>> 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:
> 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.
>>> 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:
>> 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 >> CG 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 CG.
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]
You need a bigger space between your tires and the "trees."
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]
Have you ever skied or surfed? Crouching gives better balance.
