Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by wadenelson, May 17, 2018.
There are no similarities on the back of my motorcycle.
????????????? Once the bike is leaned it will turn in the direction of the lean. Riders lean opposite of the direction of the turn frequently.
Not without first countersteering to lean the combined rider/bike COG.
Your bike doesn't have the wheel on the ground? When balanced you can't imagine a line running from the contact patch through the COG of the bike?
I think you are just plain wrong on this one.
Here I'll help, observe a bicycle from the back, does it not form a vertical line with a few items, such as pedals and handlebars, hanging off to each side?
Yes, it is an excellent way to demonstrate balance and most people get it immediately. You being here just to troll is the exception rather than the rule.
The combined COG has to be leaned into the turn. Folks on your side if the argument have posted diagrams showing as much.
If it isn't leaned into the turn, the centrifugal forces would push it over to the outside of the turn.
That is tantamount to saying that you don't always have to balance the bike: that you can violate the laws of motion. Nope, never.
If you'll stick with the balancing a broom sick thing, you'll soon see I am correct.
I'm sorry, please excuse me for a bit. I am trying to convert my mountain bike wheels/tires to tubeless.
I am not ignoring you
My bike has two contact patches. When I'm riding it I have at least three points of contact with it. Most of the time five points of contact. It's hard, (impossible for me) to imagine all the subtle input and responses that takes place as I ride down the road. Some of those inputs are critical, some are not. Technically, if I'm moving, the COG is moving. I don't see any way around it.
Not the same statement as I said you were wrong about.
You mean moving about on the bike? If so, no, the lateral COG of the bike+rider is not changing at all, because for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. There isn't any way you can break Newton's third law of motion.
You guys have taken "no life keyboard cowboy's" to another level...
Please explain the difference between COG and lateral COG.
If I am riding upright in a straight line and then lean bike and rider into a turn, if the center of gravity has to be leaned into the turn, then it moves. You have things going on in your head that are correct, but you are misusing them to confuse, not illuminate.
Balance of a moving motorcycle is not dependent only on the balance of weight as if it were stationary. There are other forces that we deal with in different ways.
If placement or concentration of weight on a motorcycle didn't change COG then we could put all our load on a rear rack instead of low in the side cases and it wouldn't matter how much the pillion moved about.
If I am on solid ground and kneel, stand on one foot, sit, I am moving my center of gravity about. Why would that change if I am on a motorcycle?
at 1:39 the rider on the left of the screen is turning right and begins to fall left. at 1:40 he has to quickly turn left to recover. the perfect example of why direct steering is impossible. watch from 1:38 to 1:41 at 25% speed.
You can change the fore-and-aft COG, but not lateral COG. The surface of the Earth constrains the bike to remain level in the fore-and-aft direction, but not laterally. (actually the laws of motion are in effect in the fore=and-aft plane...the Earth moves an equal and opposite moment in the opposite direction when you shift your weight forward or back...but the Earth's mass is so much greater that the motion of the Earth is unmeasurable)
No, you're confused. I was talking about shifting your weight around on the bike. That doesn't change the center of mass of the bike and rider.
You're employing lateral stability...you don't have lateral stability with a single-track vehicle.