieving and I don't think it
tries. That doesn't appear to be its purpose.

There is no proof in engineering and science. Take up mathematics
for proof.

--
Michael Press

jim beam said:

so, jobst is the classic
synthesis of reason? is that why he thinks bicycles are gyroscopically
stabilized? that bike bearings are elastohydrodynamically separated?
the bearings do not brinell? that stainless steels have end urance
limits? that anodizing causes fatigue? that spoke tensions should be
"as high as the rim can bear"? that spokes are not bent on a mandrel?
that it's ok to ignore data points that contradict your theories? that
springback is evidence of residual stress? that lateral load does not
increase spoke tension? that tension does not resolve into tri-axial
stresses?

and you say that jobst's output is not factory farmed? it sure smells
like farm to me.

You can't even be bothe red to get his views straight before attacking
him, can you. For example, he has said clearly MANY times that bicycles
are NOT gyroscopically stabilized.

"Ubi major, minor cessat"

a

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Jim Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

I just now flipped through the third edition of the book and did not
see any attempt to provide evidence for stress relieving beyond the
general statement in the introduction that the techniques were arrived
at guided by engineering principles and results. Based on that and the
comments I have seen here, it seems to go something like this: "I was
suffering broken spokes, I started 'stress relieving' my spokes, they
stopped breaking." This fits my definition of "anecdotal" as it is
based on personal experience and takes the form of a short account of
an interesting incident.

Flipping through led you to publish your findings that Brandt's
book provides only anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of
temporarily increasing the tension on the spokes of a tensioned
and trued wheel. After you have read for comprehension come back
and tell us what you have found.

You know, it would help to expidite things if you would just provide
the edition and page number where it can be found. Is ther some
reason you don't want to do that?

41 said:

jim beam said:

so, jobst is the classic
synthesis of reason? is that why he thinks bicycles are gyroscopically
stabilized? that bike bearings are elastohydrodynamically separated?
the bearings do not brinell? that stainless steels have end urance
limits? that anodizing causes fatigue? that spoke tensions should be
"as high as the rim can bear"? that spokes are not bent on a mandrel?
that it's ok to ignore data points that contradict your theories? that
springback is evidence of residual stress? that lateral load does not
increase spoke tension? that tension does not resolve into tri-axial
stresses?

and you say that jobst's output is not factory farmed? it sure smells
like farm to me.

You can't even be bothe red to get his views straight before attacking
him, can you. For example, he has said clearly MANY times that bicycles
are NOT gyroscopically stabilized.

"Ubi major, minor cessat"

a

google: "jobst brandt gyroscopically stabilized".

"i'm feeling lucky" yields: "http://yarchive.net/bike/gyro_effect.html"

do you care to get behind the science on any of the other points?

jim beam said:

41 said:

jim beam said:

so, jobst is the classic
synthesis of reason? is that why he thinks bicycles are gyroscopically
stabilized? that bike bearings are elastohydrodynamically separated?
the bearings do n ot brinell? that stainless steels have end urance
limits? that anodizing causes fatigue? that spoke tensions should be
"as high as the rim can bear"? that spokes are not bent on a mandrel?
that it's ok to ignore data points that contradict your theories? that
springback is evidence of residual stress? that lateral load does not
increase spoke tension? that tension does not resolve into tri-axial
stresses?

and you say that jobst's output is not factory farmed? it sure smells
like farm to me.

You can't even be bothe red to get his views straight before attacking
him, can you. For example, he has said clearly MANY times that bicycles
are NOT gyroscopically stabilized.

"Ubi major, minor cessat"

a

google: "jobst brandt gyroscopically stabilized".

"i'm feeling lucky" yields: "http://yarchive.net/bike/gyro_effect.html"

Oh. I see what the problem is. You don't know the meaning of the word
"stabilized".

41 said:

jim beam said:

41 said:

jim beam wrote:

>so, jobst is the classic
>synthesis of reason? is that why he thinks bicycles are gyroscopically
>stabilized? that bike bearings are elastohydrodynamically separated?
>the bearings do n ot brinell? that stainless steels have end urance
>limits? that anodizing causes fatigue? that spoke tensions should be
>"as high as the rim can bear"? that spokes are not bent on a mandrel?
>that it's ok to ignore data points that contradict your theories? that
>springback is evidence of residual stress? that lateral load does not
>increase spoke tension? that tension does not resolve into tri-axial
>stresses?
>
>and you say that jobst's output is not factory farmed? it sure smells
>like farm to me.

You can't even be bothe red to get his views straight before attacking
him, can you. For example, he has said clearly MANY times that bicycles
are NOT gyroscopically stabilized.

"Ubi major, minor cessat"

a

google: "jobst brandt gyroscopically stabilized".

"i'm feeling lucky" yields: "http://yarchive.net/bike/gyro_effect.html"

Oh. I see what the problem is. You don't know the meaning of the word
"stabilized".

interesting snippage. are you related to jobst perchance? i guess that
means i need to repeat my question: "do you care to get behind the
science on any of the other points?"

Johnnie Walker said:

so, jobst is the classic synthesis of reason? is that why he thinks
bicycles are gyroscopically stabilized? that bike bearings are
elastohydrodynamically separated? the bearings do not brinell?
that stainless steels have endurance limits? that anodizing causes
fatigue? that spoke tensions should be "as high as the rim can
bear"? that spokes are not bent on a mandrel? that it's ok to
ignore data points that contradict your theories? that springback
is evidence of residual stress? that lateral load does not increase
spoke tension? that tension does not resolve into tri-axial
stresses?

That is a compendium of straw men of your own making, selectively
produced from negativism with half truths. The citation below is
typical of your line of argumentation. I'm glad you chose to expose
your method.

Quoted message said:

google: "jobst brandt gyroscopically stabilized".

Quoted message said:

"i'm feeling lucky" yields: "http://yarchive.net/bike/gyro_effect.html"

Quoted message said:

do you care to get behind the science on any of the other points?

The article cited is an explanation of how one rides no-hands, not
about what keeps a bicycle from falling over when ridden normally.
Had you continued that search might have found articles that explain
how bicycles are stabilized by the rider the same as one balances on
ice skates (that have no rotating gyroscopic support elements).

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/gyro.html

[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"i'm feeling lucky" yields: "http://yarchive.net/bike/gyro_effect.html"

Quoted message said:

do you care to get behind the science on any of the other points?

The article cited is an explanation of how one rides no-hands, not
about what keeps a bicycle from falling over when ridden normally.

The article implies that riding no-handed would be impossible without
the gyroscopic effects. However, Jones in his "Physics Today" article
from 1970 was able to ride his "URB 1" bicycle no-handed even though it
was modified to cancel the gyroscopic effects. Riding no-handed was
more difficult, but not impossible.

Peter Rathman said:

Quoted message said:

The article cited is an explanation of how one rides no-hands, not
about what keeps a bicycle from falling over when ridden normally.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/gyro.html

Quoted message said:

The article implies that riding no-handed would be impossible
without the gyroscopic effects.

I don't see where that was stated in the article.

Quoted message said:

However, Jones in his "Physics Today" article from 1970 was able to
ride his "URB 1" bicycle no-handed even though it was modified to
cancel the gyroscopic effects. Riding no-handed was more difficult,
but not impossible.

I am aware of that study and I believe it supports what I stated. If
you have seen stunt riders in circuses or other staged events, you can
see that with extraordinary skills far more difficult bicycle riding
is POSSIBLE but not impractically so in the terms of interest. Is
there something specific that you think is misleading or untrue in the
cited item that evokes your response?

[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Peter Rathman said:

Quoted message said:

The article cited is an explanation of how one rides no-hands, not
about what keeps a bicycle from falling over when ridden normally.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/gyro.html

Quoted message said:

The article implies that riding no-handed would be impossible
without the gyroscopic effects.

I don't see where that was stated in the article.

Quoted message said:

However, Jones in his "Physics Today" article from 1970 was able to
ride his "URB 1" bicycle no-handed even though it was modified to
cancel the gyroscopic effects. Riding no-handed was more difficult,
but not impossible.

I am aware of that study and I believe it supports what I stated. If
you have seen stunt riders in circuses or other staged events, you can
see that with extraordinary skills far more difficult bicycle riding
is POSSIBLE but not impractically so in the terms of interest. Is
there something specific that you think is misleading or untrue in the
cited item that evokes your response?

[email hidden]

so which is it? do gyro forces stabilize your bike or not. you say
"no", but mean "yes" by the sound of things.

Quoted message said:

Peter Rathman writes:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/gyro.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article implies that riding no-handed would be impossible
without the gyroscopic effects.

Quoted message said:

I don't see where that was stated in the article.

He said it was *implied*. I see Peter's point. Here is a quote:

"Riding no-hands and wheeling the bicycle as you suggest IS
affected by gyroscopic forces of the front wheel. The ability to
steer a bicycle by holding the saddle, vanishes as speed approaches
zero."

If you can't steer a bicycle from the saddle without the gyroscopic
force of the front wheel spinning, it stands to reason that you couldn't
ride a bike no-hands without that same gyroscopic stabilizer.

If I scrutinize your sentences closely, I see that you didn't come out
and say that directly. But you definitely implied it.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Dave vt? writes:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/gyro.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article implies that riding no-handed would be impossible
without the gyroscopic effects.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't see where that was stated in the article.

Quoted message said:

He said it was *implied*. I see Peter's point. Here is a quote:

Quoted message said:

"Riding no-hands and wheeling the bicycle as you suggest IS affected
by gyroscopic forces of the front wheel. The ability to steer a
bicycle by holding the saddle, vanishes as speed approaches zero."

Quoted message said:

If you can't steer a bicycle from the saddle without the gyroscopic
force of the front wheel spinning, it stands to reason that you
couldn't ride a bike no-hands without that same gyroscopic
stabilizer.

Quoted message said:

If I scrutinize your sentences closely, I see that you didn't come
out and say that directly. But you definitely implied it.

Why conjecture about it. We all have bicycles (I think) so just try
it. This isn't a complex theoretical exercise. I think the method is
clearly stated. You don't need to take this on faith or anybody's
parsing of text.

[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Peter Rathman said:

Quoted message said:

The article cited is an explanation of how one rides no-hands, not
about what keeps a bicycle from falling over when ridden normally.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/gyro.html

Quoted message said:

The article implies that riding no-handed would be impossible
without the gyroscopic effects.

I don't see where that was stated in the article.

From the website you cite above:
"Although the gyroscopic effect of its wheels is not what keeps the
bicycle upright, as is often claimed, it is essential in riding no-hands"

If it were really essential then it would be impossible to ride
no-handed without this effect.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, Jones in his "Physics Today" article from 1970 was able to
ride his "URB 1" bicycle no-handed even though it was modified to
cancel the gyroscopic effects. Riding no-handed was more difficult,
but not impossible.

I am aware of that study and I believe it supports what I stated. If
you have seen stunt riders in circuses or other staged events, you can
see that with extraordinary skills far more difficult bicycle riding
is POSSIBLE but not impractically so in the terms of interest. Is
there something specific that you think is misleading or untrue in the
cited item that evokes your response?

Peter Rathman said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The article cited is an explanation of how one rides no-hands,
> not about what keeps a bicycle from falling over when ridden
> normally.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/gyro.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article implies that riding no-handed would be impossible
without the gyroscopic effects.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't see where that was stated in the article.

Quoted message said:

From the website you cite above:

Quoted message said:

"Although the gyroscopic effect of its wheels is not what keeps the
bicycle upright, as is often claimed, it is essential in riding
no-hands"

Quoted message said:

If it were really essential then it would be impossible to ride
no-handed without this effect.

I see you chase every iota to death. I suppose for readers such as you
I should have qualified that as for most skilled humans other than
stunt riders, it is essential in riding no-hands.

Stunt riders, for instance ride no-hands (arms crossed) while sitting
on handlebars and pedaling backwards. You should see the silent
classic of "Joe E. Brown at the six day races" where he pulls off this
and other stunts. I have seen a movie of a rider with shoulder in the
crook of toptube-headtube-and-downtube, with legs straight up past the
horizontally seat tube of a bicycle balanced nose down on its front
wheel, rider's head next to the wheel, the assemblage propelled with
the index finger "dialing" the spokes.

That is more difficult but not "impossible"... except for nearly all
human beings.

http://www.eonline.com/Facts/Movies/0,60,62346,00.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, Jones in his "Physics Today" article from 1970 was able to
ride his "URB 1" bicycle no-handed even though it was modified to
cancel the gyroscopic effects. Riding no-handed was more difficult,
but not impossible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am aware of that study and I believe it supports what I stated. If
you have seen stunt riders in circuses or other staged events, you can
see that with extraordinary skills far more difficult bicycle riding
is POSSIBLE but not impractically so in the terms of interest. Is
there something specific that you think is misleading or untrue in the
cited item that evokes your response?

Not every sentence should be qualified to death when considering the
reading audience. You'll notice I did not use the term "impossible"
exactly for that reason.

[email hidden]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:53:35 -0400, dvt <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Rathman writes:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/gyro.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article implies that riding no-handed would be impossible
without the gyroscopic effects.

Quoted message said:

I don't see where that was stated in the article.

He said it was *implied*. I see Peter's point. Here is a quote:

"Riding no-hands and wheeling the bicycle as you suggest IS
affected by gyroscopic forces of the front wheel. The ability to
steer a bicycle by holding the saddle, vanishes as speed approaches
zero."

If you can't steer a bicycle from the saddle without the gyroscopic
force of the front wheel spinning, it stands to reason that you couldn't
ride a bike no-hands without that same gyroscopic stabilizer.

If I scrutinize your sentences closely, I see that you didn't come out
and say that directly. But you definitely implied it.

Dear Dave,

This gyroscopic stability business may be the topic of a
previous thread that ran a modest 169 posts.

It started here:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/9024fe19ea5dccb0/3b7bf94c1ef5b3f2?q=%22david+e.+jones%22+stability&rnum=1&hl=en#3b7bf94c1ef5b3f2

I couldn't follow the furious debate, but I liked Phil
Holman's posts because he seemed to be calmer and interested
in working things out with equations:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/9024fe19ea5dccb0/8a75ff9db373225b?q=phil+holman+imbalance+precession&rnum=1&hl=en#8a75ff9db373225b

I hosted a pair of short movies (huge files) from Simon
Brooke, which undoubtedly were meant to prove some point by
showing a bicycle suspended from ropes having its front
wheel spun up, whereupon the whole bike was tilted sideways
and the spinning wheel either did or did not do something
interesting. (The movies are 5 and 11 mb, so they're no
longer up on my site, but anyone whose mailbox will accept
attachments that large can email me for copies.)

Alas, my dreams of accepting the Oscar for best
wheel-slapping movie on behalf of Simon Brooke were dashed.
A couple at Rutgers made a movie, using an electric hand
tool to spin the wheel up and show something about wheel
precession, which caught Phil Holman's eye.

Here's the thread that Phil started:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/86606b2db76280e8/ca33b8326e3cc6e4?q=mpg+wheel&rnum=25#ca33b8326e3cc6e4

And here's the Rutgers wheel precession movie:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Ewilliebo/zzzgyrovideo.MPG

The debate (I think) was about gyroscopic effects on
steering bicycles no-hands and just walking and holding the
nose of the saddle. The disagreements (I think) may have
involved what dominates at very low speeds.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Peter Rathman said:

Quoted message said:

>>The article cited is an explanation of how one rides no-hands,
>>not about what keeps a bicycle from falling over when ridden
>>normally.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/gyro.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The article implies that riding no-handed would be impossible
>without the gyroscopic effects.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't see where that was stated in the article.

Quoted message said:

From the website you cite above:

Quoted message said:

"Although the gyroscopic effect of its wheels is not what keeps the
bicycle upright, as is often claimed, it is essential in riding
no-hands"

Quoted message said:

If it were really essential then it would be impossible to ride
no-handed without this effect.

I see you chase every iota to death. I suppose for readers such as you
I should have qualified that as for most skilled humans other than
stunt riders, it is essential in riding no-hands.

There was no indication in the article by Jones that riding the URB1
with a counter-rotating wheel took extraordinary skill or extensive
practice and training sessions. From his description it appeared that
he got on the modified bike and was able to successfully ride it
no-handed although he found it more difficult than a regular bike.

His conclusion was that in addition to the steering forces created by
gyroscopic effects there is also a steering force due to the bike's
geometry. The relative magnitude of these forces has been discussed in
previous threads, but by declaring gyroscopic effects to be essential
you imply that the force due to the steering geometry is insufficient -
contrary to what Jones found.