Cornering question

Peter Cole said:

"Ben Kaufman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:02:58 -0400, "Richard Amirault"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote...
(snip)
> You can demonstrate this by balancing a broom, brushy side high, on

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> hand. "Steer" your broom handle right (move your hand right). The

broom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> tips left. If you're coordinated enough, you can very quickly follow

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> broom left. That's what a countersteered fast turn is like.
(snip)

As long as you brought it up .... I don't understand why folks keep
insisting that a lower center of gravity is better on a bike. You can
balance a broom (as the above example) easily when the brush is on the

top.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you reverse it, brush on the bottom, then it becomes very, very hard

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

balance. Would not the same apply to balancing a bike?

Richard in Boston, MA, USA

Your analogy works for the case of someone trying to balance on a bike

with

Quoted message said:

little or no forward motion. However, once under sufficient forward

motion the

Quoted message said:

need for corrections to maintain balance are so subtle that the location

of the

Quoted message said:

COG doesn't matter for this. Howerver, when making turns, a lower

center of

Quoted message said:

gravity means a faster response and the bike does not have to lean as

much into

Quoted message said:

the turn.

This is wrong. You can confirm this yourself by seeing if you can run
through a slalom course faster with a short broom than a tall one. You will
find the length of the broom doesn't effect lean angle or the rate you can
initiate a turn. Countersteer works exactly the same way.

I suggest you try running with the two brooms then because you are predicting
the wrong result. Think about it. If you are running with a broom and want to
make a sharp left turn the only way you can do this is get the broom to start
leaning to the left. How do you get the broom to start leaning to the left? By
quickly moving your hand to the right (so the top starts falling to the left).
At this point, I hope it's obvious that you have to move the long broom handle a
lot more to the right than the short broom handle.

Ben

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A low CG is still less
stable than a higher CG, whether it is conspicuous or not.

Tell that to a running back trying to get through the defensive line

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:06:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ben Kaufman said:

Your analogy works for the case of someone trying to balance on a bike with
little or no forward motion. However, once under sufficient forward motion the
need for corrections to maintain balance are so subtle that the location of the
COG doesn't matter for this.

In my experience, "sufficient forward motion" is different for different
bikes. Again, my first time on an antique ordinary (or high wheeler) I
was able to balance at less than 3 mph. I still can't balance at that
speed on a long wheelbase recumbent - at least, not last time I tried.

Howerver, when making turns, a lower center of

Quoted message said:

gravity means a faster response and the bike does not have to lean as much into
the turn.

Nope. The angle of lean into a turn is completely independent of COG
height. All bikes have to lean the same amount.

If you're in a level turn of radius R going at speed V, the angle of
tilt MUST be the one that fits this equation: Tangent of the angle =
V^2/(R * g) where g is the acceleration of gravity.

Nothing you can do will change that, including changing the height of
the COG.

You are correct about the lean angle. I meant lean distance. For the same
angle, the higher up you are the further out you go from the centerline .

Ben

Quoted message said:

Ben Kaufman said:

Quoted message said:

> You can demonstrate this by balancing a broom, brushy side high,
> on your hand. "Steer" your broom handle right (move your hand
> right). The broom tips left. If you're coordinated enough, you
> can very quickly follow the broom left. That's what a
> countersteered fast turn is like.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As long as you brought it up .... I don't understand why folks keep
insisting that a lower center of gravity is better on a bike. You
can balance a broom (as the above example) easily when the brush is
on the top. If you reverse it, brush on the bottom, then it
becomes very, very hard to balance. Would not the same apply to
balancing a bike?

Quoted message said:

Your analogy works for the case of someone trying to balance on a
bike with little or no forward motion. However, once under
sufficient forward motion the need for corrections to maintain
balance are so subtle that the location of the COG doesn't matter
for this.

Stability is relative and dependent on speed. A low CG is still less
stable than a higher CG, whether it is conspicuous or not.

Quoted message said:

Howerver, when making turns, a lower center of gravity means a
faster response and the bike does not have to lean as much into the
turn.

Faster response means it tips over faster, just as was stated earlier.
The lean angle does not change with CG height. It is entirely related
to speed and curvature. If you believe otherwise, then you probably
don't corner fast.

http://tinyurl.com/a8zs

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

As I noted in another response I did not mean to imply angle, I was thinking of
the distance the COG has to move from upright. The angle is the same but a
higher COG has to move a greater distance from "center" than a lower one.

Ben

Collin said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Richard Amirault said:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote...
(snip)

> You can demonstrate this by balancing a broom, brushy side high, on
> your hand. "Steer" your broom handle right (move your hand right).
> The broom tips left. If you're coordinated enough, you can very
> quickly follow the broom left. That's what a countersteered fast
> turn is like.

(snip)

As long as you brought it up .... I don't understand why folks keep
insisting that a lower center of gravity is better on a bike. You can
balance a broom (as the above example) easily when the brush is on
the top. If you reverse it, brush on the bottom, then it becomes
very, very hard to balance. Would not the same apply to balancing a
bike?

I know by experience that learning to ride an antique high wheeler is
amazingly easy, once you're up there. Those bikes can be effortlessly
balanced at 2 or 3 mph.

OTOH, when I first tried to balance a recumbent, I looked ridiculously
clumsy. Faster tipping due to low COG, and (on that model) longer
wheelbase made balancing tricky.

I would think this is because the Penny Farthing has a much greater
angular momentum, whereas the 'bent probably had a lot less angular
momentum. So, the COG is not the whole story...

What you probably mean is "rotational inertia" rather than "angular
momentum." In both cases, we'd be talking about measuring that quantity
about an axis connecting the tires' contact patches with the ground -
let's call it the "ground axis."

[It's not angular momentum because that quantity involves angular
velocity. A balanced bike has zero - or negligible - angular velocity
about that axis, hence no angular momentum.]

In any case, a tall bike has more rotational inertia about that axis
_because_ of its high COG. Anything you do to raise mass further away
from that "ground axis" will increase the rotational inertia. Anything
you do to lower mass will decrease it.

One final detail: It's possible to make relatively small changes by
changing the way the mass is distributed about it's COG, even if you
don't change the COG height. For example, if you found the COG of a
bike+person on a highwheeler, you could build a circus bike recumbent
that had the same COG height, but had the rider lying horizontal. It
would have a _little_ less rotational inertia, but not much.

So the main thing is the COG height.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Cat Dailey said:

I am so happy to have asked the original cornering question! I have
learned a lot already, and if it weren't for tropical storm Jeanne,
I might be working on it right now ;< I think that the FAQ that
Jobst pointed to was the most helpful (although it's under
"Descending II" and "Descending I" gives some contrary advice.)

I think reading "Descending I" you will see that it tries to convince
you through name drops and racing reference rather than explaining how
and why. I think the "never brake IN a turn" sentence belies the
accuracy of the whole tale. The writer is a good descender but I
don't believe he accurately analyzed what he does when cornering.

As you can see in the URL picture, both brakes are in use at maximum
lean angle. Why this is so is also explained.

http://tinyurl.com/a8zs

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Ben Kaufman said:

Quoted message said:

This is wrong. You can confirm this yourself by seeing if you can
run through a slalom course faster with a short broom than a tall
one. You will find the length of the broom doesn't effect lean
angle or the rate you can initiate a turn. Countersteer works
exactly the same way.

Quoted message said:

I suggest you try running with the two brooms then because you are
predicting the wrong result. Think about it. If you are running
with a broom and want to make a sharp left turn the only way you can
do this is get the broom to start leaning to the left. How do you
get the broom to start leaning to the left? By quickly moving your
hand to the right (so the top starts falling to the left). At this
point, I hope it's obvious that you have to move the long broom
handle a lot more to the right than the short broom handle.

That's the problem with only looking at one aspect of the problem. I
can assure you that in fast cornering achieving lean angle is the
least time consuming part and is in fact easily forced to occur faster
than you want. Therefore, it is not an issue except in theory.
Picking the ideal line, the one that allows the greatest exit speed,
and assessing how fast the apex of the turn can be taken is the
challenge.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Ben Kaufman said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your analogy works for the case of someone trying to balance on a
bike with little or no forward motion. However, once under
sufficient forward motion the need for corrections to maintain
balance are so subtle that the location of the COG doesn't matter
for this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In my experience, "sufficient forward motion" is different for
different bikes. Again, my first time on an antique ordinary (or
high wheeler) I was able to balance at less than 3 mph. I still
can't balance at that speed on a long wheelbase recumbent - at
least, not last time I tried.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Howerver, when making turns, a lower center of gravity means a
faster response and the bike does not have to lean as much into
the turn.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nope. The angle of lean into a turn is completely independent of
COG height. All bikes have to lean the same amount.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're in a level turn of radius R going at speed V, the angle
of tilt MUST be the one that fits this equation: Tangent of the
angle = V^2/(R * g) where g is the acceleration of gravity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nothing you can do will change that, including changing the height
of the COG.

Quoted message said:

You are correct about the lean angle. I meant lean distance. For
the same angle, the higher up you are the further out you go from
the centerline.

What centerline? Is this traffic school or cornering? When I cut a
corner I'm on the edge of the pavement and the rest of rider and
bicycle is out over the grass on the inside of the turn.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Fred Hall said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A low CG is still less
stable than a higher CG, whether it is conspicuous or not.

Tell that to a running back trying to get through the defensive line

Isn't it that the RB's CoG has gets lower and makes him easier to flip
over...but What makes him hard to tackle is that he is a physically smaller
target, and it becomes difficult for someone to apply the necessary
countervailing torque to overcome the RB's momentum (or acceleration)

The running back is a something accelerating in any number of directions,
while the d-line is a bunch of things seeking to change that acceleration
(ideally, cancelling it out or overcoming it).

right?

-Luigi

--
www.livejournal.com/users/ouij
Photos, Rants, Raves

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cat Dailey said:

I am so happy to have asked the original cornering question! I have
learned a lot already, and if it weren't for tropical storm Jeanne,
I might be working on it right now ;< I think that the FAQ that
Jobst pointed to was the most helpful (although it's under
"Descending II" and "Descending I" gives some contrary advice.)

I think reading "Descending I" you will see that it tries to convince
you through name drops and racing reference rather than explaining how
and why. I think the "never brake IN a turn" sentence belies the
accuracy of the whole tale. The writer is a good descender but I
don't believe he accurately analyzed what he does when cornering.

As you can see in the URL picture, both brakes are in use at maximum
lean angle. Why this is so is also explained.

http://tinyurl.com/a8zs

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Yeah, that's kind of why I discounted it after reading it. I never
understood the admonition about braking in the turn. I do it quite
frequently. The photo is awesome...talk about a picture being worth a
thousand words! I note that the rider's body position is leaned at the same
angle as the bike. The clinic coach said not to lean your body, just your
bike. I take it you would disagree??

Thanks,
Cat

Cat Dailey said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cat Dailey said:

I am so happy to have asked the original cornering question! I have
learned a lot already, and if it weren't for tropical storm Jeanne,
I might be working on it right now ;< I think that the FAQ that
Jobst pointed to was the most helpful (although it's under
"Descending II" and "Descending I" gives some contrary advice.)

I think reading "Descending I" you will see that it tries to convince
you through name drops and racing reference rather than explaining
how and why. I think the "never brake IN a turn" sentence belies the
accuracy of the whole tale. The writer is a good descender but I
don't believe he accurately analyzed what he does when cornering.

As you can see in the URL picture, both brakes are in use at maximum
lean angle. Why this is so is also explained.

http://tinyurl.com/a8zs

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Yeah, that's kind of why I discounted it after reading it. I never
understood the admonition about braking in the turn. I do it quite
frequently. The photo is awesome...talk about a picture being worth a
thousand words! I note that the rider's body position is leaned at
the same angle as the bike. The clinic coach said not to lean your
body, just your bike. I take it you would disagree??

Thanks,
Cat

I think that I tend to lean the body with the bike, more the faster I go. At
slower speeds it seems I lean the bike only in order to keep my balance, but
still capable of coming around a corner sharply.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

"Ben Kaufman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole said:

"Ben Kaufman" <[email hidden]> wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:02:58 -0400, "Richard Amirault"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

wrote:

>"Frank Krygowski" wrote...
>(snip)
>> You can demonstrate this by balancing a broom, brushy side high, on

your

Quoted message said:

>> hand. "Steer" your broom handle right (move your hand right). The

broom

Quoted message said:

>> tips left. If you're coordinated enough, you can very quickly

follow

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

>> broom left. That's what a countersteered fast turn is like.
>(snip)
>
>As long as you brought it up .... I don't understand why folks keep
>insisting that a lower center of gravity is better on a bike. You can
>balance a broom (as the above example) easily when the brush is on

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

top.

Quoted message said:

>If you reverse it, brush on the bottom, then it becomes very, very

hard

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

>balance. Would not the same apply to balancing a bike?
>
>Richard in Boston, MA, USA
>

Your analogy works for the case of someone trying to balance on a

bike

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with

Quoted message said:

little or no forward motion. However, once under sufficient forward

motion the

Quoted message said:

need for corrections to maintain balance are so subtle that the

location

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the

Quoted message said:

COG doesn't matter for this. Howerver, when making turns, a lower

center of

Quoted message said:

gravity means a faster response and the bike does not have to lean as

much into

Quoted message said:

the turn.

This is wrong. You can confirm this yourself by seeing if you can run
through a slalom course faster with a short broom than a tall one. You

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

find the length of the broom doesn't effect lean angle or the rate you

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

initiate a turn. Countersteer works exactly the same way.

I suggest you try running with the two brooms then because you are

predicting

Quoted message said:

the wrong result. Think about it. If you are running with a broom and

want to

Quoted message said:

make a sharp left turn the only way you can do this is get the broom to

start

Quoted message said:

leaning to the left. How do you get the broom to start leaning to the

left? By

Quoted message said:

quickly moving your hand to the right (so the top starts falling to the

left).

Quoted message said:

At this point, I hope it's obvious that you have to move the long broom

handle a

Quoted message said:

lot more to the right than the short broom handle.

OK, now that you've clarified yourself, I see what you're saying, but that
effect is very small. In practice, cornering fast is about picking the line
and coordinating braking, not COG height.

For a complete mathematical model:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Efajans/pub/pdffiles/SteerBikeAJP.PDF

"Luigi de Guzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:60p6d.6752$0j.5126@lakeread08...

Quoted message said:

Fred Hall said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A low CG is still less
stable than a higher CG, whether it is conspicuous or not.

Tell that to a running back trying to get through the defensive line

Isn't it that the RB's CoG has gets lower and makes him easier to flip
over...but What makes him hard to tackle is that he is a physically

smaller

Quoted message said:

target, and it becomes difficult for someone to apply the necessary
countervailing torque to overcome the RB's momentum (or acceleration)

The running back is a something accelerating in any number of directions,
while the d-line is a bunch of things seeking to change that acceleration
(ideally, cancelling it out or overcoming it).

right?

-Luigi

Making himself a slightly smaller target may have a little to do with it,
but I've always been taught you want to get "lower" than the person you're
facing (whether you;re on offense or defense) so that your lower, more
stable COG will prevail and you'll be able to knock the other person on
their keister easier than they can knock you on yours.

Quoted message said:

Ben Kaufman said:

Quoted message said:

This is wrong. You can confirm this yourself by seeing if you can
run through a slalom course faster with a short broom than a tall
one. You will find the length of the broom doesn't effect lean
angle or the rate you can initiate a turn. Countersteer works
exactly the same way.

Quoted message said:

I suggest you try running with the two brooms then because you are
predicting the wrong result. Think about it. If you are running
with a broom and want to make a sharp left turn the only way you can
do this is get the broom to start leaning to the left. How do you
get the broom to start leaning to the left? By quickly moving your
hand to the right (so the top starts falling to the left). At this
point, I hope it's obvious that you have to move the long broom
handle a lot more to the right than the short broom handle.

That's the problem with only looking at one aspect of the problem. I
can assure you that in fast cornering achieving lean angle is the
least time consuming part and is in fact easily forced to occur faster
than you want. Therefore, it is not an issue except in theory.
Picking the ideal line, the one that allows the greatest exit speed,
and assessing how fast the apex of the turn can be taken is the
challenge.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Lol, I thought that we were just talking theory here.

Ben

Quoted message said:

Ben Kaufman said:

Quoted message said:

> Your analogy works for the case of someone trying to balance on a
> bike with little or no forward motion. However, once under
> sufficient forward motion the need for corrections to maintain
> balance are so subtle that the location of the COG doesn't matter
> for this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In my experience, "sufficient forward motion" is different for
different bikes. Again, my first time on an antique ordinary (or
high wheeler) I was able to balance at less than 3 mph. I still
can't balance at that speed on a long wheelbase recumbent - at
least, not last time I tried.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Howerver, when making turns, a lower center of gravity means a
> faster response and the bike does not have to lean as much into
> the turn.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nope. The angle of lean into a turn is completely independent of
COG height. All bikes have to lean the same amount.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're in a level turn of radius R going at speed V, the angle
of tilt MUST be the one that fits this equation: Tangent of the
angle = V^2/(R * g) where g is the acceleration of gravity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nothing you can do will change that, including changing the height
of the COG.

Quoted message said:

You are correct about the lean angle. I meant lean distance. For
the same angle, the higher up you are the further out you go from
the centerline.

What centerline? Is this traffic school or cornering? When I cut a
corner I'm on the edge of the pavement and the rest of rider and
bicycle is out over the grass on the inside of the turn.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Centerline being an imaginary line parallel to the bike's direction going
through the COG, with 0 degrees of lean.

Ben

Zoot Katz said:

Frank Krygowski said:

I know by experience that learning to ride an antique high wheeler is
amazingly easy, once you're up there. Those bikes can be effortlessly
balanced at 2 or 3 mph.

OTOH, when I first tried to balance a recumbent, I looked ridiculously
clumsy. Faster tipping due to low COG, and (on that model) longer
wheelbase made balancing tricky.

I've experienced the same thing with tall bikes and choppers.
Tall bikes are elegant, choppers make you look like you're drunk.

I thought that was 'cause I _was_ drunk! ;^)

But in fact, you are exactly right. The only tallbikes that are more
difficult to ride than a regular bike are those that flex between the
top and bottom frames, or those that place the saddle so far rearwards
that the bike wheelies over when climbing or pedaling hard.

My tallbike is 6'1" at the saddle and quite a bit easier to ride than
normal civilian bikes (until it must be maneuvered in a very tight
turn).

http://www.uploadimages.net/images/929197tallside4.jpg

Chalo Colina

Fred Hall said:

Quoted message said:

Isn't it that the RB's CoG has gets lower and makes him easier to
flip over...but What makes him hard to tackle is that he is a
physically smaller target, and it becomes difficult for someone to
apply the necessary countervailing torque to overcome the RB's
momentum (or acceleration)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The running back is a something accelerating in any number of
directions, while the d-line is a bunch of things seeking to change
that acceleration (ideally, cancelling it out or overcoming it).

Quoted message said:

Making himself a slightly smaller target may have a little to do
with it, but I've always been taught you want to get "lower" than
the person you're facing (whether you;re on offense or defense) so
that your lower, more stable COG will prevail and you'll be able to
knock the other person on their keister easier than they can knock
you on yours.

The person with the lower position can lift the opponent off the
ground, making him ineffective. Just imagine standing upright and
having a crouched opponent grab you below the waist and shove with a
slightly upward force. Of course the analogy has nothing to do with
bicycle cornering.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Ben Kaufman said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> This is wrong. You can confirm this yourself by seeing if you can
> run through a slalom course faster with a short broom than a tall
> one. You will find the length of the broom doesn't effect lean
> angle or the rate you can initiate a turn. Countersteer works
> exactly the same way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suggest you try running with the two brooms then because you are
predicting the wrong result. Think about it. If you are running
with a broom and want to make a sharp left turn the only way you
can do this is get the broom to start leaning to the left. How do
you get the broom to start leaning to the left? By quickly moving
your hand to the right (so the top starts falling to the left).
At this point, I hope it's obvious that you have to move the long
broom handle a lot more to the right than the short broom handle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's the problem with only looking at one aspect of the problem.
I can assure you that in fast cornering achieving lean angle is the
least time consuming part and is in fact easily forced to occur
faster than you want. Therefore, it is not an issue except in
theory. Picking the ideal line, the one that allows the greatest
exit speed, and assessing how fast the apex of the turn can be
taken is the challenge.

Quoted message said:

Lol, I thought that we were just talking theory here.

What gave you that impression? Please be specific.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Ben Kaufman said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Your analogy works for the case of someone trying to balance on
>> a bike with little or no forward motion. However, once under
>> sufficient forward motion the need for corrections to maintain
>> balance are so subtle that the location of the CG doesn't
>> matter for this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> In my experience, "sufficient forward motion" is different for
> different bikes. Again, my first time on an antique ordinary (or
> high wheeler) I was able to balance at less than 3 mph. I still
> can't balance at that speed on a long wheelbase recumbent - at
> least, not last time I tried.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Howerver, when making turns, a lower center of gravity means a
>> faster response and the bike does not have to lean as much into
>> the turn.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Nope. The angle of lean into a turn is completely independent of
> CG height. All bikes have to lean the same amount.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If you're in a level turn of radius R going at speed V, the angle
> of tilt MUST be the one that fits this equation: Tangent of the
> angle = V^2/(R * g) where g is the acceleration of gravity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Nothing you can do will change that, including changing the
> height of the CG.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are correct about the lean angle. I meant lean distance. For
the same angle, the higher up you are the further out you go from
the centerline.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What centerline? Is this traffic school or cornering? When I cut
a corner I'm on the edge of the pavement and the rest of rider and
bicycle is out over the grass on the inside of the turn.

Quoted message said:

Centerline being an imaginary line parallel to the bike's direction
going through the CG, with 0 degrees of lean.

So what effect does that have on cornering? Open implications only
add to confusion. Please explain why you bring that up.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

29 Sep 2004 20:30:56 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,

(Chalo) said:

Quoted message said:

Tall bikes are elegant, choppers make you look like you're drunk.

I thought that was 'cause I _was_ drunk! ;^)

Isn't there rule-of-thumb that says every foot of fork extension is
like drinking another six-pack?

Quoted message said:

But in fact, you are exactly right. The only tallbikes that are more
difficult to ride than a regular bike are those that flex between the
top and bottom frames, or those that place the saddle so far rearwards
that the bike wheelies over when climbing or pedaling hard.
My tallbike is 6'1" at the saddle and quite a bit easier to ride than
normal civilian bikes (until it must be maneuvered in a very tight
turn).

http://www.uploadimages.net/images/929197tallside4.jpg

Sweet and skookum.

Ian and Zac said that your club focused on building well designed
machines.

This one looks kind of whippy in comparison.
http://nai.dyndns.org/events/VeloMutation20040925/p09.htm

The guy in the pic is ~6' tall. It doesn't quite qualify as a tall
bike because you can dab from the saddle if you're wearing stilts and
the pedals are out of reach without them.

We were discussing tall bikes and figured that they'll never become
mainstream to the extent that choppers have even though they have
decidedly more attention grabbing panache.
--
zk