Riding a Bike on Ice: Does Angular Momentum Counter-act Torque?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Identity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bike Ice
AI Thread Summary
Riding a bike on frictionless ice presents unique challenges due to the lack of grip, which prevents the bike from maintaining balance. While conservation of angular momentum suggests that spinning wheels could help keep the bike upright, the absence of friction means any slight imbalance will lead to tipping. In a completely frictionless scenario, the bike cannot self-correct as it would on a surface with traction, resulting in a fall. However, if part of the surface has friction, such as gravel, the bike may regain balance if the wheels can engage with that friction while pedaling. Ultimately, the dynamics of balance on ice depend heavily on the interaction between the bike's wheels and the surface beneath them.
Identity
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
If you're riding a bike on ice with no friction and the wheels are rotating just as fast as they normally would when you're riding, will you fall down? (Since you're riding on frictionless ice you have would no linear momentum)


I think that, due to conservation of angular momentum, the spinning of the wheels will keep you from falling down.

However, since the ice is frictionless, the slightest imbalance in your seating will create a torque which tips over the bike. But does conservation of angular momentum counter-act even this??

Actually, I'm not really sure and I would appreciate some more knowledgeable opinions. Perhaps two cases could be considered:
1. Everywhere is frictionless
2. Only the surface directly under the wheels is frictionless, while there is gravel on either side of the wheels.

thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have tried to give an explanation of what I think will happen in each situation:

You have cases where a gyro is fastened to a stand or a string, and the angular momentum will keep it from falling even when placed at an angle. I think we can draw a parallel to this situation and claim that the angular momentum of the wheels might provide extra support.

In situation 1:

When you are traveling with a velocity (and friction), and tou start to tip over, the front wheel of the bike will try to turn the same way you are tipping, causing the bike to turn and, depending in the speed of the bike and the "tip angle", balance itself. In the absence of frinction and velocity, I think that if you tip over, the wheel will turn, but it can not balance the bike. Instead, conservation of momentum says that the bike will be pushed the opposite way you are tipping, and you will fall to the ground.

In situation 2:

As in situation 1, as you start to tip over, the front wheel will turn. Consequently, it will touch the gravel, wheere there is friction. If you are constantly pedaling, this might be just what you need for the bike to balance yourself if you give it enough momentum. If you are not pedaling, and the wheel is not spinning at relativistic speeds (hyperbole), I doubt is has enough angular momentum to provide the acceleration itself, and you will fall to the ground.These are my thoughts on the two situations.
 
Identity said:
If you're riding a bike on ice with no friction and the wheels are rotating just as fast as they normally would when you're riding, will you fall down? (Since you're riding on frictionless ice you have would no linear momentum)


I think that, due to conservation of angular momentum, the spinning of the wheels will keep you from falling down.

However, since the ice is frictionless, the slightest imbalance in your seating will create a torque which tips over the bike. But does conservation of angular momentum counter-act even this??

Actually, I'm not really sure and I would appreciate some more knowledgeable opinions. Perhaps two cases could be considered:
1. Everywhere is frictionless
2. Only the surface directly under the wheels is frictionless, while there is gravel on either side of the wheels.

thanks :)

I have ridden a bike on both smooth and rough ice. On smooth ice without any special tires, say ones with metal studs, you are going to fall. Its real easy.
 
Why are bike tires have so much bumps and textures? The answer is because these tires need to "grip" the ground the same way bumps on a basketball "grips" our hands. When the contact region between the tires and the ground is rough, the rubber "fills" the small holes in the ground, thus, when it rolls, the force between the rotating tires and the small bumps and crevices on the rough surface will move the bike forward.

In ice, it is not bumped(mostly) so that you will not be able to propel the bike, so theoretically, the wheels will roll even though the bike wont. However, practically, this will not be true since the heat of the rubber will deform the ice enough to make it tractable.
 
I think the torque generated by the wheels is much too small to keep you upright. The wheels are only a small part of the weight of the bicycle. bicycles don't flip over because if you start falling to the right, you steer to the right and to get the contact point with the Earth back under the center of mass. This even happens by itself if you don't steer. This won't work if there is 0 friction. Look at what happens on real ice once the wheels start slipping.
It might work with a loose rolling wheel.

If you start falling to the right a torque will be produced that rotates the bicycle to the right around a vertical axis. If the rotation was fast enough it would in turn produce a torque that kept the bike upright. Theoretically it might be possible to balance a bicycle in this way by rotating the front wheel to the right by a large amount as soon as the bicycle started to fall over to the right.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top