Unbelievable thread on countersteering on Triumphrat.net

[sprint_st]

Keith Code's video is... Not entirely forthcoming. That rider didn't actually move his weight all that far; he's remaining very central to the bike's mass. If you hang your weight way out, you can, in fact "steer" a bike with weight. But you're NOT circumventing counter steering... you're simply initiating it in different - and VERY inefficient - manner.

I'm glad someone else can see through Keith Code's version of reality.

My god... Why do I keep posting in this asinine thread?  
It is kind of an addiction.   When you consider that we have people who believe "loud pipes save lives", "you should never use your front brakes" and the current topic, I'd bet you could get a thread going on driving off the edge of the planet

[Carbonero]

LOL Excellent point. DISCWORLD IS REAL!

[Scratch33]

Arse.

[Ramseybella]

                              Do these things even turn?

[Carbonero]

                              Do these things even turn?

Yes. He's a knucklehead. I never had problems with mine.

[Kneescrubber]

                              Do these things even turn?

He was busy posing for his picture.  

[black hills]

he should take lessons from this guy:

[falconati]

you like banging your head against the wall

on a side note I had a brief discussion yesterday with a guy about truck mileage. He stated:

if I drive across the state at 80mph I get 14mpg, if you drive at 60mph and get 18mpg I still use less gas because your trucks engine was running for an extra hour.......I just agreed, somethings you just can't argue with

Oh my god!    Somebody give that man a promotion!

[TBone]

on a side note I had a brief discussion yesterday with a guy about truck mileage. He stated:

if I drive across the state at 80mph I get 14mpg, if you drive at 60mph and get 18mpg I still use less gas because your trucks engine was running for an extra hour.......I just agreed, somethings you just can't argue with

If I were drunk enough that would make total sense.  

[veefer800canuck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOGQ-HePrT8

Keith Code's video is... Not entirely forthcoming. That rider didn't actually move his weight all that far; he's remaining very central to the bike's mass. If you hang your weight way out, you can, in fact "steer" a bike with weight. But you're NOT circumventing counter steering... you're simply initiating it in different - and VERY inefficient - manner.

My god... Why do I keep posting in this asinine thread?  

I have played around on a bike in the past, riding solo, sitting back on the passenger seat, cruise control engaged, no hands on the bars. You can make a SLIGHT directional change by simply leaning to one side, or even sticking one arm straight out to the side. But it is VERY SLIGHT.

Certainly nowhere near what I would call "cornering", nor does it give you any real feeling of controllability.

[ajf]

    Hi folks.  It's the physicist some of you like to hate.

    I don't read many threads or post much here anymore - most of the people who were really helpful in fixing my mistakes have left too.  But there are several sincere fellows here involved in motorcycle training who have only part of the picture of how countersteering works, and I would like to try to help them in their duties by suggesting a more complete picture.

    Two basic mechanisms have been proposed in this thread.  I'll try to explain briefly how each works so we're on the same page.  Then I'll try to explain how both are correct, and are more important in different speed ranges.  Finally I will add something I thought of while reading this thread which cleared up a minor mystery for me and might do the same for others.

    One mechanism doesn't have a simple name, but in essence holds that if you steer the front wheel to one side the bike falls over to the other side.  You can look at this in different ways.  Because the front of the bike starts to follow a curve to one side while the bike is vertical, centrifugal force causes it to roll (lean) to the other side.  Or, the centre of mass is no longer centred over the wheels so the bike falls over.  I think the first one makes more sense, but the the latter seems to be favored by proponents of this mechanism.  This pretty obviously works at low to moderate speeds (say, 10 - 60 mph) when you can easily turn the bars a substantial distance.  There are some calculations you can easily find on Wikipedia which show that the rolling force this mechanism generates is sufficient to account for leaning into a curve in this speed range.

    The other mechanism is the gyroscopic effect.  If you turn the wheel in one direction, a gyroscopic reaction occurs that tries to roll the bike in the other direction.  The problem with this mechanism is that at low to moderate speeds there isn't enough force available to roll the bike as quickly as we know it can be rolled, as shown by the Wikipedia calculations mentioned above.  However, at high speeds it is very difficult to turn the front wheel, so it is hard to see how the first mechanism does much.  At speeds above 100 mph I think almost all of the roll must arise from the gyroscopic effect.  And, conveniently, gyroscopic forces rise rapidly as the wheel rotation speed increases.  Between 60 and 100 mph both effects contribute appreciably to the roll.

    I haven't repeated those calculations because they agree with what I already thought.  So there is a chance that whoever wrote it got the numbers wrong.  (Certainly he/she got some other stuff wrong, such as the importance of the camber effect.)    

    Finally, I was wondering why the steering toughens up progressively as speeds increase above 50 mph (plus or minus a bit, depending on the bike).  I had assumed that this was the result of the first mechanism fading and the gyroscopic effect becoming more important, and that's just how much force you need on the bars to make it work.  But thinking more carefully, I realized that the act of rolling causes its own, separate gyroscopic effect on the front wheel.  That effect tries to turn the bars in the same direction as the roll, which opposes your countersteering pressure.  For the same roll rate, the faster you go the greater this gyroscopic effect on steering becomes, and I think this is mainly what makes the bars feel heavier as your speed increases.

[Ramseybella]

[sprint_st]

There is a guy from N.Ga that has a forum name that covers this topic completely: eFnJustRide!!!  If someone doesn't believe in counter steering, so fricken what    Are you taking Physics 101 or running the Cherohala Skyway?  Personally, I think too many of that crowd who don't believe in counter steering had way too many synapses destroyed by ethanol to understand their rear weal goes forward  

[Thunderbox]

WTF is that counter steering thing you guys talk about?  
Next you'll be telling us we can use the front brakes?  

Not unless you want to fly over the handle bars!!!!!

[miles]

on a side note I had a brief discussion yesterday with a guy about truck mileage. He stated:

if I drive across the state at 80mph I get 14mpg, if you drive at 60mph and get 18mpg I still use less gas because your trucks engine was running for an extra hour.......I just agreed, somethings you just can't argue with

I used a similar argument with an officer who pulled me over for speeding.  I told him that I had to ride fast, because  I was almost out of gas and only had just enough fuel to make it to the gas station if I really hurried.

He thought about it for a minute, then let me go with a verbal warning.  Evidently he had a rule that he lets go anybody who can come up with an excuse he's never heard before.

[PatM]

Not unless you want to fly over the handle bars!!!!!

Ah!!! I thought so.  

[Giaka]

if I drive across the state at 80mph I get 14mpg, if you drive at 60mph and get 18mpg I still use less gas because your trucks engine was running for an extra hour.......I just agreed, somethings you just can't argue with

Delaware?