On 17:14 10 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:

On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2020 14:00, TMS320 wrote:

I have enough technical knowledge to know it's not that simple. Why
are you so ready to suck up to Nugent when he never backs up his
claims?

Don't *you* support the thesis that a higher centre of gravity
reduces stability (ceteris paribus, of course)?

Sigh.

For a car or table that is stable when upright, yes, a lower CogG for
a given base allows it to tip to a greater angle before it falls over.
This is easy to calculate and demonstrate practically.

For a compound inverted pendulum (ie, a person on foot, running, on a
bike etc), it might, it might not. For the purposes of discussion we
can make it simpler and consider a simple inverted pendulum having a
point mass.

If not, why not?

You genuinely don't get it. You make a claim, it's your call.

OK, let's try to make it simpler for you. Which is likely to be better
- the rider down in a triathlon tuck or the rider on a sit up and beg?

You can even do your own experiment. Get a pen and balance it
vertically on your palm. Impossible, isn't it? Now get a broom and do
the same. Try it head up and head down. Which is easier?

That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this.

There are only two possibilities.

1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces
stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it.

2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity
reduces stability.

There are no other relevant possibilities.

Then you are deaf, blind and stupid.

A couple of interesting research articles on cyclist stability which make
use of the inverted pendulum model are at pains to point out that constant
correction is required by the cyclist. It is this dynamic rather than the
static situation which gives rise to many of the problems from carrying a
shifting load on your back.

The raised CoG amplifies the problem. What Nugent has been saying seems
correct. I wonder why you persist in refusing it. Are you so concerned
about a loss of face that you won't admit the truth?