How to not fall off

The actual paper:

http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/~a...lePaperv45.pdf

A news story about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-discover.html

Apparently the research "has come to light during research by Halfords
to compile tips for parents teaching their children to ride a bike".

"No! How many times have I told you? Try to keep the complex conjugate
pair of weave-mode eigenvalues ABOVE the Hopf bifurcation!"

Anyway, looks like it might be interesting to anyone who can understand
it.

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

The actual paper:

http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/~a...PA0459BicycleP
aperv45. pdf

A news story about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...Riding-a-bike-
is-incre dibly-hard-scientists-discover.html

Apparently the research "has come to light during research by
Halfords to compile tips for parents teaching their children to ride
a bike".

"No! How many times have I told you? Try to keep the complex
conjugate pair of weave-mode eigenvalues ABOVE the Hopf bifurcation!"

Anyway, looks like it might be interesting to anyone who can
understand it.

It's an interesting thing that mathematical descriptions of simple
activities tend to be remarkably complex. Birds fly thousands of miles
and do complex aerial maneuvers with brains the size of a peanut. Six
year olds all over the world learn to ride a bike in a few days.

Teaching a child to ride a bike is easiest if you separate learning to
balance and steer from pedaling. Take the pedals off, lower the saddle,
let them scooter around and learn how to coast to a near-stop under
control. Then put the pedals back on.

--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.

On 2010-06-22, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Ben C wrote:

The actual paper:

http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/~a...PA0459BicycleP
aperv45. pdf

A news story about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...Riding-a-bike-
is-incre dibly-hard-scientists-discover.html

Apparently the research "has come to light during research by
Halfords to compile tips for parents teaching their children to ride
a bike".

"No! How many times have I told you? Try to keep the complex
conjugate pair of weave-mode eigenvalues ABOVE the Hopf bifurcation!"

Anyway, looks like it might be interesting to anyone who can
understand it.

It's an interesting thing that mathematical descriptions of simple
activities tend to be remarkably complex. Birds fly thousands of miles
and do complex aerial maneuvers with brains the size of a peanut. Six
year olds all over the world learn to ride a bike in a few days.

Not saying birds and six-year olds aren't miraculous in their
construction, because they are, but they aren't solving exactly the same
problem. When you ride a bike you're part of the system and don't have
to solve quartics in your head any more than the wheels or the headset
do.

Still if they really have solved the problem it could lead to improved
bicycle designs.

Teaching a child to ride a bike is easiest if you separate learning to
balance and steer from pedaling. Take the pedals off, lower the saddle,
let them scooter around and learn how to coast to a near-stop under
control. Then put the pedals back on.

On 22 June, 01:46, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
*Ben C wrote:



The actual paper:

http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/~a...PA0459BicycleP
aperv45. pdf

A news story about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...Riding-a-bike-
is-incre dibly-hard-scientists-discover.html

Apparently the research "has come to light during research by
Halfords to compile tips for parents teaching their children to ride
a bike".

"No! How many times have I told you? Try to keep the complex
conjugate pair of weave-mode eigenvalues ABOVE the Hopf bifurcation!"

Anyway, looks like it might be interesting to anyone who can
understand it.

It's an interesting thing that mathematical descriptions of simple
activities tend to be remarkably complex. *Birds fly thousands of miles
and do complex aerial maneuvers with brains the size of a peanut. *Six
year olds all over the world learn to ride a bike in a few days.

Teaching a child to ride a bike is easiest if you separate learning to
balance and steer from pedaling. *Take the pedals off, lower the saddle,
let them scooter around and learn how to coast to a near-stop under
control. *Then put the pedals back on.


There's a quicker way. Start at the top of a slight decline and give
the instruction, if you start falling left, steer left and if you
start falling right, steer right. If the slope is long enough, they
should work out how to intentionally steer. If they cant get their
feet to the ground, there is no chickening out.

Ben C wrote:
The actual paper:

http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/~a...lePaperv45.pdf

A news story about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-discover.html

Apparently the research "has come to light during research by Halfords
to compile tips for parents teaching their children to ride a bike".

"No! How many times have I told you? Try to keep the complex conjugate
pair of weave-mode eigenvalues ABOVE the Hopf bifurcation!"

Anyway, looks like it might be interesting to anyone who can understand
it.

"We neglect the motion of the rider relative to the frame, structural
compliances and dampers, joint friction, and tire models with compliance
and slip.

The model delineation is not by selecting the most important aspects for
describing real bicycle behaviour. For understanding basic features of
active rider control the model here is undoubtedly unnecessarily and
inappropriately complex. For example, some aspects included here have
very small effects, like the non-planarity of the inertia of the real
wheel. And other neglected aspects may be paramount, e.g. the rider’s
flexibility and control reflexes. Even for the study of uncontrolled
stability, tire deformation and frame compliance seem necessary for
understanding wobble (a rapid steering oscillation). In summary, the
model here includes all the sharply-defined rigid-body effects, while
leaving out a plethora of terms that would require more subtle and less
well-defined modelling."

I'm not entirely impressed.

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Ben C wrote:

The actual paper:

http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/~a...PA0459BicycleP
aperv45. pdf

A news story about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...Riding-a-bike-
is-incre dibly-hard-scientists-discover.html

Apparently the research "has come to light during research by
Halfords to compile tips for parents teaching their children to ride
a bike".

"No! How many times have I told you? Try to keep the complex
conjugate pair of weave-mode eigenvalues ABOVE the Hopf bifurcation!"

Anyway, looks like it might be interesting to anyone who can
understand it.

It's an interesting thing that mathematical descriptions of simple
activities tend to be remarkably complex. Birds fly thousands of miles
and do complex aerial maneuvers with brains the size of a peanut.

So do butterflies, with considerably less to work with.

Six year olds all over the world learn to ride a bike in a few days.

Yes, but gymnastics can take many years.

Part of what makes things easy or difficult for any organism is how
close the activity is to something we're genetically wired to do. Most
processing is done via "hardware" and "firmware", not "software". Very
unnatural tasks have to be learned consciously then repeated until they
become automatic. At that point, consciousness only gets in the way
(golf, tennis, etc.). Bicycle riding must be very much like bipedal
locomotion, using the same biology, since children learn it so fast.
It's not an "unnatural" task. By comparison, it takes much longer to
teach a kid to ice skate.

Teaching a child to ride a bike is easiest if you separate learning to
balance and steer from pedaling. Take the pedals off, lower the saddle,
let them scooter around and learn how to coast to a near-stop under
control. Then put the pedals back on.

Yes, that's the method I used (for 2 kids) after learning it from
Sheldon. My daughter spent many years (4 to 9) on a trailer bike. Jobst
hypothesized that would have negative effects on her bike handling
skills, but the opposite seems to be true. She (now 16) makes my wife
and I crazy when she rides rocky steep trails without seeming to pay any
attention, but she never falls. It's all reflex now.

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

On 2010-06-22, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Ben C wrote:

The actual paper:

http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/~a.../06PA0459Bicyc
leP aperv45. pdf

A news story about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...65/Riding-a-bi
ke- is-incre dibly-hard-scientists-discover.html

Apparently the research "has come to light during research by
Halfords to compile tips for parents teaching their children to
ride a bike".

"No! How many times have I told you? Try to keep the complex
conjugate pair of weave-mode eigenvalues ABOVE the Hopf
bifurcation!"

Anyway, looks like it might be interesting to anyone who can
understand it.

It's an interesting thing that mathematical descriptions of simple
activities tend to be remarkably complex. Birds fly thousands of
miles and do complex aerial maneuvers with brains the size of a
peanut. Six year olds all over the world learn to ride a bike in a
few days.

Not saying birds and six-year olds aren't miraculous in their
construction, because they are, but they aren't solving exactly the
same problem. When you ride a bike you're part of the system and
don't have to solve quartics in your head any more than the wheels or
the headset do.

Right. My well-hidden point was that there is a tendency for the map to
become the territory and for the mathematical model to be confused with
functional reality. Reading AI literature and cognitive psychology
literature will make this pretty clear. Birds and young humans don't
solve math, they use exteroception and proprioception to learn and guide
motor behavior through instantaneous feedback. The math makes it look
much more complex than it is.

Still if they really have solved the problem it could lead to
improved bicycle designs.

This may be true. Most of the solving of these issues has been done by
trial and error over 150 years.

--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.

Uh, yawl had to learn how to ride ? did not get on and ride away ?
hmmmmm
so who got on and rode away and who did not ?
why is this ? consciousness ?
and the didsnots grew up to be ?
OIL DRILLING ENGINEERS !
POLITICIANS ?

anyway, tried to teachcountersteering to two unknown camper kids on
bikes who were playing jumping a sandpile.
stressed the tight turn aspect.
They listened but would not try it.
reverse consciousness.
birds have no forebrains. Forebrain would caws excess aerodrag so
birds get along with a brain stem like what we use to eg control
breathing
not excess conscousness
pass the bananas

In article ,
Peter Cole wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Ben C wrote:

The actual paper:

http://audiophile.tam.cornell.edu/~a.../06PA0459Bicyc
leP aperv45. pdf

A news story about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...65/Riding-a-bi
ke- is-incre dibly-hard-scientists-discover.html

Apparently the research "has come to light during research by
Halfords to compile tips for parents teaching their children to
ride a bike".

"No! How many times have I told you? Try to keep the complex
conjugate pair of weave-mode eigenvalues ABOVE the Hopf
bifurcation!"

Anyway, looks like it might be interesting to anyone who can
understand it.

It's an interesting thing that mathematical descriptions of simple
activities tend to be remarkably complex. Birds fly thousands of
miles and do complex aerial maneuvers with brains the size of a
peanut.

So do butterflies, with considerably less to work with.

A great example.

Six year olds all over the world learn to ride a bike in a few
days.

Yes, but gymnastics can take many years.

Part of what makes things easy or difficult for any organism is how
close the activity is to something we're genetically wired to do.
Most processing is done via "hardware" and "firmware", not
"software". Very unnatural tasks have to be learned consciously then
repeated until they become automatic. At that point, consciousness
only gets in the way (golf, tennis, etc.). Bicycle riding must be
very much like bipedal locomotion, using the same biology, since
children learn it so fast. It's not an "unnatural" task. By
comparison, it takes much longer to teach a kid to ice skate.

Hmmm. In terms of visual perceptual flow, bicycling is only a faster
version of walking. The hard thing to learn is countersteering to
maintain balance- this puts the act of balancing in our hands rather
than in our feet, legs and spine. Perhaps it is more like quadrupedal
locomotion and we retain motor patterns for this from our crawling days.

But riding a bike is very learnable and mastered much faster than
gymnastics or skating; the former makes sense but the latter is
intriguing. Skating would seem to be closer to natural bipedal
locomotion- is it the lack of stabilizing friction in all lateral
directions (the feet can slip forwards or backwards easily but not
sideways on skates, but don't slip in any direction when standing or
walking on dry ground)? Very interesting...

Teaching a child to ride a bike is easiest if you separate learning
to balance and steer from pedaling. Take the pedals off, lower the
saddle, let them scooter around and learn how to coast to a
near-stop under control. Then put the pedals back on.

Yes, that's the method I used (for 2 kids) after learning it from
Sheldon. My daughter spent many years (4 to 9) on a trailer bike.
Jobst hypothesized that would have negative effects on her bike
handling skills, but the opposite seems to be true. She (now 16)
makes my wife and I crazy when she rides rocky steep trails without
seeming to pay any attention, but she never falls. It's all reflex
now.

--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.

Tim McNamara wrote:

Hmmm. In terms of visual perceptual flow, bicycling is only a faster
version of walking. The hard thing to learn is countersteering to
maintain balance- this puts the act of balancing in our hands rather
than in our feet, legs and spine. Perhaps it is more like quadrupedal
locomotion and we retain motor patterns for this from our crawling days.

I'm not so sure. It seems to me that cycling is almost entirely a
balance/weight shift skill (like broomstick on palm) rather than
steering (even countersteering). The only time I feel like I'm actively
steering is when piloting a tandem at low speeds.

Of course the "crossed arm steering" trick seems to violate my theory,
maybe steering is an "unnatural act" that requires active learning
rather than just tapping some instinctive skill (bipedal or quadrupedal).

When we were kids we learned to run over rocky shorelines -- something
that required lots of balance and reflex. It came fast, but there was a
learning curve. It makes sense in that we humans evolved to move quickly
over varied terrain.

Bicycling physiologists (I think that's the term) indicate that cycling
is highly "self-optimizing", in other words, we naturally adopt a highly
efficient pattern of muscular effort. That, and the observation that
bicycles have not changed in any significant way in a century or so,
seems to indicate that it's a pretty natural activity for us. Off road
riding in particular seems to blur into the same experience as trail
running.