racer
-
Posts
1,135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by racer
-
-
I have a question...if more speed causes the bike to run a wider radius at a given lean-angle, why is that when you get on the gas after flicking the bike over, the bike doesn't start drifting wide?
If I remember right, CSS teaches that chopping the throttle and/or grabbing the brakes will make the bike run wide and that more gas will make it hold its line. If you say that more speed increases turning radius, then why would the bike run WIDE when slowing DOWN and keep a CONSTANT RADIUS when accelerating? There have to be other forces at work, right?
Maybe I'm just confused, but no one's ever really explained the physics of it to my satisfaction...rake, trail, precession, torque-steer, gravity vs. centrifugal force...it seems like everyone has their theories and the "solution" is somewhere in the middle, or a combination of all of these.
Good questions, squirrels. Sorry I'm late for my pillow. I will sleep on it and try to reply in the AM.
G'night!
-
At a given lean angle, the radius will change as a function of speed BECAUSE the front wheel is turned more inwards the slower you go (and less inwards the faster you go).
I don't know about that.
Today I'm leaning more toward the front wheel turning in (more and less) because the radius the bike (and rear wheel) is rolling is changing. In other words, the front wheel is always "trailing". At faster speeds, the rear is trying to come around or pivot around the front, hence, the angle the front is turned in would decrease as speed increases.
To me, this seems to fit with what Keith is saying in "Steering for the Rear", ie. the rear wheel is what stabilizes the bike and dictates the lean angle. I am thinking that the front will track whatever way the bike is going once it is leaned in.
And I am starting to agree with Carl that whereverf the weight is is where the control is. If you roll off the gas, now the front has more effect or control. If you are on the gas, the weight moves rearward and the front is more or less along for the ride.
-
Saying this detail and that are not predominant or marginal is not answer. In effect, you are saying that you don't know why the front is turned in nor what it is doing there.
And I never claimed to be an expert or a rocket scientist either! I thought this forum was all about sharing ideas and thoughts on stuff. I can only offer some ideas from a practical point of view. If you want the mathematical forumula that explains this phenomenon, you'll have to wait for someone else to chime in..
Yes, I understand the concept of rake and trail. And with all due respect, I think you'd stand a better chance at getting the answers you seek in a physics forum rather than a bike forum. If we take one of the wheels out of the equation, then whatever answer you get to your question won't be related to cornering technique.I thought your question was why the radius increases as speed increases, at a fixed lean angle? But now you're asking why the front wheel "knows" how much to turn in? Well I "believe" and "have faith in" that it has to do with the trail (correlated to rake angle).
There's a lot on the subject here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_geometry
I did not intend to insult you or your knowledge. In fact, you seem to have a good firm grasp of the forces involved and the "what" of the matter at hand (hence why I am interested in your ideas, viewpoint and perspective). And I am not asking for someone to "give me the answer". Quite the opposite, in fact.
One part of my immediate purpose this morning as I was running around getting ready for work and posting in a hurry each time I walked past the computer, was to re-clarify my question (yet again) as it seemed at the time that we were talking past each other and that I was failing to make a connection. I suppose part of that could be chalked up to the fact that we were cross-posting. Or perhaps the fact that we speak different native languages. Or perhaps that I was simply in too much of a hurry to take the time to read carefully.
Another part of my immediate purpose, based on my respect for your viewpoint, was to stimulate an interest on your part by acknowledging the fact that operating a motorcycle without knowledge is akin to operating one's life "on faith". It seems I may have hit a nerve there. If that makes you uncomfortable... good. I think it should. And that was the point.
Operating without the big picture, living in ignorance as it were, sure makes me feel uncomfortable and out of control. And I think that's generally a very good reason to pursue an issue to find the solutions to alleviate the source of my discomfort and fear and the potential for it to cause aberration in my operations. I can respect that you might prefer to answer the question: "How does that work?" by saying "It works just fine". Hopefully you can respect that that answer doesn't work for me.
In any case, my overall goal in this thread is working through this particular question without "cheating" by consulting a physics site or asking "daddy" for "the answer". And to share that process with others who are interested in doing the same thing. I suppose you could say it's our geeky idea of fun. If that doesn't interest you, please feel free to choose another thread.
If it does interest you, I am not looking for a mathematical formula. I couldn't care less about the math of it. (But I would be happy to see it if someone knows it.) Mostly, what I am interested in is sharing my ideas and thought processes with others and reading about others ideas and thought processes and seeing how they fit together. Or don't fit together. Sort of like picking different pieces of a puzzle and seing what fits. And, so far, I think we have made great progress. And I'm having great fun.
Cheers,
racer
-
Yes you are making sense and I think those are really good questions, squirrels.
And I think Keith answers a lot of what you are asking in the Twist of the Wrist books.
For instance, entering a sweeper vs. a stop and squirt corner.
IMHO, it boils down to throttle control vs braking. Entering a sweeper is more about using the throttle and a sharp turn has a lot of emphasis on braking. But all the basics still apply.
As for quick turning, I think that there is a degree of "relativity" to it. The definition of quick flick at 100 mph (sweeper) is a bit different as it is much harder to turn the bike at that speed, hence, a lot slower.
I think you hit it on the head when you implied that you might not be going fast enough to make it matter and I think that issue comes up frequently for people who are looking for practical information to improve their riding on the street and have little or no experience nor interest in track riding or going as fast as possible. It's just that the extremes are the easiest to illustrate. And necessary as that is like the definition of criticality, eh?
For instance, trailbraking, when you are riding well below the limit, can seem much less of a critical issue because in general, at that speed, it is. Except or until the unexpected happens and suddenly the ability to control the bike at an extreme limit becomes relevant. And it is hard to illustrate that without thinking about the extremes.
Anyway, I am sorry I don't have more time to hang out tonight.
Cheers,
r
-
Wow!
I'm going to have to take some time to digest all of that.
PS - I must say I believe that I have finally met my match for verbosity!
-
We are cross posting. I have significantly edited my original post while you were replying.
Sorry, I frequently re-edit my posts for clarity moments after making my original post.
Well, I think that my "theory" points out the most important reason why you need to lean the bike further in as velocity is increased, at a given radius.
But I'm sure there are a lot of other factors that also contibute to the "front wheel turn-in angle theory" that I described further up.
The steering geometry (rake angle, wheelbase, front/rear height) might have an impact on corner radius..?
Tyre profiles might affect the trail of the bike..? Perhaps gyroscopic forces from the crankshaft plays a minor role too..?
But essentially, I think all these factors are of relatively marginal importance compared to where the front wheel is pointing..
Saying this detail and that are not predominant or marginal is not answer. In effect, you are saying that you don't know why the front is turned in nor what it is doing there.
Yes, I know the front wheel points in the direction the bike is traveling, but, we have no evidence that it is steering the bike as opposed to following what the rear is doing. With all due respect, your position is an arbitrary choice to "believe" or have "faith" with or because of no evidence.
I'm aware of the forces involved and the observations of the matter at hand. What I'm after is the mechanics of how, as it were.
Forget the front wheel for a minute and think about the rear wheel. Or simply ONE wheel. Roll it through a corner at lean angle x and you get radius y. Now in crease velocity v and radius r increases. Yes, it is due to centrifugal force. But what exactly is happening to allow that to happen. A wheel rolls a circle due to the conical section of its contact patch, just like a styrofoam cup on its side. So, either the wheel is sliding sideways to accomplish this wider arc, or something else is going on.
Do you understand the concept of rake and trail?
-
When traveling at relatively low speed, ie. low centripetal or cornering forces and low degree of force applied to the front geometry, then the bike can lean, or perhaps more accurately, "fall" in more.
At standard speeds, shifting the weight onto the front of the bike makes the rear end want to "come around" and stand the bike up.
I've heard riders say they use the rear brake to help get the bike turned in without sliding it.
I'm not certain what that is all about, but, using the rear brake can put more "weight" on the front wheel giving a better "bite" to turn in and allowing some speed to be scrubbed without overstressing the front contact patch with additional braking forces there. This works well when a rider needs to steer the bike over a crest when the front is light.
Of course, some riders actually use the rear brake to slide the rear wheel into the corner, "backing it in" so to speak.
-
Can you say "why" that happens?
I think it must be due to the fact that the sentripal force on the CG is increased at the same rate as the bike velocity at a given radius. (wow, that sounds fancy)
So if you're doing 60mph at a given radius, and you increase the speed to 70mph, you'll have to:
A: Lean the bike further in (to "counterweight" the increased sentripal force)
B: Maintain the lean angle but at a larger radius (and thus maintaining the sentripal force)
From this we can derive that the lean angle is directly correlated to sentripal force (and sentripal force is correlated to velocity and radius).
Here's another way to look at it. Let's say you're doing 60mph at a given radius, and you lock the steering at that particular "steering rate" (which means that you are forced to stay on that particular corner radius). If you increase the speed by 5mph, the bike will "fall out". If you decrease the speed by 5mph, the bike will "fall in".
Yeah, I get that part.
I'll leave the mechanics of how the front wheel "knows" to turn in more for now and get right down to the heart of the matter.
How does a wheel rolling at a specific lean angle roll a wider arc at higher speed?
Does the contact patch change shape, ie. due to higher cornering force, does it "roll" or "squish" to a different shape that mimics less lean angle or being higher on the tire profile?
Or is the tire "pushing" and not rolling cleanly or precisely?
-
We are cross posting. I have significantly edited my original post while you were replying.
Sorry, I frequently re-edit my posts for clarity moments after making my original post.
-
OK, so now that I (hopefully) grabbed the essence of your question, here's my theory:
At a given lean angle, the radius will change as a function of speed BECAUSE the front wheel is turned more inwards the slower you go (and less inwards the faster you go).
Once the desired lean angle is acquired (by countersteering), the front wheel will turn INTO the corner. At slower speeds this is easy to see. At higher speed (say at 120mph or so) it's more difficult to see because the front wheel is turned in by no more than a fraction of an inch. The bike is going where the front wheel is pointing! Makes sense?
In essence, your "theory" sounds good.
But... can you say "why" this happens? That is 1) why the front wheel is turned in more or less at different speeds and 2) considering that each wheel will independently describe a circle when rolling at a specific lean angle, even if the front wheel is turned in more or less, and if the front is dictating the direction the bike goes, that means the rear wheel must roll a wider arc to follow it. Or perhaps that both wheels are rolling a wider arc independent of which wheel might be dominant, or, I could say that the front wheel is always in "trailing" mode (due to the geometry of the front end) and that the rear wheel rolling a wider arc is causing the front wheel to turn or "trail" wider to follow the wider line being traveled by the rear wheel.
See my dilemma?
-
Your English 'sounds' perfect to me. It has none of the unusual syntax or grammatical goofs normally noticed with non-native speakers. I would never have known if you didn't tell me.
-
You misunderstood me. The suspension rises or comes up under acceleration. I thought that was clear from the context of the discussion. Sorry.
No, I'M sorry!
Since English isn't my first language, I sometimes screw up when it comes to technical jargon and such.. o_O
EDIT: Note to myself: There is a difference between "rising up" and "standing up".. Got it!
What is your first language?
PS - Yup = yes, nope = no.
-
We know that the bike raises up (both front and rear) under acceleration.
Are you sure about that??
Here's a quote from Cobie Fair in the thread 'Feeling for rear traction': .."many think adding throttle will bring the bike up, but it doesn't."
Check it out for yourself: http://forums.superbikeschool.com/index.php?showtopic=899
You misunderstood me. The suspension rises or comes up under acceleration. I thought that was clear from the context of the discussion. Sorry.
By the way, I think that the RADIUS is a direct result of a correlation between LEAN ANGLE and SPEED.Yup.
This only applies when the rider is in line with the bike. If he's hanging off, you need to make a correction based on what the lean angle would have been if he wasn't hanging off..Nope.
It always applies. Hanging off merely alters the lean angle in relation to the other two elements.
And... the question I am asking is: why does speed alter radius when lean angle remains the same.
-
I have never touched my knee down on a public road. Neither before nor after grinding through my first set of knee pucks on the track. Nor do I have any desire to do so either. After you have been on the track and understand what is involved, I think you will lose the desire to do so. In fact, you may even lose the desire to ride on public roads at all. I did. For me, it became something akin to masturbation, if you'll pardon my saying so.
-
Speaking of Nurburgring...
I just finished watching the world superbike races from today and all I can say is... WOW!!!
Haga, Corser, Bayliss, Checa, Biaggi, Xaus... what a show!! Did anyone else catch race two?
What a shame the rain came so hard. Corser really had the momentum in race two. I think he would have won if it had gone full distance. Or even if scoring didn't revert to the last lap on a red flag as he was in the lead when the race was finally called. And how cool that would have been as he was the last rider to win at the 'Ring in '99. Really great to see Corser at the front with a belly full of bully!
Um... I didn't see anyone "locking on" with a calf raise. (Just to make this post belong on the school site...
) -
OK, I just read "Steer for the Rear" again and caught an important detail that I was misinterpreting. What Keith actually said is that after the bike is fully leaned into the corner, the rear wheel determines the lean angle that the bike will hold. He did NOT say that it determines the radius that the bike will hold. Only the lean angle.
*light bulb goes off inside racer's head*
But... whatever the lean angle, won't the radius of the wheel(s) ultimately determine the radius the bike follows?
*light bulb goes off again*
Grrr...
2big said that shortening the wheelbase causes the bike to turn sharper in the hook turn, and intuitively, I agree, but, if the wheels are closer to each other, they are closer together on the arc of the turn and that would seem to imply that the front wheel must be turned out more, not in more.
Or is the degree the front wheel is turned in dependent on the geometry (rake) and bringing the front wheel closer to the rear forces the bike to turn tighter because the amount the front wheel is turned in remains consistent ... ?
Hmm...
Which brings me back to the front suspension and what happens when increasing speed at a given lean angle. We know that the bike raises up (both front and rear) under acceleration. But what about higher relative speed for a given turn?I do think the difference here is the amount the front wheel is turned into the turn and the turning influence that has. I haven’t heard turn in mentioned much but certainly it is there. More turn in at low speed going to little to no turn in at very high speed.I thought I had mentioned it earlier regarding my experiments with compressing the front fork, but, perhaps I wasn't clear. In any case, the front definitely turns into the corner and to what degree depends on the radius.
... that the bike is turning. ??? Will the radius the bike is turning determined by the rear and speed dictate the amount the front is turned in?
Or the radius depends on what degree the wheel is turned in which depends ultimately on the geometry... which changes with rake angle... which changes with compression... ?
Once you tip in with countersteering, turn in then plays in to combine with lean angle, to balance out the force of momentum and gravity so the amount of turn in will differ at the same speed with a change in lean angle. The more you lean, the more the front tire can turn in at any speed, but it still will have to do so less and less as the speed increases. Major lean at very low speed can see a full lock turn in. Major lean at high speed can see a turn in you may barely notice happening or not notice happening Get the speed high enough I’d guess it is not turning in any more at all as the rear pivots around the headstock turning axis under throttle?I'd like to simplify this a bit and concentrate on figuring out what happens to the front with higher relative cornering loads and "standard throttle" (60/40). Does it, can it compress more? If so, and the longer wheel base forces the wheel to turn in or out more to track the same arc, what about the geometry itself, ie. the rake and trail? And what about the compression of the tire or the contact patch being rolled up more toward the center line of the tread?
I kept thinking the front contact patch may play a part in the pivot point, but if that was the case, a bikes tendency to self correct during a rear wheel slide would not happen. The rear is pivoting around the steering head.I'm not certain exactly what you mean here re: the front contact patch playing a part. Can you be more specific?
Thanks,
racer
So maybe I've been going at it backwards, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. But still... under an equal rate of acceleration, higher speed will demonstrate a wider arc. Or at the end of the day, have I been confusing increased speed with increased acceleration? That would explain a lot. Anyway...
... is the front wheel turn-in dependent on the rake/trail regardless of speed? And is the turn radius dependent on the amount the wheel is turned in or something else?
I'm losing it...lol. Going in circles. I need sleep.
G'night.
-
Dobro po¾alovat'
Willkommen
Benvenuta
Witamy
Aloha
Racer,
Did you just tell Glamazon she was hot!
Every word in that post means the same thing: Welcome!
PS - Please do not ogle the female forum members.
-
Yes, this makes a lot of sense to me. And that is where I began in my own mind before reading the "Steer for the Rear" chapter in Twist of the Wrist II
That is the chapter I was trying to remember, and can't remember exactly what was said.
OK, I just read "Steer for the Rear" again and caught an important detail that I was misinterpreting. What Keith actually said is that after the bike is fully leaned into the corner, the rear wheel determines the lean angle that the bike will hold. He did NOT say that it determines the radius that the bike will hold. Only the lean angle.
*light bulb goes off inside racer's head*
But... whatever the lean angle, won't the radius of the wheel(s) ultimately determine the radius the bike follows?
*light bulb goes off again*
Grrr...
2big said that shortening the wheelbase causes the bike to turn sharper in the hook turn, and intuitively, I agree, but, if the wheels are closer to each other, they are closer together on the arc of the turn and that would seem to imply that the front wheel must be turned out more, not in more.
Which brings me back to the front suspension and what happens when increasing speed at a given lean angle. We know that the bike raises up (both front and rear) under acceleration. But what about higher relative speed for a given turn?
I do think the difference here is the amount the front wheel is turned into the turn and the turning influence that has. I haven’t heard turn in mentioned much but certainly it is there. More turn in at low speed going to little to no turn in at very high speed.I thought I had mentioned it earlier regarding my experiments with compressing the front fork, but, perhaps I wasn't clear. In any case, the front definitely turns into the corner and to what degree depends on the radius
Once you tip in with countersteering, turn in then plays in to combine with lean angle, to balance out the force of momentum and gravity so the amount of turn in will differ at the same speed with a change in lean angle. The more you lean, the more the front tire can turn in at any speed, but it still will have to do so less and less as the speed increases. Major lean at very low speed can see a full lock turn in. Major lean at high speed can see a turn in you may barely notice happening or not notice happening Get the speed high enough I’d guess it is not turning in any more at all as the rear pivots around the headstock turning axis under throttle?I'd like to simplify this a bit and concentrate on figuring out what happens to the front with higher relative cornering loads and "standard throttle" (60/40). Does it, can it compress more? If so, and the longer wheel base forces the wheel to turn in or out more to track the same arc, what about the geometry itself, ie. the rake and trail? And what about the compression of the tire or the contact patch being rolled up more toward the center line of the tread?
I kept thinking the front contact patch may play a part in the pivot point, but if that was the case, a bikes tendency to self correct during a rear wheel slide would not happen. The rear is pivoting around the steering head.I'm not certain exactly what you mean here re: the front contact patch playing a part. Can you be more specific?
Thanks,
racer
-
I run a Penske 3-way on my CBR.. I've had VERY good interaction with Penske. They custom built and sprung my shock specifically to my weight in gear and were very quick to deliver.
What's a Penske run these days?
C
http://www.penskeshocks.co.uk/
http://www.penskeshocks.co.uk/partsandserv...cepricelist.htm
http://www.penskeshocks.co.uk/motorcycleda...ycle_damper_205
http://www.kneedraggers.com/list/manu/prod...CFQFIGgodNlTaWA
http://www.kneedraggers.com/list/catalog/?...c_up&page=2
http://mdracingstp.com/Documents/penske2a....CFQhzHgodRhsrWw
-
Street bike wheels are comparatively heavy and create significant gyroscopic forces at speed which stabilize the machine such that weighting one footpeg over another is essentially meaningless.
Not to mention the relatively low speed and near zero gyro forces created while negotiating your hypothetically steep and slippery switchback goat path.
Interesting point, and I'll play a little again the next time I'm out, probably tomorrow. It's been a long time since I've messed around with footpeg pressures odd to my normal thing. I'll reserve opinionated comment until I play with it again. My memory says there still are differences to be found, could be wrong though. If I am wrong, there's no harm in my weighting the outside peg more anyway then. :-)
Where are you holding on when you weight the inside peg? Are you "locked on" with outer leg?
Is it possible that your body position (hence CoG) changes and could have some effect when weighting the inside peg? Or inadvertent handlebar inputs might be occuring?
I haven't played with this much on or off the track and I have heard other road racers say that weighting the inside peg helps them to initiate a slide or weighting the outside peg helps them control a slide, but, Keith claims that weighting a peg in and of itself effectively does nothing.
Now, I don't know that it holds true for dirtbikes as much, especially at low speeds, but, maybe you could think about these questions while riding tomorrow?
Have fun!
r
-
Weighting one peg as opposed to another does essentially nothing.
I would want to disagree just a tiny small bit with the statement as set forth. Understandably a dirt bike is lighter than a Supersport and so reacts more to body weight inputs, however the following principle still applies to at least some degree, I believe.
Street bike wheels are comparatively heavy and create significant gyroscopic forces at speed which stabilize the machine such that weighting one footpeg over another is essentially meaningless.
Not to mention the relatively low speed and near zero gyro forces created while negotiating your hypothetically steep and slippery switchback goat path.
-
OK, so in a more practical sense, what you're saying is that tucking in vs. keeping shoulders high will only affect lean angle as long as the rider is hanging off..?
Yes. Sort of.
The best time to hang-off is before beginning to brake for a corner. So, in that circumstance, I don't know that it is really accurate to characterize "tucking in" as the opposite of "keeping shoulders high". While the bike is straight up and down, hanging off with upper body off to the side, but, the head and shoulders above some arbitrary level that might best be defined by your own ability or range of being able to move up and down while hung off. 2bigalow (or tweek) could probably offer a better, or more precise, description.
So, as I understand what tweek is alluding to (albeit somewhat imprecisely), shoulders "high" and "low" refer to body position while already hung off.
-
After getting leaned in, I imagine dropping the head and shoulders ... allows the bike to carry less lean angle or lift up, increasing traction and allowing more throttle to begin the exit.
How do you explain the physics behind this??
http://forums.superbikeschool.com/index.ph...post&p=5193
Doesn't this contradict what you're saying here?The height of the CG wrt to (inline with) the centerline (C/L) of the bike+rider (ie. length of lever) has no effect on the (balanced) lean angle for a given speed and radius.This is what I was talking about... needing to be careful how one defines higher and lower wrt CoG (or anything) on a bike in a corner.
Let me try again...
I imagine that dropping the head and shoulders wrt gravity and 'up' and 'down' as the rest of the world sees it regardless and irrespective of the C/L or lean angle of the bike ... etc.
I sometimes assume that certain things are obvious from context. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Generally speaking, I assume the larger operational frame of reference, ie. if I don't specifiy higher on the bike, I am not using the bike as a frame of reference. So, if I use "up" or "down" when speaking about a bike in a corner, I am refering to the rest of the world, not the bike.
racer
-
Well I'm no scientist, and I'm not very gifted when it comes to algebra og physics, but my "common sense" tells me that:
- The more the CG of the bike+rider is biased inwards, the less lean angle for a given speed (no surprises there, I know..)
- The higher the CG of the biker+rider, the less lean angle for a given speed *
or in the reversed sense:
- At a given lean angle, you can carry higher speed the more the CG of the bike+rider is biased inwards
- At a given lean angle, you can carry higher speed by placing the CG of the bike+rider higher up *
So why is everyone tucking behind their windscreen, getting the combined CG as low as possible? Well, first and most foremost because a lower CG gives greater stability and makes the bike less "oversensitive" to handlebar inputs. Secondly because tucking in reduces wind drag. Thirdly because it helps keeping those elbows loose (thus minimizing unwanted handlebar input). Finally and most importantly, because it looks better..
That's my theory anyway.. I might be awfully wrong though, as a lot of the physics seem "backwards" and counter-intuative when it comes to bike handling (i.e. the rear end will tend to RISE as you get on the throttle, the bike will turn left when you turn the handlebar right, the front end will grip better if you load the rear more etc etc)
You are correct that lowering the center of gravity stabilizes the bike due to creating an effectively shorter lever for unbalanced (or unbalancing) force inputs of gravity and lateral G-force, ie. bumps (or handlebars) to act on. Everyone knows a longer lever will do more work, ie. a long wrench makes it easier to loosen a stuck bolt.
And, I think being higher up at the turn point makes it easier to flick quick. The longer lever makes the bike more "unstable", hence, it "unbalances" easier/faster, ie. with less force.
Tweek said: "It was fun to enter turns with my shoulders and head 'high' and then as I passed the apex to drop them down low. the change in my line was dramatic."After getting leaned in, I imagine dropping the head and shoulders not only stabilizes the bike, but, more importantly, allows the bike to carry less lean angle or lift up, increasing traction and allowing more throttle to begin the exit. I'm not sure if that is what Tweek is talking about, but, it sounds good to me.
* That said... the height of the CG wrt to (inline with) the centerline (C/L) of the bike+rider (ie. length of lever) has no effect on the (balanced) lean angle for a given speed and radius. At a stable lean angle, gravity (down force) and lateral G (cornering/sideways) force are balanced wrt to the lever (or moment arm) of the bike+rider. By definition, the lean angle where the bike balances in a turn is the angle where the forces of gravity and lateral G are balanced. If the cornering force is low, the bike needs to be more vertical to balance, if the cornering force is high, the bike needs to lean more to balance. But, long or short, the bike (lever) will balance at the same lean angle between the same forces.
Lean Angle == Turn Radius?
in Cornering and Techniques
Posted
Well, I guess I am not really after "cornering technigue" so much as mechanics. And breaking it down into components or sub-systems is a tried and true effetive method to get at that.
I "believe" the questions are related. And that one inevitably leads to the other.
Well, if it has to do with trail corellated to rake, then I fail to see how ...
These concepts seem mutually exclusive to me. It has to be one or the other. I don't see how it can be both.
But I do see how you can reach both with independent lines of reasoning... which is exactly what I have done as well!
Welcome to my asylum!!!