S_David said:
Hello,
I am just thinking: why it is hard to balanca a (2-wheel) bicycle when it is not moving, while it is easy balanced when it is moving?
In a way one can say that the process of riding a bicycle is a self-balancing process. Let me explain.
The crucial factor is the geometry of the steering. A bicycle with a vertical steering column would be an awful ride, it needs that angle.
The wikipedia article about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_geometry" tells about the
head angle, the
rake and the
trail.
- First effect of the steering geometry: when the bicycle is not leaning the front wheel is pushed to alignment with the frame. (This effect is lacking in a frame with a vertical steering column.)
- Second effect of the steering geometry: when the bicycle is leaning gravity pulls the front wheel to a slight angle with the frame - just a slight angle.
So if you are on the move, and you begin to go into an accidental lean, the front wheel automatically turns towards that direction, and the bicycle rolls back underneath you. it happens automatically, all you need is allowing it to happen.
Steering is almost not necessary; riding with no hands on the handlebars is very easy and straightforward (on a bicycle with a sufficiently stiff frame.)
Many people come to a supposition that some gyroscopic stabilizing effect is at play. Now, the englishman David Jones has actually tested that hypothesis. He built himself a bicycle with a second wheel mounted alongside the front wheel, in such a way that at all times it is counterrotating. Because of that counterrotation the gyroscopic effects from the two wheels cancel each other. Jones found that the non-gyroscopic bicycle was just as stable to ride as the standard bicycle. That is strong evidence that gyroscopic effect is not important.
Cleonis
