Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
extra wheel | counter-spinning stationary co-spinning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bike pushed | "collapsed ineptly" no data "showed a dramatic
with no rider | slow-speed
| stability"
|
|
bike riden | "almost impossible" "not easy to ride" no data
"no hands" | "invited continual "lacks balance and
| disaster" responsiveness"
|
bike riden | "easily riden" "easily riden" "easily riden"
normally | "felt a little "felt a little "felt a little
| strange" strange" strange"
The only item of importance here is the lower left hand corner.
I've neverHere may be the kernel of our discussion. If gyroscopic moment is not
said the gyroscopic moment was negligible; I said it certainly matters at
speed, for example. My conclusion is that the bicycle is *not* stable when
riding in a straight line at moderate speed. "Gyroscopic stabilization" is
a myth ....
This conclusion is contrary to the actual article, which says just after
Jones set out to build an unridable bicycle (URB). In his URB I, he
cancelled out the gyroscopic action of the front wheel by mounting
near it another similar wheel which he could rotate backwards. He
found that this made little difference to normal handling, and
concluded that gyroscopic action has little influence on bicycle
stability.