Skip to comments.
Why does a moving bicycle not fall over? TU Delft casts aside some old theories
Delft University of Technology ^
| April 14, 2011
| M&C
Posted on 04/14/2011 3:46:45 PM PDT by decimon
Given sufficient forward speed, a bicycle pushed sideways, will not fall over. Scientists have been trying to find a conclusive explanation for this remarkable characteristic for over a century. This week, researchers at TU Delft have thrown new light on the question in a publication in Science.
Staying stable
The research at TU Delft, in collaboration with scientists from Cornell University (USA), centred on the following intriguing question: why is a bicycle self stable, above a certain speed? You add speed to a bike and can then give it a sideways push without it falling over.
Rotating wheels
Scientists have long been poring over this complicated question, even from as far back as the nineteenth century. Until recently, the consensus within the scientific community was that the stability was very closely related to two factors. First, the rotating wheels of the bicycle were supposed to provide stability through gyroscopic effects. Secondly, it was thought that the trail played an important part. Trail is the distance by which the contact point of the front wheel trails behind the steering axis.
Predicting
The publication by TU Delft in Science puts paid to this old notion once and for all. 'We have known for years that the generally accepted explanation for the stability of the bicycle was too simple,' says researcher Dr Arend Schwab of the 3mE faculty at TU Delft. 'Gyroscopic effects and trail do help, but are not essential for stability.' Dr Schwab and a number of colleagues brought out a publication several years ago on the theory behind the stability of the bicycle (in 2007 in Proceedings of the Royal Society, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1857).
(Excerpt) Read more at tudelft.nl ...
TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: bikespositivecaster; caster; gyroscopic; poscasterstraight; trail; trailiscaster
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
1
posted on
04/14/2011 3:46:49 PM PDT
by
decimon
To: neverdem; SunkenCiv
2
posted on
04/14/2011 3:48:21 PM PDT
by
decimon
To: decimon
You add speed to a bike and can then give it a sideways push without it falling over.
Let's test the theory.
3
posted on
04/14/2011 3:50:46 PM PDT
by
edpc
(Tagline under construction: Your American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars at work.)
To: decimon
the department doing the study is literally run by Professor Boneshaker
4
posted on
04/14/2011 3:51:10 PM PDT
by
babble-on
To: decimon
I guess they were too lazy to look up Vittore Cossalter’s work.
5
posted on
04/14/2011 3:52:44 PM PDT
by
battlecry
To: decimon
6
posted on
04/14/2011 3:55:32 PM PDT
by
ThomasThomas
(I am still looking for that box I am supposed to think out of.)
To: babble-on
the department doing the study is literally run by Professor BoneshakerBoneschansker, if that's the same.
7
posted on
04/14/2011 3:56:44 PM PDT
by
decimon
To: decimon
Scientists have been trying to find a conclusive explanation for this remarkable characteristic for over a century.
Government grant heaven. And when they do find an answer, WTF are they going to do with it?
8
posted on
04/14/2011 3:59:09 PM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: ThomasThomas
Yeah, I tried that ramp thing once. Just once.
9
posted on
04/14/2011 3:59:56 PM PDT
by
decimon
To: oh8eleven
And when they do find an answer, WTF are they going to do with it? Build TF a better bicycle?
10
posted on
04/14/2011 4:01:20 PM PDT
by
decimon
To: decimon; Cagey
11
posted on
04/14/2011 4:03:36 PM PDT
by
Daffynition
(DBKP ~ Death By 1000 Papercuts)
To: decimon
I think it has something to do with a bumblebee.
12
posted on
04/14/2011 4:04:07 PM PDT
by
Krankor
(And he's oh, so good, And he's oh, so fine, And he's oh, so healthy, In his body and his mind)
To: edpc
13
posted on
04/14/2011 4:06:35 PM PDT
by
Attention Surplus Disorder
(Which has more wrinkles? Helen Thomas' face or Lawrence O'Donnells' panties?)
To: Daffynition
That Mary Poppins thing really doesn’t work.
14
posted on
04/14/2011 4:13:08 PM PDT
by
decimon
To: oh8eleven
I’m confused, this is nothing new. Every engineers knows it is because of the inertia of the wheel as tethered to the center which causes rigidity in space. It’s similar to the effect of rolling a ball of playdoh into a stable cylinder which cannot be tilted left or right, but it is done dynamicaly so with a thin wheel bicycle.
15
posted on
04/14/2011 4:15:16 PM PDT
by
JudgemAll
(Democrates Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
To: JudgemAll
I had a pretty good idea, without fancy thoughts nor words .. by the time I was 10.
16
posted on
04/14/2011 4:23:17 PM PDT
by
knarf
(I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
To: ThomasThomas
LOL, I’m never riding a bicycle again after seeing that.
They all seemed to face plant.
To: knarf
Congrats: that is a beautiful picture of a gyroscope demonstration.
18
posted on
04/14/2011 4:25:39 PM PDT
by
JudgemAll
(Democrates Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
To: edpc
19
posted on
04/14/2011 4:27:53 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both)
To: knarf
In one of my college physics lectures, the prof had a weighted bicycle
wheel with handles that he pulled the rip cord to spin up, picked it
up, and sat down on a stool, and demonstrated the various forces
and effects.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson