Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Science of cycling still largely mysterious
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 13:56:26 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <fa3s2ktt92vibb9ue60hv738q4ri8hi6se@4ax.com>
References: <100i80u$2aalg$1@dont-email.me> <s8fp2kphnrt2dkh54n522cvqi3ur2bp2l1@4ax.com> <100iphn$2doci$1@dont-email.me> <sAmXP.499101$lbbb.180253@fx18.iad> <100l0mu$2u9tq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 19:56:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b545e77e1bd0b9b2428711db6949d2c";
	logging-data="3119163"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SmAbty1qiS9AxMPV8or0eO9e3A3II4s8="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6fDhZ3nN7GfKRxC5A5vWRtiLV80=

On Wed, 21 May 2025 12:58:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/21/2025 11:47 AM, cyclintom wrote:
>> On Tue May 20 16:43:34 2025 Frank Krygowski  wrote:
>>> On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
>>>>>
>>>>> This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
>>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
>>>>
>>>> As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I
>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff
>>>> I have no need to know.
>>>
>>> Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
>> 
>> What is unknown about bicycling? Even you know that balancing on a bicycle is based upon balancing on two feet...
>
>Tom, you have no idea how much there is that you don't know. Try reading 
>some of the work done by Jim Papadopoulos, who's probably the most 
>prominent researcher on bicycle dynamics. People have been studying 
>bicycle dynamics for many decades, trying to get precise understanding. 
>Science is not there yet.
>
>Obviously, we can build bikes of roughly conventional geometry and have 
>them work well; but that's not due to precise engineering analysis. It's 
>been done through a long history of trial and error leading to rules of 
>thumb.


Unless a person is designing bicycles, that information is not worth
bothering with.

--
C'est bon
Soloman