2017

Y-YUO A SHIT!

gyroscopes are insufficient to explain bicycles. You can cancel out the gyroscope effect and still ride a bicycle. It's dumb from first principles too, there's not nearly enough mass in bicycle wheels to generate enough torque to keep a bike upright.

Constant balance corrections by the rider are critical, aided by the angle of the front forks.

Net force is zero

kek

Oh jeez I think this is my future

>mfw /sci is too brainlet to explain OP that the theory on how to maintain balance on a bicycle is a system of three complex differential equations that much of the time is indeterminate.

Even a philosophy major like me knows that shit.

>watch this piece of shit but visually 10/10 show
>MC uses a melee gun

>recently competed a degree at Reading University

>competed

the rider automatically balances it and/or gyroscopic precession

>gyroscopic precession
Not quite.

Here's my attempt

A bicycle rider falling on their side would mean that the center of mass would have to travel at a larger distance than just going straight and that falling over would actually require more energy.

they don't unless a cyclist is on it to use his muscles and balance it.

A rider is unneeded.
youtube.com/watch?v=PXRQdWG9FuM

also, some of the force acting perpendicular to the bike would get "absorbed" by the spinning wheels

Jesus fuck, you guys, this is PHYS 101 stuff. No diff eq. or gyroscopes needed. As something rotates, it has more rotational velocity. This makes it harder to rotate it in an opposing, perpendicular direction i.e. torque, making it more stable the faster you go. Why are brainlets making it so unnecessarily complicated?

Thank god, someone understands

that's literally gyroscopes you pinass

No, gyroscopes can assume any axis of rotation for balance, and often break often and easily, as they can be used for balance. Same concept, not the same thing. Sorta like a flywheel on an engine. Unless you can point to a gyroscope on a bike, I disagree.

Too bad bicycles with zero spin angular momentum still balance.

You have a point. I thought we were talking about in motion, but I don't mind admitting I'm wrong.

We are talking about in motion.

gyroscopes require two points of motion to function right?
Well the first point of motion is the bike.
The second is hidden inside the earth itself where the center of gravity is.
Underground.

babby doesn't unnerstan how to Google

Enlighten me.

>muh gyroscopic effects

how many attempts did they make until they got the desired result?

I assume not many, it's pretty easy.
If you have a bike go try it.

One, because it's basically impossible to not do.

As long as the bike has sufficient velocity, it will stay upright on a flat surface. When the bike starts to tilt to the side, the front wheel will turn to that side, ensuring the center of mass stays in the center (in terms of left and right) of the bike.

Scientists btfo.

...

>experimental physicist

centripetal force + autostabilizing due to one fixed wheel

i highly doubt a bike with two turnable wheels would stay straight for long

>autostabilizing due to one fixed wheel
That's not every descriptive.

It's autostabilization

the front wheel is canted for a reason, as any tilt in that direction will naturally cause the wheel to go in that direction, stabilizing the bicycle. gyroscopic effect does not play nearly as large a role as that.

just because you can't understand bicycles doesn't mean others can't.

physicist here, aero's the only guy who'd actually be capable of doing it

the rest of the people would tell him how to fix it if the cables were massless and the elevator had a uniform mass distribution

>scientists still don't understand how bicycles stay upright
They do you dumb middleschool retarded weeb.

You mean stays over the base of support

>the badoonga hypothesis
>smart people
HOLY FUCK M8 YOU WENT OVER THE LINE WITH THAT ONE WHAT WHERE YOU THINKING M8

The answer has almost nothing to do with gyroscopes, and even without gyroscopes it's fairly simple high school stuff - if you paid any attention during the most elementary physics courses in motion available you would know the answer.

As the bicycle tilts to any one side, it wants to steer in that direction, because the wheels are circular. Anything going in circular motion has some centripetal force that keeps it in that circular motion - in this case, friction on the back and front tires. Friction points towards the center of the circle, and because the center of the mass of the bicycle is above the bike, the resultant torque acts to straighten out the thing.

You can mess around with varying the parameters and you'll notice that tighter circles mean greater force, so that leaning more will actually force you to straighten more, and leaning less will cause you to straighten less - the torque is a restoring force. Similarly, increasing velocity increases force by a factor of velocity squared, so going just a bit faster increases the correctional force by a factor of 2, which explains why it's so difficult to stay upright at a crawling speed and much easier once you get up to speed.

As long as the correctional torque is greater than the torque of gravity, then the bike will stay upright. You should note that this does not mean drive a heavier bike - torque provided by gravity also depends linearly on m, and will act just as well against you as for you in terms of stability.

Wrong you can build a bike without that cant and it will stabilize.
It's not that simple.

Caster angle

>philosophy major
TELL ME OF YOUR LIFE
I am about to embark on the same education, switching from nautical science (driving big boats) because I fucked up on the color vision test. Always wanted to do philosophy, mostly for my own sake.

He means you are a retard.

Yes they do, faggot.
Get over it.

...

Sauce?

Sorry user, I saved it off 4chin

You can build a bike without it.
No they don't.

Infinite regret because the only thing in philosophy that can have a shot at certainty of mathematical truths is analytic philosophy, and if you wanna do that just do math instead.

If it were only this mechanism only it would be just as easy to balance standing still as it would riding.

But can scientists explain this???

no... they fucking don't.

reality is too much for a scientist to comprehend. they have to abstract it into numbers so they can do their autismal bullshit and convince people they're smart

Looks like Bleach to me

>Attention whore is attention whoring
Solved