|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What keeps a bike upright?
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 23:18:31 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 10:29:06 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 3:41:22 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:43:12 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/4/2019 11:37 AM, wrote: https://www.nature.com/news/the-bicy...matics-1.20281 Of course this isn't for John or Frank who could fall down if they were sitting on the ground. You're just reading that now?? -- - Frank Krygowski Seems to me that the guy has made a few basic false assumptions. Any bicycle I've ever seen with the front fork in it's proper position soon falls over after being pushed without a rider on it. I also think that the gyroscopic force of rotating bicycle wheels keeping the bicycle upright is miniscule unless the wheels are turning at very high revolutions. I once saw a video on You Tube of a normal bike with the front fork reversed, and without a rider, that went quite a distance when pushed before toppling over. I think too that making a bicycle stable enough to be riderless might end up being extremely difficult to ride. Look at how even small changes in frame/trail geometry on a road bike creates quite different handling characteristics. Cheers There has been a lot of research into what makes a bike stable. One paper I read described a bike that was built with a front fork that allowed the trail to be adjusted from a negative number to a rather large positive number and yes "trail" has a great effect on the (would one say) the longitudinal stability of a bike - how easily the fork turns, and during the same experiment it was "discovered" that BB height, vertical location of center of gravity, also effected this same stability. Bikes have also been built with counter rotating wheels which counter act the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels. My own guess is that bicycles require stability in at least two planes and so far no one seems to have built a bicycle that is completely stable. cheers, John B. All you have to do is look at a Penny Farthing which had totally different geometry but not only was ridable but they raced them. That gives you some idea of just how odd a bicycle really is. Ridable? A bloke rode one across the U.S. in 1884.... and today people brag when they ride down a gravel road. There was a discussion here about riding wheelers some time ago and Frank, I believe, described riding one and apparently they are easier to balance then the more modern bicycles. cheers, John B. Hard braking, coasting down steep hills and mounting/dismounting disregarded, of course :-) If I member the discussion was confined to balance but from what little I've read about them mounting wasn't a major problem, and just from looking at them I doubt that hard breaking was either, from the simple friction brake pressing on the tire that appear to be used. Some trishaw's here use this system and "hard braking" is not an applicable term for them either. A more descriptive term is something like "slow and decorous" :-) cheers, John B. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What keeps a bike upright?
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:49:17 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/5/2019 1:29 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 3:41:22 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:43:12 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/4/2019 11:37 AM, wrote: https://www.nature.com/news/the-bicy...matics-1.20281 Of course this isn't for John or Frank who could fall down if they were sitting on the ground. You're just reading that now?? -- - Frank Krygowski Seems to me that the guy has made a few basic false assumptions. Any bicycle I've ever seen with the front fork in it's proper position soon falls over after being pushed without a rider on it. I also think that the gyroscopic force of rotating bicycle wheels keeping the bicycle upright is miniscule unless the wheels are turning at very high revolutions. I once saw a video on You Tube of a normal bike with the front fork reversed, and without a rider, that went quite a distance when pushed before toppling over. I think too that making a bicycle stable enough to be riderless might end up being extremely difficult to ride. Look at how even small changes in frame/trail geometry on a road bike creates quite different handling characteristics. Cheers There has been a lot of research into what makes a bike stable. One paper I read described a bike that was built with a front fork that allowed the trail to be adjusted from a negative number to a rather large positive number and yes "trail" has a great effect on the (would one say) the longitudinal stability of a bike - how easily the fork turns, and during the same experiment it was "discovered" that BB height, vertical location of center of gravity, also effected this same stability. Bikes have also been built with counter rotating wheels which counter act the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels. My own guess is that bicycles require stability in at least two planes and so far no one seems to have built a bicycle that is completely stable. cheers, John B. All you have to do is look at a Penny Farthing which had totally different geometry but not only was ridable but they raced them. That gives you some idea of just how odd a bicycle really is. It's actually hard to build a bicycle that is not rideable. There's a somewhat well-known but quirky physics paper out there documenting a physicists quest to build an unrideable bike. As I recall, he tried several weird front end geometries, including doing away with trail entirely. He mounted a second front wheel next to the original and just above contact with the ground, which he rotated in the opposite direction to cancel any gyroscopic effects. As I recall, he could ride anything he built. But back in the early and most experimental days of modern recumbents (probably the 1970s) I read about a guy who tried to build a rear-steering recumbent, based on the idea that it would simplify a front wheel drive train. IIRC, that was almost impossible to ride. The variety of current bikes is pretty amazing - long and short wheelbase recumbents, small wheel folding bikes, kids bikes with questionable geometries, tandems, box bikes, tall bikes, long-tail cargo bikes. People ride them all. Handling on some can be a bit quirky, especially at first, but people adapt. And that's one of the main things about human beings: We're very adaptable. -- - Frank Krygowski I would be willing to bet that if you reversed the steering so that you mentally do so that it would have been a great deal more ridable. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What keeps a bike upright?
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:49:17 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/5/2019 1:29 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 3:41:22 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:43:12 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/4/2019 11:37 AM, wrote: https://www.nature.com/news/the-bicy...matics-1.20281 Of course this isn't for John or Frank who could fall down if they were sitting on the ground. You're just reading that now?? -- - Frank Krygowski Seems to me that the guy has made a few basic false assumptions. Any bicycle I've ever seen with the front fork in it's proper position soon falls over after being pushed without a rider on it. I also think that the gyroscopic force of rotating bicycle wheels keeping the bicycle upright is miniscule unless the wheels are turning at very high revolutions. I once saw a video on You Tube of a normal bike with the front fork reversed, and without a rider, that went quite a distance when pushed before toppling over. I think too that making a bicycle stable enough to be riderless might end up being extremely difficult to ride. Look at how even small changes in frame/trail geometry on a road bike creates quite different handling characteristics. Cheers There has been a lot of research into what makes a bike stable. One paper I read described a bike that was built with a front fork that allowed the trail to be adjusted from a negative number to a rather large positive number and yes "trail" has a great effect on the (would one say) the longitudinal stability of a bike - how easily the fork turns, and during the same experiment it was "discovered" that BB height, vertical location of center of gravity, also effected this same stability. Bikes have also been built with counter rotating wheels which counter act the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels. My own guess is that bicycles require stability in at least two planes and so far no one seems to have built a bicycle that is completely stable. cheers, John B. All you have to do is look at a Penny Farthing which had totally different geometry but not only was ridable but they raced them. That gives you some idea of just how odd a bicycle really is. It's actually hard to build a bicycle that is not rideable. There's a somewhat well-known but quirky physics paper out there documenting a physicists quest to build an unrideable bike. As I recall, he tried several weird front end geometries, including doing away with trail entirely. He mounted a second front wheel next to the original and just above contact with the ground, which he rotated in the opposite direction to cancel any gyroscopic effects. As I recall, he could ride anything he built. But back in the early and most experimental days of modern recumbents (probably the 1970s) I read about a guy who tried to build a rear-steering recumbent, based on the idea that it would simplify a front wheel drive train. IIRC, that was almost impossible to ride. The variety of current bikes is pretty amazing - long and short wheelbase recumbents, small wheel folding bikes, kids bikes with questionable geometries, tandems, box bikes, tall bikes, long-tail cargo bikes. People ride them all. Handling on some can be a bit quirky, especially at first, but people adapt. And that's one of the main things about human beings: We're very adaptable. -- - Frank Krygowski I would be willing to bet that if you reversed the steering so that you mentally do so that it would have been a great deal more ridable. I suspect that a rear steering bike might be similar to a rear steering fork lift in that it turns around the front wheels as apposed to a more conventional vehicle that turns around the rear wheels. If you have ever tried to back a car a long way backward at any speed over a slow walk you will notice a similar problem. Given that turning a bicycle also involves balance I can see how a rear steering bicycle might be rather difficult to ride :-) cheers, John B. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What keeps a bike upright?
On 1/5/2019 6:35 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 23:18:31 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 10:29:06 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 3:41:22 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:43:12 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/4/2019 11:37 AM, wrote: https://www.nature.com/news/the-bicy...matics-1.20281 Of course this isn't for John or Frank who could fall down if they were sitting on the ground. You're just reading that now?? -- - Frank Krygowski Seems to me that the guy has made a few basic false assumptions. Any bicycle I've ever seen with the front fork in it's proper position soon falls over after being pushed without a rider on it. I also think that the gyroscopic force of rotating bicycle wheels keeping the bicycle upright is miniscule unless the wheels are turning at very high revolutions. I once saw a video on You Tube of a normal bike with the front fork reversed, and without a rider, that went quite a distance when pushed before toppling over. I think too that making a bicycle stable enough to be riderless might end up being extremely difficult to ride. Look at how even small changes in frame/trail geometry on a road bike creates quite different handling characteristics. Cheers There has been a lot of research into what makes a bike stable. One paper I read described a bike that was built with a front fork that allowed the trail to be adjusted from a negative number to a rather large positive number and yes "trail" has a great effect on the (would one say) the longitudinal stability of a bike - how easily the fork turns, and during the same experiment it was "discovered" that BB height, vertical location of center of gravity, also effected this same stability. Bikes have also been built with counter rotating wheels which counter act the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels. My own guess is that bicycles require stability in at least two planes and so far no one seems to have built a bicycle that is completely stable. cheers, John B. All you have to do is look at a Penny Farthing which had totally different geometry but not only was ridable but they raced them. That gives you some idea of just how odd a bicycle really is. Ridable? A bloke rode one across the U.S. in 1884.... and today people brag when they ride down a gravel road. There was a discussion here about riding wheelers some time ago and Frank, I believe, described riding one and apparently they are easier to balance then the more modern bicycles. cheers, John B. Hard braking, coasting down steep hills and mounting/dismounting disregarded, of course :-) If I member the discussion was confined to balance but from what little I've read about them mounting wasn't a major problem, and just from looking at them I doubt that hard breaking was either, from the simple friction brake pressing on the tire that appear to be used. Some trishaw's here use this system and "hard braking" is not an applicable term for them either. A more descriptive term is something like "slow and decorous" :-) I've ridden two or three of them, just short test rides probably no more than a mile. Yes, they are very easy to balance. The analogy I use is, it's like the difference between balancing a yardstick vs. a one-foot ruler. The yardstick's higher polar moment of inertia gives a lot more time for corrections. Except balancing a high wheeler is more like balancing a broom with the brush end up. You have forever to catch any tilt. (For the same reason, balancing a recumbent is more tricky until you get used to it.) Mounting turned out to be no trouble at all. You put your left foot on the little step attached to the bike's backbone, give one scoot with your right foot, and gracefully ascend to the seat. Dismounting was no harder, just find that foot rest and reverse the procedure, although experts can dismount in flashier ways. The riding experience is sort of majestic. The view is wonderful. The pace is slow (or at least, was for me) and the machine is very stable. Going uphill is not easy, though. Of course there's no downshifting, but ISTR that the riding position wasn't as suited for putting out lots of pedal force. I never tried to stand up to pedal, and wonder if it's even possible. Downhill would, I think, be frightening. You're almost directly over the contact patch of the big wheel. Braking at even 1/10 gee would send you over the bars, and hitting a rock might do the same thing. Normal pedaling postion, with your legs under the handlebars, would guarantee a Superman imitation, but with less success. That's why the really gutsy ones would hook their legs over the bars while coasting fast downhill. One friend who owned one has since passed away. Another friend has two of them, and has done a century on one - a feat I find amazing. Aside from the leg strength required for climbing hills, the aero resistance is immense. One does not ride very fast, so 100 miles must require considerable time in the saddle. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What keeps a bike upright?
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/5/2019 1:29 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 3:41:22 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:43:12 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/4/2019 11:37 AM, wrote: https://www.nature.com/news/the-bicy...matics-1.20281 Of course this isn't for John or Frank who could fall down if they were sitting on the ground. You're just reading that now?? -- - Frank Krygowski Seems to me that the guy has made a few basic false assumptions. Any bicycle I've ever seen with the front fork in it's proper position soon falls over after being pushed without a rider on it. I also think that the gyroscopic force of rotating bicycle wheels keeping the bicycle upright is miniscule unless the wheels are turning at very high revolutions. I once saw a video on You Tube of a normal bike with the front fork reversed, and without a rider, that went quite a distance when pushed before toppling over. I think too that making a bicycle stable enough to be riderless might end up being extremely difficult to ride. Look at how even small changes in frame/trail geometry on a road bike creates quite different handling characteristics. Cheers There has been a lot of research into what makes a bike stable. One paper I read described a bike that was built with a front fork that allowed the trail to be adjusted from a negative number to a rather large positive number and yes "trail" has a great effect on the (would one say) the longitudinal stability of a bike - how easily the fork turns, and during the same experiment it was "discovered" that BB height, vertical location of center of gravity, also effected this same stability. Bikes have also been built with counter rotating wheels which counter act the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels. My own guess is that bicycles require stability in at least two planes and so far no one seems to have built a bicycle that is completely stable. cheers, John B. All you have to do is look at a Penny Farthing which had totally different geometry but not only was ridable but they raced them. That gives you some idea of just how odd a bicycle really is. It's actually hard to build a bicycle that is not rideable. There's a somewhat well-known but quirky physics paper out there documenting a physicists quest to build an unrideable bike. As I recall, he tried several weird front end geometries, including doing away with trail entirely. He mounted a second front wheel next to the original and just above contact with the ground, which he rotated in the opposite direction to cancel any gyroscopic effects. As I recall, he could ride anything he built. But back in the early and most experimental days of modern recumbents (probably the 1970s) I read about a guy who tried to build a rear-steering recumbent, based on the idea that it would simplify a front wheel drive train. IIRC, that was almost impossible to ride. The variety of current bikes is pretty amazing - long and short wheelbase recumbents, small wheel folding bikes, kids bikes with questionable geometries, tandems, box bikes, tall bikes, long-tail cargo bikes. People ride them all. Handling on some can be a bit quirky, especially at first, but people adapt. And that's one of the main things about human beings: We're very adaptable. -- - Frank Krygowski Even this bicycle became ridable after months of practice by the adult. The child learned much quicker. I found it quite interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0 Cheers |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What keeps a bike upright?
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 11:26:27 PM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 08:37:24 -0800 (PST), wrote: https://www.nature.com/news/the-bicy...matics-1.20281 Of course this isn't for John or Frank who could fall down if they were sitting on the ground. It's the optional kickstand that keeps the bicycle upright. Bicycle Dynamics http://bicycle.tudelft.nl/schwab/Bicycle/ The Stability of the Bicycle by David L. Jones: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/gonzalez/Teaching/Phys7221/vol59no9p51_56.pdf How Do Bikes Stay Up? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo (3:56) Why bicycles do not fall: Arend Schwab at TEDxDelft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y4mbT3ozcA (17:55) -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 The one I've always liked best http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/gonz...9no9p51_56.pdf just upped and did the experiments on the bike he rode to work. Today's "scientists" would probably start the same test by demanding a budget of at least $5.6m... Andre Jute Saddened, and not much wiser either... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What keeps a bike upright?
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 4:39:18 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 1:49:17 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/5/2019 1:29 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 3:41:22 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:43:12 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/4/2019 11:37 AM, wrote: https://www.nature.com/news/the-bicy...matics-1.20281 Of course this isn't for John or Frank who could fall down if they were sitting on the ground. You're just reading that now?? -- - Frank Krygowski Seems to me that the guy has made a few basic false assumptions. Any bicycle I've ever seen with the front fork in it's proper position soon falls over after being pushed without a rider on it. I also think that the gyroscopic force of rotating bicycle wheels keeping the bicycle upright is miniscule unless the wheels are turning at very high revolutions. I once saw a video on You Tube of a normal bike with the front fork reversed, and without a rider, that went quite a distance when pushed before toppling over. I think too that making a bicycle stable enough to be riderless might end up being extremely difficult to ride. Look at how even small changes in frame/trail geometry on a road bike creates quite different handling characteristics. Cheers There has been a lot of research into what makes a bike stable. One paper I read described a bike that was built with a front fork that allowed the trail to be adjusted from a negative number to a rather large positive number and yes "trail" has a great effect on the (would one say) the longitudinal stability of a bike - how easily the fork turns, and during the same experiment it was "discovered" that BB height, vertical location of center of gravity, also effected this same stability. Bikes have also been built with counter rotating wheels which counter act the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels. My own guess is that bicycles require stability in at least two planes and so far no one seems to have built a bicycle that is completely stable. cheers, John B. All you have to do is look at a Penny Farthing which had totally different geometry but not only was ridable but they raced them. That gives you some idea of just how odd a bicycle really is. It's actually hard to build a bicycle that is not rideable. There's a somewhat well-known but quirky physics paper out there documenting a physicists quest to build an unrideable bike. As I recall, he tried several weird front end geometries, including doing away with trail entirely. He mounted a second front wheel next to the original and just above contact with the ground, which he rotated in the opposite direction to cancel any gyroscopic effects. As I recall, he could ride anything he built. But back in the early and most experimental days of modern recumbents (probably the 1970s) I read about a guy who tried to build a rear-steering recumbent, based on the idea that it would simplify a front wheel drive train. IIRC, that was almost impossible to ride. The variety of current bikes is pretty amazing - long and short wheelbase recumbents, small wheel folding bikes, kids bikes with questionable geometries, tandems, box bikes, tall bikes, long-tail cargo bikes. People ride them all. Handling on some can be a bit quirky, especially at first, but people adapt. And that's one of the main things about human beings: We're very adaptable. -- - Frank Krygowski I would be willing to bet that if you reversed the steering so that you mentally do so that it would have been a great deal more ridable. I suspect that a rear steering bike might be similar to a rear steering fork lift in that it turns around the front wheels as apposed to a more conventional vehicle that turns around the rear wheels. If you have ever tried to back a car a long way backward at any speed over a slow walk you will notice a similar problem. Given that turning a bicycle also involves balance I can see how a rear steering bicycle might be rather difficult to ride :-) cheers, John B. As part of the driving test you are required to be able to back a vehicle up. Particularly as part of a Class B license exam. And it is quite easy to do since you look into mirrors and hence everything is shown in reverse. I cannot see how you couldn't ride a rear steering bike as easily as a front steering bike remembering that you do not turn the wheel much and that would be a handicap since you couldn't determine how much you were turning the rear wheel by sight. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What keeps a bike upright?
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 7:26:18 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 4:49:17 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/5/2019 1:29 PM, wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 3:41:22 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 10:43:12 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/4/2019 11:37 AM, wrote: https://www.nature.com/news/the-bicy...matics-1.20281 Of course this isn't for John or Frank who could fall down if they were sitting on the ground. You're just reading that now?? -- - Frank Krygowski Seems to me that the guy has made a few basic false assumptions. Any bicycle I've ever seen with the front fork in it's proper position soon falls over after being pushed without a rider on it. I also think that the gyroscopic force of rotating bicycle wheels keeping the bicycle upright is miniscule unless the wheels are turning at very high revolutions. I once saw a video on You Tube of a normal bike with the front fork reversed, and without a rider, that went quite a distance when pushed before toppling over. I think too that making a bicycle stable enough to be riderless might end up being extremely difficult to ride. Look at how even small changes in frame/trail geometry on a road bike creates quite different handling characteristics. Cheers There has been a lot of research into what makes a bike stable. One paper I read described a bike that was built with a front fork that allowed the trail to be adjusted from a negative number to a rather large positive number and yes "trail" has a great effect on the (would one say) the longitudinal stability of a bike - how easily the fork turns, and during the same experiment it was "discovered" that BB height, vertical location of center of gravity, also effected this same stability. Bikes have also been built with counter rotating wheels which counter act the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels. My own guess is that bicycles require stability in at least two planes and so far no one seems to have built a bicycle that is completely stable. cheers, John B. All you have to do is look at a Penny Farthing which had totally different geometry but not only was ridable but they raced them. That gives you some idea of just how odd a bicycle really is. It's actually hard to build a bicycle that is not rideable. There's a somewhat well-known but quirky physics paper out there documenting a physicists quest to build an unrideable bike. As I recall, he tried several weird front end geometries, including doing away with trail entirely. He mounted a second front wheel next to the original and just above contact with the ground, which he rotated in the opposite direction to cancel any gyroscopic effects. As I recall, he could ride anything he built. But back in the early and most experimental days of modern recumbents (probably the 1970s) I read about a guy who tried to build a rear-steering recumbent, based on the idea that it would simplify a front wheel drive train. IIRC, that was almost impossible to ride. The variety of current bikes is pretty amazing - long and short wheelbase recumbents, small wheel folding bikes, kids bikes with questionable geometries, tandems, box bikes, tall bikes, long-tail cargo bikes. People ride them all. Handling on some can be a bit quirky, especially at first, but people adapt. And that's one of the main things about human beings: We're very adaptable. -- - Frank Krygowski Even this bicycle became ridable after months of practice by the adult. The child learned much quicker. I found it quite interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0 Cheers So if you purposely take someone that has ridden a normal bike and make the steering non-instinctive it requires a time to re-learn? Whoever would have thought? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What keeps a bike upright?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kit 2 convert front of upright bike to 2 wheels? | Sir Ridesalot | Techniques | 49 | October 28th 20 08:30 PM |
I usually stay upright on my bike unless I fall :) | Geoff Lock[_2_] | Australia | 6 | May 2nd 11 03:10 AM |
Serious bike w/ upright position | [email protected] | Techniques | 11 | April 3rd 08 08:28 AM |
Components for a road bike with upright bars | David B[_2_] | Techniques | 9 | November 4th 07 10:25 PM |
Need recommendation for upright bike of the Dutch cruiser ilk (but hopefully lighter!) | Brad Ford | Techniques | 4 | March 15th 06 02:22 AM |