Now to annoy the authors of this video, everybody will comment after me, and all the specialists and researchers who've studied this; here is why a bicycle is stable. The traditional bicycle is stable because of one thing so often overlooked because it is very simple and baser in the physics of its movement. Conservation of energy. We have a rigid body connected to two wheels; this system then has two modes of conservation of energy acting on the same system. The first is the overall mass of the bike, which is primarily centered quite low to the ground on the crankshaft of the peddles, the drive chain, and gearing. A full 60% of a bikes weight is in the wheels or found well below the mid-point of its height. The wheels themselves are also rotating, that is to say, falling, which means once put into motion they have a constant pull of gravity on the leading edge of rotation. Conservation of energy states that since the entire wheel is rotating in the plane of the gravitational pull, the sum of the force should negate, but when examined from just the front edge of the wheel, gravity is accelerating and thus assisting the forward rotation and fall of the wheel. There is a third mode of conservation of energy if we're dealing with inflated tires on a wheel, which is fluid dynamics, but this influence is so minimal that it's not worth mentioning. In fact, every single thing that happens to keep a bicycle stable when no new energy is put into the system from an outside source (e.g. a rider) comes down to conservation of energy and the continual act of falling which is converted into rotational energy in the wheels. The more efficient the bearings on the wheels are, the longer it will remain stable. When the bike starts to lose stability and fall, causing the front tire to turn, the falling energy is converted into mechanical energy into the wheel. It isn't gyroscopic effect, it isn't load bearing effect and relative placement, it is simply the conservation of energy transforming falling energy into mechanical energy.
@@XtomJamesExtra Conservation of energy would only keep a 2-wheeler in forward motion, or if it where in a vacuum without touching an uneven ground. Forward momentum does not inlude a stability feedback mechanism;
The equations to prove the Torso-Arms-Handlebar feedback system have been in my father's Mechanical Engineering Master thesis since the 70s. Basically: as long as the rider's sense of equilibrium makes him stand straighter than the apparent vertical (including side vectors when turning) this creates an automatic countersteering to stay upright, even in curves. It's all detailed here; dynamik23.com/home-2/2wheels/ and it even works with no canter and replacing the wheels by ice skates... BTW, he is the current senior world champion in mountain biking thanks to this knowledge of curve stability ;-) www.velirium.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/COM_Masters_Post-event_EN.pdf
@@brunoethier896 Rule one in science; the more complicated the answer the more likely it is false (Occam's razor). All one needs to do to see I'm correct is actually examine a bicycle as it rolls forward without any other forces acting on it besides gravity. We're not talking about when a rider is onboard.
The force of the friction against the pavement is more powerful than the pull of gravity on either end. That's why. Or rather it's the application of force onto the ground. When it is uniform it moves forward because wheels don't stand still if the weight is unevenly distributed across the whole of the body. Mathematicians at Cambridge and M.I.T. may fail hard at bike physics because they "Tri-Hard" to make it a complicated problem, but the actual equation is no different than the equation to determine if a building is top heavy or if it will stand straight up and won't tip over. They just get confused because "wheels move" while "foundations don't". The force on the foundation of a building won't cause it to roll, but the force on a wheel will cause it to roll.
@@samwalker7666 am I alone here when this video seems like a joke on its creator? Is the next video going to be "People still cant solve the mystery of where water comes from, and why it never runs out" lol
I just taught my 2 kids to ride their bikes last weekend, it’s amazing to watch them find their balance and know once you find it, you will always have it.
fun fact: larger bikes are easier to ride just like it's easier to drive straight on higher speeds (until your bike starts rattling and the wind feels like it's tearing you apart...driving record breakingly fast can be dangerous) be nice to your kids, they have a much harder time learning on their heavy, unstable lil bikes. i know some people who teach their kids before they even go to school, i myself only took off the side wheels at around age 9 or so, bc i was finally tall enough for a decently large kids' bike.
really though it has nothing to do with their balance, but them finding the balance of the moving bicycle. That's why once you figure out how to ride a bike, you can't forget, it's the same on every bike.
Now you can buy your kid a styder bike, like the wooden bicycle in the video. They can push it with their feet and learn balance and counter steer. Much more effective than training wheels.
@@Steve_Milo that's not funny, giving the impression you can give a fuck about science and somehow make it work, which you can't! Especially in this pandemic this became apparent! Facts are facts!
Yeah but rotating motion is so weird it gets interesting again. Get a bike wheel on a long axle held only one side. Spin it and it won't fall over, and it feels like a UFO.
isnt that just a gyroscope? it feels like a ufo because of inertia, it wants to keep itself in the place that it is rather than use energy, and the rotating motion perpetuates its position
@@danielboone8435 That's an half right theory. Yes, an object in motion stays in motion but that's not the mystery here. Not only does that bike stay in motion but it keeps the same parameters. It stays stable and upright. I mean, I am fairly certain that at least a handful of those people who studied the issue had heard about the first law of motion. So, we can safely assume that this is not the answer...
@@whocareswhoiam6637 i personally think they're thinking too hard about it. maybe the should come up with a new word to describe the force of a wheel rolling? let's call it the boone force. the boone force>than gravity
@@danielboone8435 I do believe they're thinking too much about it but the entire point is to answer the question "why". Inventing a new word and saying it happens just because doesn't really help them.
I was around seven when my dad bought me a bicycle and attempted to teach me how to ride it. He spent hours and finally gave up in disgust. In ten minutes, without dad there, I figured it out and within an hour on my own, I was pretty good at it. How to ride a bicycle is difficult to explain to another person, they just have to figure it out because of being somewhat intuitive.
My dad’s method of teaching was to get us started at the top of a hill (not a very steep one). The bike will just go, and once you reach the bottom of the hill, you just start pedaling.
I forget who, but some adult in my life just put me on the bike and then pushed it down a slight slope towards a basketball court, I then rode uncontrolled into a basketball game.
After trying to distract myself from the fact that I've had three bicycles stolen from my shed today, the youtube algorithm puts this in my autoplaylist.
That’s crazy I just got three free bikes, someone just left them in a shed, I was so excited about them and then this video showed up in my recommended
I slammed to the side of the hood of a moving car at a crossroad as a kid (w/ my bike), and it wasn't very stable at all. Neither was I, as I lunged over the steering bar.
In many ways, the bicycle was really far far ahead of its time. We don't fully understand how it works. But it does work, it's simple and robust and reliable.
Its technology from a previous civilization just like all the Churches, breweries, train stations, mental asylums, collages, most government buildings all claim to be built in 1800s. which are GIAGANTIC. with only horse and buggy and no power tools? the narrative time line for our civilization doesn't work out. this is a great example, of "founded" technologies, not invented. we inherited this realm or stole it, not sure which.
The bycicle corrects itself because when it starts falling the front wheel turns becesue heavier part of wheel falls into that side making a turn and changes its direction into falling side which turning creates centrifugal force on bike that brings it in straight stance, and a heavier part of wheel falls which centers it again. Esencialy what happens is imagine it like being in a car and then lean left before turning left, it will throw you on right side, that ehat happens to the bod of a bike
Simon, No one says “..easy as riding a bike” People say both: “Just like riding a bike” -in reference to activities easily picked back up after one has not engaged in them in a long while. And “Easy as falling off a horse”
I’ve heard “[easy as] falling off a log” and “get back on the horse that threw you” but never quite “easy as falling off a horse.” but i 100% agree there is no saying “easy as riding a bike.” “it’s like riding a bike-once you learn, you never forget” applies to internalized knowledge and skills which don’t require conscious effort to recall. between the upfront ad and the goofy writing, i didn’t make it very far into the video.
Engineer 1: Just created this incredible, affordable, simple vehicle, made of, like, 5 moving parts. Then we improved on it for over a hundred years. Engineer 2: Cool! how does it work? Engineer 1: idk lol
Ever seen a gyroscope? As it spins, the effect of gravity on one side is canceled out by the other side rising against the fulcrum. On a bicycle the gyroscope is on its side and the frame sits upon the fulcrum and thus negates the effect, BUT the angle of the front fork causes the wheel to turn against the direction the frame begins to fall, making a second and mechanical gyroscopic effect (the 'caster effect' he appears to dismiss) that works to align the frame so that momentum can carry it forward while the wheels facilitate momentum. It's not one singular effect, but the trinity of leverage assisting directional momentum assisted by gyroscopic momentum.
@@shadowswept9167 Except that they removed 2 of those effects and it still stayed upright. Not to mention that a single wheel without bicycle attached does the same thing. It's just momentum really, forward momentum is stronger than gravity pulling either side. As soon as it slows enough for that to not be true... it falls.
@@Ishlacorrin Nah, single wheel (or monocycle) takes its "operator" a.k.a. a clown to wiggle and jiggle his upper torso in order to stay in balance. And even there, gyroscopic effect is what is keeps it moving forward without falling. You have to understand that forward momentum is being translated to gyroscopic effect that counteracts gravity as soon wheel swivels.
@@urosmarjanovic663 I'm talking a wheel on it's own, no bike, no rider... you ever see one get thrown from something? They just keep going till they slow down and fall over. Without external issues like a poor surface or obstacles that is.
@@Ishlacorrin Fair enough, in a single wheel it's a momentum, but also gyro effect. Gyro effect is, in fact, one of the mechanisms of preserving that said momentum.
The hope I take away from this video is that we engineer a faster-than-light drive before we ever figure out if FTL travel is in any way theoretically possible.
LOL we already know that a reactionless drive is technically possible by spinning up a flywheel and using relativity to impart an impulse. We don’t know how to build it yet that’s where bicycle scientists will have to come in
The only saying does not go, "as easy as riding bike." The old saying is, "it's like riding a bike." ..Not because it's easy, but because if you learn how to do something (ride a bike), even if it's been a long time since you've done it, you can pick it up again as if you've never stopped. That principle tends to apply to many things, and so the saying was born.
True. I've been to a couple of adult learn-to-ride sessions with Bike New York and haven't mastered it. Since they take the pedals off these bikes to make it about balance, I should try to do it like the guy in the film clip Simon keeps showing next time I have the opportunity.
@@scottandrewhutchins But it is not about balance... The bicycle wants to stay upright. I have heard it is something like surfing... The faster you go, the easier it is to stay upright.
I haven't driven a vehicle in a decade. All I do is bicycle. I'll bike up the mountain tops in colorado. From Kansas. I bike all my groceries home on my back. I'm constantly burning through bike parts. Just like cars, they fall apart. I bike to work I bike for leisure I bike for any and all appointments. I have an intimate understanding of how a bicycle behaves. With impeccable balance the bike doesn't even have to move. If you're really good you can remain balanced immobile indefinitely. As soon as a stationary bike has spinning wheels it's already gaining stability (not full stability) by angular momentum. Not gyroscopic precession. The precession actually destabilizes you. The precession is the twisting upon it's axis as friction is applied to a point on the axis. the ratio of the mass of the wheels to the mass of everything else and center of gravity are key. My 29inch wheels bike is stable at slower speeds than my 20inch wheels. Also my 20 inch wheels can cut a hard corner at high speed. 29 inch wheels at sufficiently high speed you can't physically push that handlebar to do anything but minor course corrections. Anyone with a motorcyle knows what I mean. That's angular momentum. Everything moving in a straight path forward resists a change of direction proportional to its velocity. Here's a key component literally everybody has overlooked. Ready? The bicycle is a twin axle vehicle. Yes just like your car. Each wheel has an axle albeit not a very wide one. So your application of forces works in tandem across both sides of the fork. You can't think of a bicycle two dimensionally and expect to solve the math problem. When you steer right you're not twisting a center point of the wheel. You're pushing the left for forward and pulling the right fork backwards. Which torques the entire wheel from both ends of a gyroscopic axis. The back wheel acts as a gyroscope mounted in a fixed position and trailing along for the ride. That's two independent systems working together. The fixed rear gyro. The front fork working across an axle. You could imagine each wheel is actually two conjoined rims with a round bubble between them. The tread is variable. Some treads are rather flat effectively granting two beads of traction or "tracks" or "trails" or whatever the video just said. A cross section of an inflated tube is only round if it's not pressing against anything. The weight of the bike already widens out a path of contact more indicative of a small circle than a point. A fatass atop the bike with reduce tube pressure would initiate a a rather large plane of contact with the ground. This is important. Friction with the ground also causes stability. Send an empty bike careening forward angling off to one side and see what happens when it hits an oil slick. Yes the bottom flies out from under itself. Suddenly all stability was lost. My knees know. Don't ever bank a hard turn over a patch of fresh new smooth cement with loose sand on it. You'll learn a lesson or two in gravity real quick.
I only recently got a car a few months ago, 40 years old and never owned one. Main reason I have one now is to have the ability for my husband and I to move across the country to live with chosen family, and to save us money elsewise. I do still bike when I can though.
Jeff, I believe you have it figured out, more or less. The variation of the contact patch and where it occurs on the surface of the tire is the key to understanding why a bike will self stabilize. Gyroscopic precession and the castering effect of the front wheel do help in dictating where that contact patch is on the tire, but they're not the primary factor for a self-stabilizing bike. That's why it's possible to make a stable bike without those features, provided you allow the system the same ability to vary the contact patch. Imagine a bike with entirely flat tires (not deflated, just flat, like a car tire)...the moment it leans from a vertical position and destabilizes, that contact patch is now on the very edge of the tire, and it's off from the centerline of the tire itself. All of the frictional drag caused by the ground is thereby concentrated to the left of the wheel's steering axis, which means the drag will naturally turn the fork toward the contact patch, which is conveniently the same direction one must turn to right the bicycle. This is also the same effect that causes a car tire to steer up over a curb if you scrub the edge of the tire against it, like when you're trying to park close to a curb and the tire inadvertently rubs it, suddenly the wheel jerks out of your hand and steers you right over the curb. Same for when you're driving through road construction and they have a small change in height between lanes that pulls you toward it. The contact patch suddenly changed from being centered directly below the tire to the side of the tire, and that created a force that steers the tire toward it. Same concept with a bike, except the ground is always changing that angle based on how much you're leaning into a turn. It's not as obvious as a curb, but it's identical, just to a lesser degree. The more you lean, the more that patch moves to the side, and the more the tire wants to turn toward it. Once the wheel has turned sufficiently enough to right the bicycle, the contact patch once again becomes centered and steering forces are neutral. Of course, there's often a small oscillation with riderless bikes where the front wheel goes left and right until it settles straight again, but that's just exhibiting positive stability. Your observation about losing stability when traction is lost demonstrates that without the friction of the contact patch influencing steering direction of the tire, a bike cannot self-stabilize. If science really hasn't figured that out to this day, like this video implies, then science should truly be ashamed of itself.
This is what I thought this video would be about. Not, we don't know. We do know they work and why they work. We can explain everything. And by we, I mean people that understand the forces a bicycle undergoes
Good to see another that is familiar with the high sciences. Magic was discovered in a collider as a particle known as a magitron. It is what keeps planes in the sky and bicycles upright. Since the discovery that gravity is an illusion, the particle known as the gravitron might actually be an anti-magitron and thus balancing and often cancelling the magitrons effects.
@Jan Brady i feel part of it has to do with the rareness of sharp corners on the front edges of the bike, making air resistance actually help as well. the rounded tire and frame is possibly creating a small envelope around the bike, assisting in it staying upright. .. we may need to wind tunnel test a bike on a treadmill...
Angular momentum of the wheels reduces any lateral forces applied on the bike, making it easier to balance on. The bike becomes more resistant to lateral forces the heavier the wheel is and the faster the wheels turn.
@@Oridemic This is the exact same conclusion that I came to when I was wondering about this later this day. The inertia of the wheels and equal distribution of mass explain the phenomena. The question is why should the bike fall down?
"Allowing all four wheels of a shopping cart to steer at once." That's funny. The rear wheels are fixed. And in my experience, there is always one front wheel that does whatever the fuck it wants to. EDIT: I'm informed that in some parts of the world shopping carts (trollies, buggies, caddies) have four castering wheels. Great for drifting around corners I assume.
we actually figured the bumblebee thing out. it's because they flap their wings in such a way that they provid a little bit of lift on the upwards movement as well as on the downwards.
Trying to just understand the fundamentals of science has been absolutely torturous to some. Science and maths are tools for understanding. They don’t just tell you truths, though; you have to do the work yourself using those tools. And no real scientist uses absolutes in their conclusions or uses words like “consensus”. The scientific method doesn’t allow for such things because its end goal is truth , as opposed to just making someone feel good because they don’t think that they’re ignorant of that certain thing anymore. I know your post is supposed to be somewhat humorous but it perpetuates ignorance. You’re misrepresenting that scientists don’t still have questions about the beginning of the universe. And also, just because science hasn’t produced all the answers doesn’t mean that we should throw out the scientific progress that has been made. We can enjoy riding bikes without understanding exactly how they work scientifically.
@@dadgadify I agree with you. I think the problem isn't the scientists themselves, but more the way science is taught. In school they teach about evolution and the theories on how the universe came to be. But the way its presented is very absolute. As if the origins of life and the universe are already known and we are really just working out some of the small questions. Its all taught as fact, even though they use the word theory. And if you question it at all you must be too stupid to understand science, or you are anti-science. In many ways science has started to become a religion of sorts to people who aren't religious. Not the actual scientists of course, but many others.
@@Adamant4160 "It's all taught as fact even though they use the word theory" "you must be too stupid to understand science, or are anti-science".... I feel like your anecdotes are common misconceptions that just spread because... something in hollywood... or from someone who never set foot in any academic setting let alone a general biology course. Whos calling who stupid ? Scientists calling people stupid? Calling someone anti-science if they dont agree with them? What!? Where are you getting these statements from? This couldn't be further from the truth even in actual literature. Scientists debate the theory of evolution with each other constantly. Even the origins of life are widely debated amongst scientists. You are able to be critical in the classroom just fine, as long as you can rationalize your statement with evidence. Exams in biology for these kind of questions are open for interpretation, as long as you provide a sufficient answer and reasoning for them.
@@Granulomacure I was just speaking from personal experience. That's how science was taught to me. No teacher actually called me or others stupid, but that was certainly the vibe. And like I was saying, it's not the fault of actual scientists, it's the teachers teaching it. Also, I didn't mention it in the above post but I'm mainly speaking of elementary school and middle school level of science class. Once I got into higher levels of science it was different. I am speaking from personal experience, but I do know of many people who have had the same experience.
maybe every different design means it is a different vehicle. Since it changes some of the variables so wouldn't it be best to treat each case as a separate study rather than unifying it.
"Science is inherently interesting, but writing things down is boring." - Jim Papadopoulos Even without reading his ridiculous surname, you could tell this man has Greek heritage from that quote alone.
My theory is that that behaviour is by design. If shoppers were given trolleys that allowed them to reach the checkout quickly, they wouldn't spend munny on other things.
That also has something to do with how the wheels are actually attached to the cart. You have control over the front wheel because the front wheel is directly connected to the handle bars. But there are also other factors which allow it to stay balanced. The reason humans struggle is more to do with the human and their balance/lack of confidence paired with trying to start slow. That’s one reason it’s easier for people to learn when there’s someone helping them balance as they get up to speed. Fear is one of the main contributors to a person not being able to learn how to ride a bicycle. Makes people shaky and sometimes do opposite of what they’re supposed to do/ want to do.
I think it's in part due to the minor gyroscopic force of the two rotating wheels and the self correcting is a moment of force. Where the front wheel can't topple the rest of the bike so the rear end straightens the front tire. The opposing weight of the rear end counter balances the front. It is a bit more complicated than that, but thats basically it. If you fix the steering of a bike it would fall over, the ease of movement in the front wheel is in part the cause of the self corrections.
@@TheTommyCraft 6:50 they built a bike that had eliminated the castor effect and was supposed to eliminate the gyroscopic effect, but it remained stable. There is no mention of fixing the front steering. You don't turn a bikes handle bars to steer it effectively, you lean, without a lean it stays upright until its momentum can no longer support the moment of force to correct the steering.
There's not a single force that keeps a bicycle upright in motion. It's a combination of forces. If you were to eliminate gyroscopic procession and run a bicycle on a treadmill, it would become far less stable, becoming completely dependent on the auto righting feature of the angle of the fork. When a motorcycle achieves high enough speeds to overcome its aerodynamic engineering, the air pressures overcome the gyroscopic procession and the bike becomes unstable. You're basically combining the forces of a gyroscope, a paper airplane and pendulum when you are riding a bike. (Gyroscope = wheels, paper airplane = air pressures due to the flat plane design of the vehicle, and pendulum = the steering angle and its predisposition to right it self /fall to center)
@@jamesgibson5876 that has to do with the front wheel being out of round or alignment. Significant enough speed will cause your tire to expand from centrifugal force, and since they're not perfect, they will eventually be out of round which becomes progressively worse as it will then become out of balance as well until your speed is reduced. That's why when you get speed wobbles, you must accelerate to reduce stress/deformation of the front tire to stabilize it before decelerating.
@@zg1k68 I don't think there's enough speed to make tires expand from centrifugal force when people ride their bikes in the common day, maybe for pro cyclists I would consider that to be true, but for a common person riding their bike and that is not in a hurry I'd say no.
Routing algorithm likes videos over ten minutes. Look at many big TH-camrs. They have so many 11 to 15 minute videos that could be done in 5 minutes at most
One property that was not mentioned is the fact that the geometry of the front steering is arranged so that when the steering is turned, the center of gravity of the bicycle is raised. This effect will give a self-steering effect as the raised weight will try to go back to the minimum height when the steering is not turned. This is achieved by arranging for the castor angle to set its hinge line such that the hinge line projected line will project down to meet close to the point of contact of the wheel with the ground. There are other factors to consider. The turning of the steering will displace laterally the centre of gravity of the bicycle so that CG oscillates about the line on the ground joining the front and back wheels. It is this oscillation of the center of gravity of the bicycle about the line joining the point of ground contact of the front and back wheel. All this is related to a tight rope walker riding a bicycle on the rope handling his own weight shift or that of a pole. Rather than turning the steering wheel to change the center of gravity about the tight rope, all the driver does is change his weight above the tight rope laterally to the tight rope below him. Since the footprint below a bicycle is always a thin line then the center of gravity must always oscillate about the line. All one needs to do to check this is to keep the bicycle stationary and turn the wheel to the right or left and one can easily note that the center of gravity is changing. Also, the steering of a bicycle needs to be turned in the direction of the fall WHERE THE RATE OF CHANGE OF THE TURNING OF THE HANDLEBARS MUST BE FASTER THAN THE RATE OF FALL OF THE WEIGHT. I find it difficult to believe that the mathematicians of the earlier centuries could not see these three-dimensional mathematics. Note that the self-steering of a car is related to what was said above. The weight is lifted when the wheels are turned and when the steering wheel is free the weight of the car will drop down to the minimum height which is when the front wheels are pointing straight ahead. It is very interesting that the projected hinge line with the point of contact changes with the inflation of the tires and so one should keep the tires blown up at the right pressure, for there are situations when the steering is turned beyond an angle the steering becomes unstable and does not return to facing the front, When trying to understand the steering of a bicycle or a car, do all movements very slowly as there are at least three procedures going on at the same time. Note again the raising of the CG which this video did not mention. Note that the gyroscopic effect of the rotating wheels of the bike is minor and can be totally eliminated at the slow speed we normally ride. It is the shifting of the CG about the line of wheel contact with the ground and the rate at which the handle is turned with respect to the falling of the CG. so that the CG jumps over the line joining the contacts points with the ground of the front and back wheel.
Yes, gyroscopic effect is minimal and NOT responsible for bicycle stability. "Steer into the fall" is. With proper head tube angle, wheel offset, and resulting trail, a bicycle is stable. THIS is what's responsible for it. It's a "caster-wheel" design that's very effective.
I mean isn't this just the same thing that makes your steering wheel return to a straight position in your car if you continue to accelerate through a turn and let go of the wheel?
The most important thing I learned working in bike shops was how little most people know about their bikes. The second most important thing I learned was how to not be a dick about that. (Edit: I'm surprised this comment is still getting replies. Seems like a lot of people found my comment to be judgmental. It's not. Theres plenty of things I don't know and plenty of jobs I'd rather have a pro do.)
That doesn’t work when you’re riding in the backcountry. Gotta know how to work on it then. But I know what you’re talking about. I worked in bike shops in college and it was mind blowing how many yuppies owned $5000 bikes and never bothered to learn how they work. They just took them to a shop when things didn’t work right.
@@Drteomas I see no reason why Nobel prize in Physics is not achievable. Of course its sound always less impressive than some astrophysics. But if you get it right I think you will get the recognition for it.
@@Drteomas Give me a valid reason why it will never happen. “All of my remaining realisable assets are to be disbursed as follows: the capital, converted to safe securities by my executors, is to constitute a fund, the interest on which is to be distributed annually as prizes to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind. The interest is to be divided into five equal parts and distributed as follows: one part to the person who made the most important discovery or invention in the field of physics; one part to the person who made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who, in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction; and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing Many inventions have not been made during the preceding years anyway. In many parts of the world. Bicycles are infinitely more important than cars, planes or mars rovers or even solar discoveries.
I'm not sure what your getting at here, because funnily enough worrying about a gargantuan and poorly understood variety of matter that makes up 85% of our universe is probably more important than pondering on the way a bike automatically rights itself when rider-less and in motion.
@@ReaganKimberley ehhh it was a bad joke 🤷🏻♂️ I just thought the last quote was especially savage. Like dang man, settle down. We’ve got scientists who can study both!
"Whenever I see a preschool child learn to ride a bicycle in 30 minutes, I have hope for humanity.” They don't know it's supposed to be difficult the learn.. By Me :-)
After seeing this video, I have to wonder: is the same true if you propel the bike with the back wheel first (obviously allowing it to spin freely this way). Something tells me that the bike will be terribly unstable if you try that, but that might just be due to reverse cycl'ology.
As someone who rides a bicycle very regularly (yes, I am Dutch), this was really fascinating. I had no clue there are people actually trying to improve upon the standard design, nor did I know said design was as old as it is!
Just a month ago had a bad accident with it (i mean with my bike, siclocated shoulder, fractured bone). Cant wait to actually be able to ride again, even if its just in the city. :)))
Did a class project on bicycle stability in Mech. Engineering class--it's surprisingly complex and difficult tho I managed to understand and explain most of it. It was entirely optimized via trial and error and can't be improved on, it can only provide trade offs between, say quick handling and high speed stability. 5 or 6 geometric/mass factors involved.
@@thecollectorsinged113 I think this was in reference to why all 4 wheels on a shopping cart/trolley can all steer at the same time? Its been a while, I'm not so sure 😂
Inaccurate. I know from experiments that only pedaling down also works. only pedalling up also works. Basically, any direction is good as long as it is clockwise when seen from the righ side of the bicycle.
There were bike-like objects before trains, but proper bicycles couldn't happen without advances in metallurgy that came out of the early industrial revolution. So trains kinda had to come first.
I'm skeptical that the counter gyroscopes disprove their effect. IT's not like a helicopter where the gyroscopic effect is to spin the copter and can just be reversed by another scope. That's not what the gyroscope in a bicycle wheel is doing
@@Sewblon I’m definitely not an expert but my guess is that 2 gyroscopes spinning in opposite directions don’t cancel each other out but are simply stabilizing themselves and in turn whatever object that they are attached to.
@@kirkretter9034 But that would imply that a bicycle with 2 sets of wheels each spinning in opposite directions would be stable. But the truth is the exact opposite.
I worked as an engineering technician for many years and I can tell you honestly we wouldn't have bicycles if someone tried to invent them today. Why, because I have run into far too many engineers with the attitude that, it didn't matter that we had a working prototype, unless we could prove the concept on paper it couldn't go into production.
we should tell those engineers to just build the thing and forget trying to explain it with science and instead explain the working principle behind it.
Some TH-camr like Colin Furze would do it anyway. Honda or somebody were all over Japanese news a while back for making a (barely stable) flying motorcycle. I was just thinking "didn't Colin Furze do that years ago?". And he didn't have millions in R&D, just a garage!
As an engineer, I find some of this to ring as rather misleading. Someone concludes that bicycles stay upright through the "caster effect" due to the front fork having a "positive trail." This does not mean that A) only two wheel things with positive trails are stable. Or B) There are no "negative trail" designs leading to stability. Physicists and engineers can easily calculate the effects of precession from the spinning wheels. We know it contributes slightly to stability. The caster effect helps self-correct a falling bike. In my mind, that explains the phenomenon fairly robustly. Because some PhD can design a two wheeled device that cancels out the gyroscopic effects of the wheels and has a "negative trail," but compensates for these design changes by having a LARGR MASS BEYOND THE FRONT WHEEL, I see absolutely no reason to then make the claim, "therefore physicists still don't know how bikes work." It screams of dishonest interpretation of the experiments. Perhaps there is more going on here; I afterall know nothing about bicycle physics. But just based on what he said and how he presented information, I feel it is rather misleading and trying to cause a stir or a mystery around something rather commonplace in hopes to spark curiosity and generate views. But this video sounds only a few degrees better than, "This one weird trick has Harvard linguists mad" to me. We could make any sort of video: "Physicists still don't understand vacuums" and then drag out the unsolved, full Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics, but what are we really saying at that point?
I started out with this channel and the ones like it, so I was actually totally taken aback by how Simon is on business blaze haha. I'm not so sure I'm a fan, but that's okay, because I have several dozens (heh) of other Simon channels to watch instead!
Very interesting that this is all on the most basic rigid bicycle on flat ground. I can’t imagine how much more difficult it would be to explain a full suspension on complicated terrain.
As a child, I remember thinking, after a long, frustrating time, what if I steer the front wheel into the direction it's starting to fall? I immediately was riding a two-wheeler on my own.
Yes, and the amazing thing is that we have all this gobbledygook and nobody tells kids to steer the front wheel into the direction it is starting to fall.
The first time a car slid on me I was towing a trailer on gravel. My dad was in the passenger seat. I was making a fairly sharp left-hand turn and felt the back end (the trailer!) continue on even after I had stopped turning (I definitely took the corner too quickly). My instinctive reaction was to immediately throw the wheel to the right and then straighten up again. Nobody had ever told me how to control a slide, but I must have remembered from all those times as a kid that we'd race our BMXs to top speed, throw them into a turn and then slam on the back brake and immediately correct the steering, creating a great sliding stop. Anyway, I pulled out of the slide and continued home. Once I had parked Dad congratulated me on my reaction and told me to take the corner more slowly next time.
I didn’t hear the conclusion as being “we don’t understand how they work”, but as, “how they work isn’t adequately or fully explained by the more simple-minded ideas.” There are equations of motion that accurately model how bicycles work, and based on that, one can do computer modeling and create innovative designs. It’s not a “mystery”-it’s just not simple.
We don’t understand how they stay upright when in motion. We do not have equations of motion that accurately predict which changes in which variables would de-stabilize them when in motion. Therefore we cannot do computer modeling to create innovative designs with 100% confidence. We are still stuck building physical prototypes to accurately determine their stability in motion. It is a mystery.
Cause he would just write, an object in motion stays in motion and would be the biggest Idiot amongst all so he says its complex and we dont understand so people that are dumber than the other 50% Fall for it
"Mathematicians began to study the physics of the bicycle." No wonder we don't understand how they work. I have heard the goofiest, most wrong explanations for real world phenomena from mathematicians. Mathemeticians that work at the same physics lab as I.
I think mathematicians go really balls deep in theory and forget that nature laws apply to the real world, that's why some things are better explained to people that actually use the tool that is math to try to create a model that "represents" our real world, engineers, for example, know that what they do is never 100% right that's why they always use safety factors for almost everything they build.
@@1mclv Seriously? Out of all significant contributors to physical sciences, you pick the one guy stating something provably false (by mathematical consensus no less) as representative of the entire profession?
@@M2orNot no lol, I think you missed my point there are several mathematicians that have done excellent work and contributed lots to science, I just pointed out why there are some wacky ones and my favorite example of one of those.
I used to work for Bicycling Magazine in the 1980's. I met of heard of at least half of those engineering types. I met one Crispin Miller, who knew (probably) all. As the low man on the totem pole, all this math boggled the mind. I learned to see geometric differences in bicycles at a glance. At this time, Mountain bikes were evolving from downhill coasters to all out performance bicycles that could handle everything Earth threw at them. The 80's were a remarkable time for the sport. As an elder, I still ride... not the 200-300 miles per week... but per year... it's a goal now. Loved this video. Will share with former coworkers.
We should sometimes come in terms with the idea that some devices are simply engineered to the point of perfection with or without our thorough understanding of how it even works. Bicycle science is boring because there's nothing much to improve on.
I think a big part of why the mystery remains is that studying it is not worth economically, since bikes anyway work. This reminds me of the theory of planes, which was at least wrongly understood and explained in pilot schools during most years of airline companies. Also, makes me think of Swifts and the fact that they seem to sleep in the air, but we have no idea of details... who would invest in researching that? The story of Papadopoulos being late even when the matter was his passion, and in the end losing it all, truly hits home :D
It’s weird man. Your brains constantly doing calculations in the background when you’re riding, learning how your velocity affects your transition through space, all subconsciously
@@mokkaveli The mind is amazing. It can do hundreds of processes in the background constantly, and yet I'll still walk into a room and forget exactly what it was I needed to do 2 minutes ago. Truly amazing.
@@urosmarjanovic663 Well he did address gyroscopic forces, and discussed proof that they aren't the stabilising factor of bicycles. He also proposed other factors such as the caster effect and how this was also proven not to contribute significantly to bike stabilisation. The original comment was rightfully lamenting a lack of included images in the video of the test contraptions used to secure these proofs, because they sound interesting. Sounds to me like you were taught information which has since been retracted, as research is still ongoing.
I’m no mathematician, but I do have a decent grasp on physics and having looked at David Jones’ bicycle, I do not believe in his assertion that gyroscopic properties are unimportant. All he did was attach a second front wheel that does not touch the ground and spins in the opposite direction, but is otherwise oriented exactly the same as the original front wheel. If this newly added wheel were to have any affect at all, I believe it would improve stability, since there is now more mass spinning about a central point on the bike. The direction that the wheel spins has no bearing on it’s ability to stay upright nor would it “cancel” the others. It seems that the gyroscopic theory working in tandem with the way a bike steers into it’s fall makes perfect sense. It doesn’t have to just be one variable that is the key to how it works. The whole bike is a system. I could be wrong but it seems like David Jones’ dismissal of gyroscopic bicycle theory is based in a lack of understanding of gyroscopes. Would love to hear thoughts.
Spinning masses have a lateral torque vector and it is related to the direction they spin, if there are 2 equal spinning masses spinning with the same velocity in opposite directions these lateral torque vectors will cancel out and inhibit gyroscopic stability
@@logangailey2997 Yes, since I made this comment I’ve been reading up because it’s been bugging me. I mistakenly believed that torque was going in both directions regardless of spin direction.
did they try a bike with a sideways facing wheel? My intuition just says that one should slighty turn either direction while staying upright. Or just tip over instantly. My intuition also tells me It's the path of least resistance that is stabilizing the bike. Ofc the gyroscopic effect, the shopping cart effect as well as aeordynamics help I guess. I.E all other directions and turning cost more energy than just going straight but at some point just falling over uses the least amount of energy. On second thought I have no clue at all, my ideas simply explain why the bike keeps going forward and not why it doesn't just keep tilting into a fall as soon as the bike starts tilting one way. [edit] changed left to either direction. no clue why i typed left.
Seems to me we don't exactly have our best minds working on the problem. Based on this story, we don't have an answer because no one competent has bothered to solve the problem.
I love how the things that break science the most aren’t the things on the frontier of human technology but its stuff like bikes and dominos and breaking spaghetti Smarter every day reference
I think as a bicycle begins to lean , the front steers causing the bike to go in a shallow turn, this caused centrifugal force to help up right the bike and restoring the balance.
That would make sense, because if you’ve ever pushed a bike really hard, you’d watch the front wheel turn back and forth out of control before collapsing to the ground all together. Centripetal force would cause sudden over correction of the wheel, throwing balance to the other side, and this process would continue until the center of balance crosses the point of contact with the wheels. I think you just solved it. But what do I know, I’m not a physicist.
Side note here, David Wilson was not the inventor of the Recumbent Bicycle, that was Charles Mochet in the 1930's. First his Velocars, then the first performance Vélo Couché. A Recumbent (Nazca Gaucho) and a Quest Velomobile are my normal bikes 😉 Taking the Gaucho to Zürich this week, cycling & camping to the Recumbent World Championships in Lustenau, Austria. All races under our own IHPVA & WHPVA organisations, because the UCI doesn't consider our vehicles legal... 😏
Think Friction. The ROLLING tire treads pulling against the STILL ground with enough speed and force to propel the bike forward, keeps the wheels upright. Same phenomenon happens with things like coins that fall out of your pocket, only to have to chase after one that happened to land upright. The act of pedaling generates, or simply pushing a bike generates these required vectors. In the case of the coin, falling generated the necessary speed and force. The most important giveaway is the fact that the surface that’s being rolled on has to be STILL. A bike won’t stand on it’s own on a treadmill, even if the wheels are spinning. This is because the treadmill belt is not only the generator of the required vectors, but it is applying them to the wheels, and not the other way around. The only way the bike will stay up in this scenario is if someone held it, or if they were brave enough to try and compensate by balancing it from a rider’s position.
@@jimhize oh yes. It’s very possible.. but it all boils down to that “brave enough to try” part though. Anybody can ride a bike, but those that can do so on “Rollers” are usually trained athletes
Yes. As a moving wheel starts to fall to its left, it will turn left. But turning left puts it at odds with its forward momentum, so it begins to topple to the right, and this repeats for the other side. Stability as long as it's moving.
@@darkmage35 I built one this fall. It's super fun to ride but it will fall over when you send it on its own. It's more comparable to skiing or snowboarding than it is to biking
If you hold a bike wheel in each hand by the axle and spin it, then it's very difficult to turn it left or right. If you let go with one hand, then the wheel doesn't fall to the ground, it starts to twist around the hand that's holding it, that's precession. I've always thought it quite spooky and inexplicable.
David Wilson is known as the father of recumbent bicycles. He studied them and wrote books on them, but was not original inventor. I can't seem to find the original inventor for them but Charles Machet seems to be a name that shows up a lot early 1900s recumbent bicycles.
@@taliesinriver Well, if we build a flying craft with the principles of the bike stability problem, with out first figuring out the problems solution. Once could say the object is flying unidentifiably.
UFO, time travel machine, wormhole portal, even matter manipulator device, just name it. Unlocking the bicycles mystery is the key of the next industrial revolution
Me seeing title: "how is this a question? You get on, balance yourself, push pedals and go?" Me watching video: "uhhhhhhhhhhhh why is this so complicated?"
Same, I come from aviation background so I thought, I understood aerodynamics and gyroscopic stability, that’s how bikes work, but apparently bikes don’t give a fuck about that.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography well the Wright brothers were professional bicycle builders. They might not have had a clue about the whole focus section of math they were about to create but understood the concepts that seemed and ended up to matter the most.
Go to curiositystream.thld.co/brainfoodjan2021 for unlimited access to the world’s top documentaries and nonfiction series.
Now to annoy the authors of this video, everybody will comment after me, and all the specialists and researchers who've studied this; here is why a bicycle is stable.
The traditional bicycle is stable because of one thing so often overlooked because it is very simple and baser in the physics of its movement. Conservation of energy. We have a rigid body connected to two wheels; this system then has two modes of conservation of energy acting on the same system. The first is the overall mass of the bike, which is primarily centered quite low to the ground on the crankshaft of the peddles, the drive chain, and gearing. A full 60% of a bikes weight is in the wheels or found well below the mid-point of its height. The wheels themselves are also rotating, that is to say, falling, which means once put into motion they have a constant pull of gravity on the leading edge of rotation. Conservation of energy states that since the entire wheel is rotating in the plane of the gravitational pull, the sum of the force should negate, but when examined from just the front edge of the wheel, gravity is accelerating and thus assisting the forward rotation and fall of the wheel. There is a third mode of conservation of energy if we're dealing with inflated tires on a wheel, which is fluid dynamics, but this influence is so minimal that it's not worth mentioning.
In fact, every single thing that happens to keep a bicycle stable when no new energy is put into the system from an outside source (e.g. a rider) comes down to conservation of energy and the continual act of falling which is converted into rotational energy in the wheels. The more efficient the bearings on the wheels are, the longer it will remain stable. When the bike starts to lose stability and fall, causing the front tire to turn, the falling energy is converted into mechanical energy into the wheel. It isn't gyroscopic effect, it isn't load bearing effect and relative placement, it is simply the conservation of energy transforming falling energy into mechanical energy.
@@XtomJamesExtra Conservation of energy would only keep a 2-wheeler in forward motion, or if it where in a vacuum without touching an uneven ground. Forward momentum does not inlude a stability feedback mechanism;
The equations to prove the Torso-Arms-Handlebar feedback system have been in my father's Mechanical Engineering Master thesis since the 70s. Basically: as long as the rider's sense of equilibrium makes him stand straighter than the apparent vertical (including side vectors when turning) this creates an automatic countersteering to stay upright, even in curves. It's all detailed here; dynamik23.com/home-2/2wheels/ and it even works with no canter and replacing the wheels by ice skates... BTW, he is the current senior world champion in mountain biking thanks to this knowledge of curve stability ;-) www.velirium.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/COM_Masters_Post-event_EN.pdf
@@brunoethier896 Rule one in science; the more complicated the answer the more likely it is false (Occam's razor). All one needs to do to see I'm correct is actually examine a bicycle as it rolls forward without any other forces acting on it besides gravity. We're not talking about when a rider is onboard.
The force of the friction against the pavement is more powerful than the pull of gravity on either end. That's why. Or rather it's the application of force onto the ground. When it is uniform it moves forward because wheels don't stand still if the weight is unevenly distributed across the whole of the body.
Mathematicians at Cambridge and M.I.T. may fail hard at bike physics because they "Tri-Hard" to make it a complicated problem, but the actual equation is no different than the equation to determine if a building is top heavy or if it will stand straight up and won't tip over. They just get confused because "wheels move" while "foundations don't". The force on the foundation of a building won't cause it to roll, but the force on a wheel will cause it to roll.
Bicycles: We must thwart all attempts to study us. If the humans find out we're sentient they wont sit on our faces anymore.
man
😂
You think we'll stop just cause they like it?
Stop it 😂
oh boi :D
"Bro, check out this thing I just invented."
'Wack. What do you call it?'
"A bicycle."
'How does it work?'
"... you know, I have no clue."
It just works
@@ihavetubes Bumblebees fly.
“How does it work?”
“Yes =)”
Bro me when people ask how I put furniture together
Clever and tastefull, have a like
It’s easy to build a rocket. It’s not like it’s bicycle-science
Or bicycle surgery
@@samwalker7666 am I alone here when this video seems like a joke on its creator? Is the next video going to be "People still cant solve the mystery of where water comes from, and why it never runs out" lol
Rocket science is just plumbing
@@kingfuzzy2 Technically that's rocket engineering that is plumbing. Rocket science deals heavily with chemistry.
@@scythelord i met a rocket scientist who told me rocket science is mainly advanced plumbing : P
I just taught my 2 kids to ride their bikes last weekend, it’s amazing to watch them find their balance and know once you find it, you will always have it.
fun fact: larger bikes are easier to ride just like it's easier to drive straight on higher speeds (until your bike starts rattling and the wind feels like it's tearing you apart...driving record breakingly fast can be dangerous)
be nice to your kids, they have a much harder time learning on their heavy, unstable lil bikes. i know some people who teach their kids before they even go to school, i myself only took off the side wheels at around age 9 or so, bc i was finally tall enough for a decently large kids' bike.
really though it has nothing to do with their balance, but them finding the balance of the moving bicycle. That's why once you figure out how to ride a bike, you can't forget, it's the same on every bike.
Now you can buy your kid a styder bike, like the wooden bicycle in the video. They can push it with their feet and learn balance and counter steer. Much more effective than training wheels.
Not if you drink too much!
"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"
Lol
Ikr 😂
@conacal rubdur r/wooosh
@@PirateCat822 you could look up what he said about bees, but it would be easier for you to look up irony.
@@Steve_Milo that's not funny, giving the impression you can give a fuck about science and somehow make it work, which you can't! Especially in this pandemic this became apparent! Facts are facts!
"and, of course, it's boring to write it up"
Our bicycle understanding is being hindered by how boring it is.
The fact that its too boring to be figured out, makes it seem less boring to me.
Yeah but rotating motion is so weird it gets interesting again. Get a bike wheel on a long axle held only one side. Spin it and it won't fall over, and it feels like a UFO.
It’s the wiring that’s boring, not the science.
@@bennybarcellos6098 Theres no wires in bikes... unless you mean the brakes?
isnt that just a gyroscope? it feels like a ufo because of inertia, it wants to keep itself in the place that it is rather than use energy, and the rotating motion perpetuates its position
"According to all known laws of engineering, there is no way a bicycle can remain upright. The bicycle does so anyway because it does not care."
an object in motion stays in motion. the force of the bicycle moving forward is stronger than the gravity trying to pull it down
@@danielboone8435 That's an half right theory. Yes, an object in motion stays in motion but that's not the mystery here. Not only does that bike stay in motion but it keeps the same parameters. It stays stable and upright.
I mean, I am fairly certain that at least a handful of those people who studied the issue had heard about the first law of motion. So, we can safely assume that this is not the answer...
@@whocareswhoiam6637 i personally think they're thinking too hard about it. maybe the should come up with a new word to describe the force of a wheel rolling? let's call it the boone force. the boone force>than gravity
@@danielboone8435 I do believe they're thinking too much about it but the entire point is to answer the question "why". Inventing a new word and saying it happens just because doesn't really help them.
@@whocareswhoiam6637 "why did that apple fall? let's call that gravity" newton, probably
I was around seven when my dad bought me a bicycle and attempted to teach me how to ride it. He spent hours and finally gave up in disgust. In ten minutes, without dad there, I figured it out and within an hour on my own, I was pretty good at it. How to ride a bicycle is difficult to explain to another person, they just have to figure it out because of being somewhat intuitive.
So true, I juggle and if I tried to explain it to someone they would never get it but if I give them 3 balls they could learn in unser 20 minutes
My dad’s method of teaching was to get us started at the top of a hill (not a very steep one). The bike will just go, and once you reach the bottom of the hill, you just start pedaling.
@@viviannichols3582that’s exactly how I taught myself! Found a small hill and just started going up and down!
I forget who, but some adult in my life just put me on the bike and then pushed it down a slight slope towards a basketball court, I then rode uncontrolled into a basketball game.
@@bpdmf2798 Hahahaha, yeah that was the setup we had, only no game was going on 😆
After trying to distract myself from the fact that I've had three bicycles stolen from my shed today, the youtube algorithm puts this in my autoplaylist.
I hope that you get them back
That’s crazy I just got three free bikes, someone just left them in a shed, I was so excited about them and then this video showed up in my recommended
Any news on your bikes?
@@RandomPerson-kd84 I wanna know what happened to them
@@ottiej.914 that really is crazy. TH-cam algorithm bringing us together once again
As a child, I had two skinned knees that disproved all theories of stability.
Damn, I fell! Did I mess up? No, that's impossible, I'm perfect. It's physics that's wrong.
I think it just means you were a shitty kid
@@jackwhite8238 I think it means he won the blindfolded hot dog eating contest down the road at the diddlers house....
I slammed to the side of the hood of a moving car at a crossroad as a kid (w/ my bike), and it wasn't very stable at all. Neither was I, as I lunged over the steering bar.
@@frankkirkman5994 he lets the world happen to him, I see what you did there... still an appalling way to make such an observation
In 2020 we will have flying cars
2021: We still don't know how bicycles work
To be fair we've had a bunch of flying cars and jetpacks and even a few flying motorcycles already
@@ting280 yeah main problems are safety, autonomy and also the fact that widespread adoption would probably be complete chaos. Real life sucks.
And we sometimes lose airplanes.
@@MegaLuros no it's because the cost is too high for any average consumer.
@@MegaLuros most people can't afford jet fuel just to get to work.
In many ways, the bicycle was really far far ahead of its time. We don't fully understand how it works. But it does work, it's simple and robust and reliable.
Its technology from a previous civilization just like all the Churches, breweries, train stations, mental asylums, collages, most government buildings all claim to be built in 1800s. which are GIAGANTIC.
with only horse and buggy and no power tools?
the narrative time line for our civilization doesn't work out.
this is a great example, of "founded" technologies, not invented.
we inherited this realm or stole it, not sure which.
Every two wheeled vehicle (including bicycles, motorcycles, segways, ect) has it's own personal invisible gnome that runs beside it to hold it up.
Do unicycles have 2?
@@imthemistermaster No, they only have half a gnome.
@@user-ellievator now there's an imagine I never thought in my life I would imagine
That would explain a lot...
Ok you saw it too!!!! That means I ain't insane?
"Gee why is it called a safety bicycle if people get hurt on it all the time?"
*Sees Penny Farthing*
"Ah, right, relatively safety bicycle."
Yea, just like the safety razor, safe as compared to...
*checks notes*
A literal razor sharp knife positioned against your throat. 😱
The bycicle corrects itself because when it starts falling the front wheel turns becesue heavier part of wheel falls into that side making a turn and changes its direction into falling side which turning creates centrifugal force on bike that brings it in straight stance, and a heavier part of wheel falls which centers it again. Esencialy what happens is imagine it like being in a car and then lean left before turning left, it will throw you on right side, that ehat happens to the bod of a bike
@@KlekiCro that's called the castor effect.
Oh.... Well duck
@@KlekiCro duck me
“It just works”-Todd Howard
It works, just like your desire to buy Skyrim again
Bike proceeds to clip through wall
wise man
Our Lord and savior todd howard skyrim is his greatest creation that is perfectly balanced with no exploits just intended features
Don't believe his lies.
I propose we use this when considering how advanced alien civilisations are.
Stage 1: No Bikes. Stage 2: Bikes, But How Do They Work?? Stage 3: ???
Stage 4: Profit
Stage 3: literally cthulu
Transcendence
Why does this sound like a Joe Biden speech
I'm not even sure what they're confused about other than theoretical mathematicians trying to outsmart everyone and failing.
Simon,
No one says “..easy as riding a bike”
People say both:
“Just like riding a bike” -in reference to activities easily picked back up after one has not engaged in them in a long while.
And
“Easy as falling off a horse”
I’ve heard “[easy as] falling off a log” and “get back on the horse that threw you” but never quite “easy as falling off a horse.” but i 100% agree there is no saying “easy as riding a bike.” “it’s like riding a bike-once you learn, you never forget” applies to internalized knowledge and skills which don’t require conscious effort to recall. between the upfront ad and the goofy writing, i didn’t make it very far into the video.
Engineer 1: Just created this incredible, affordable, simple vehicle, made of, like, 5 moving parts. Then we improved on it for over a hundred years.
Engineer 2: Cool! how does it work?
Engineer 1: idk lol
Physicists and Mathematicians: witchcraft!
Prolly graduated covid year lol
how is it a secret for over 100 years
"Oh so you like physics? Explain a bicycle"
Ever seen a gyroscope? As it spins, the effect of gravity on one side is canceled out by the other side rising against the fulcrum. On a bicycle the gyroscope is on its side and the frame sits upon the fulcrum and thus negates the effect, BUT the angle of the front fork causes the wheel to turn against the direction the frame begins to fall, making a second and mechanical gyroscopic effect (the 'caster effect' he appears to dismiss) that works to align the frame so that momentum can carry it forward while the wheels facilitate momentum. It's not one singular effect, but the trinity of leverage assisting directional momentum assisted by gyroscopic momentum.
@@shadowswept9167 Except that they removed 2 of those effects and it still stayed upright.
Not to mention that a single wheel without bicycle attached does the same thing.
It's just momentum really, forward momentum is stronger than gravity pulling either side.
As soon as it slows enough for that to not be true... it falls.
@@Ishlacorrin Nah, single wheel (or monocycle) takes its "operator" a.k.a. a clown to wiggle and jiggle his upper torso in order to stay in balance.
And even there, gyroscopic effect is what is keeps it moving forward without falling.
You have to understand that forward momentum is being translated to gyroscopic effect that counteracts gravity as soon wheel swivels.
@@urosmarjanovic663 I'm talking a wheel on it's own, no bike, no rider... you ever see one get thrown from something? They just keep going till they slow down and fall over. Without external issues like a poor surface or obstacles that is.
@@Ishlacorrin Fair enough, in a single wheel it's a momentum, but also gyro effect. Gyro effect is, in fact, one of the mechanisms of preserving that said momentum.
The hope I take away from this video is that we engineer a faster-than-light drive before we ever figure out if FTL travel is in any way theoretically possible.
LOL we already know that a reactionless drive is technically possible by spinning up a flywheel and using relativity to impart an impulse. We don’t know how to build it yet that’s where bicycle scientists will have to come in
Thunderfoot et al shouting at the Enterprise "Stop! You can't do that! Get back down here and listen to my 10-part series!"
I like that! We should colonize planets before knowing if it’s theoretically possible 😂
We have already proven it to be impossible. It will never happen
At the core of such an engine will be a bicycle.
The only saying does not go, "as easy as riding bike."
The old saying is, "it's like riding a bike." ..Not because it's easy, but because if you learn how to do something (ride a bike), even if it's been a long time since you've done it, you can pick it up again as if you've never stopped. That principle tends to apply to many things, and so the saying was born.
I used a modified version of that saying. "It's like falling off of a bicycle. Once you know how, you never forget." Got a few laughs over the years.
True. I've been to a couple of adult learn-to-ride sessions with Bike New York and haven't mastered it. Since they take the pedals off these bikes to make it about balance, I should try to do it like the guy in the film clip Simon keeps showing next time I have the opportunity.
thanks.. not like i didn’t know already.
@@scottandrewhutchins But it is not about balance... The bicycle wants to stay upright.
I have heard it is something like surfing... The faster you go, the easier it is to stay upright.
@@Golfnut_2099 Not when I attempt to ride it...
This engineer who submitted an essay two years late is my kind of guy. We'd get on well.
As a graduating Senior I was tapped to grade underclassman papers. I constantly frustrated prof.s by getting to them weeks later.
I’m glad high paid think tank scientists are using important resources to solve this important real world problem…
"We'd get on well"
Maybe...eventually. lol
Humans: “We ShOuLd CoLoNizE MaRS.”
Also humans: *can’t figure out how bikes stay upright
I mean, to be fair, we've literally figured out rockets, how to make a blacker black, and invisibility shields before we figured out how bikes.
@@denverarnold6210 no he's right... What makes us special if we can't figure out bikes😔
@@realmacthud6768 that we can make rockets, make a blacker black, and invisibility shields?
@@Dakka-do4cu Those are simpler than a bike
@@realmacthud6768 to be fair nobody really cares if they are called special or not to do their job
Imagine knowing how bicycles work but then you think about it really hard and then don’t know how it works anymore
This comment is precisely why I envy stupid people, think you know something and just leave it there!
British comedian Dara O’Bian: “Science knows it doesn’t know everything. Otherwise, it would stop.”
Dara: And I thought my name scream "IRISH" loud enough
Great, now they're stealing our comedians
SCIENCE DENIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(jk)
You must be an American. In other news, Europe isn't a country.
@@HansVonMannschaft your right europe is a brexit disaster lol
Me seeing the title: Duh, peddles turn chain turns wheel.
Me watching: ohhhh
Me pedal make back wheel go brrrrrrr
They are levers you can ride.
Circles aren’t round they have 360 sides. Really small ones. Math.
@@kalebnolan8343 me pedal make wheel go vroooooomm
@@whereswaldo5740 wow. That is one of the most incorrect things that I’ve ever heard. Where did you study?
@@williamminter7057 MIT.
I haven't driven a vehicle in a decade. All I do is bicycle. I'll bike up the mountain tops in colorado. From Kansas. I bike all my groceries home on my back. I'm constantly burning through bike parts. Just like cars, they fall apart. I bike to work I bike for leisure I bike for any and all appointments. I have an intimate understanding of how a bicycle behaves. With impeccable balance the bike doesn't even have to move. If you're really good you can remain balanced immobile indefinitely. As soon as a stationary bike has spinning wheels it's already gaining stability (not full stability) by angular momentum. Not gyroscopic precession. The precession actually destabilizes you. The precession is the twisting upon it's axis as friction is applied to a point on the axis. the ratio of the mass of the wheels to the mass of everything else and center of gravity are key. My 29inch wheels bike is stable at slower speeds than my 20inch wheels. Also my 20 inch wheels can cut a hard corner at high speed. 29 inch wheels at sufficiently high speed you can't physically push that handlebar to do anything but minor course corrections. Anyone with a motorcyle knows what I mean. That's angular momentum. Everything moving in a straight path forward resists a change of direction proportional to its velocity. Here's a key component literally everybody has overlooked. Ready? The bicycle is a twin axle vehicle. Yes just like your car. Each wheel has an axle albeit not a very wide one. So your application of forces works in tandem across both sides of the fork. You can't think of a bicycle two dimensionally and expect to solve the math problem. When you steer right you're not twisting a center point of the wheel. You're pushing the left for forward and pulling the right fork backwards. Which torques the entire wheel from both ends of a gyroscopic axis. The back wheel acts as a gyroscope mounted in a fixed position and trailing along for the ride. That's two independent systems working together. The fixed rear gyro. The front fork working across an axle. You could imagine each wheel is actually two conjoined rims with a round bubble between them. The tread is variable. Some treads are rather flat effectively granting two beads of traction or "tracks" or "trails" or whatever the video just said. A cross section of an inflated tube is only round if it's not pressing against anything. The weight of the bike already widens out a path of contact more indicative of a small circle than a point. A fatass atop the bike with reduce tube pressure would initiate a a rather large plane of contact with the ground. This is important. Friction with the ground also causes stability. Send an empty bike careening forward angling off to one side and see what happens when it hits an oil slick. Yes the bottom flies out from under itself. Suddenly all stability was lost. My knees know. Don't ever bank a hard turn over a patch of fresh new smooth cement with loose sand on it. You'll learn a lesson or two in gravity real quick.
I read it all because this guy took the time to write it all ~
I only recently got a car a few months ago, 40 years old and never owned one. Main reason I have one now is to have the ability for my husband and I to move across the country to live with chosen family, and to save us money elsewise. I do still bike when I can though.
Time in the saddle combined with cranking of the peddles somehow engages the mind, into solving the most rudimentary of all mysteries.
Jeff, I believe you have it figured out, more or less. The variation of the contact patch and where it occurs on the surface of the tire is the key to understanding why a bike will self stabilize. Gyroscopic precession and the castering effect of the front wheel do help in dictating where that contact patch is on the tire, but they're not the primary factor for a self-stabilizing bike. That's why it's possible to make a stable bike without those features, provided you allow the system the same ability to vary the contact patch. Imagine a bike with entirely flat tires (not deflated, just flat, like a car tire)...the moment it leans from a vertical position and destabilizes, that contact patch is now on the very edge of the tire, and it's off from the centerline of the tire itself. All of the frictional drag caused by the ground is thereby concentrated to the left of the wheel's steering axis, which means the drag will naturally turn the fork toward the contact patch, which is conveniently the same direction one must turn to right the bicycle. This is also the same effect that causes a car tire to steer up over a curb if you scrub the edge of the tire against it, like when you're trying to park close to a curb and the tire inadvertently rubs it, suddenly the wheel jerks out of your hand and steers you right over the curb. Same for when you're driving through road construction and they have a small change in height between lanes that pulls you toward it. The contact patch suddenly changed from being centered directly below the tire to the side of the tire, and that created a force that steers the tire toward it. Same concept with a bike, except the ground is always changing that angle based on how much you're leaning into a turn. It's not as obvious as a curb, but it's identical, just to a lesser degree. The more you lean, the more that patch moves to the side, and the more the tire wants to turn toward it. Once the wheel has turned sufficiently enough to right the bicycle, the contact patch once again becomes centered and steering forces are neutral. Of course, there's often a small oscillation with riderless bikes where the front wheel goes left and right until it settles straight again, but that's just exhibiting positive stability. Your observation about losing stability when traction is lost demonstrates that without the friction of the contact patch influencing steering direction of the tire, a bike cannot self-stabilize. If science really hasn't figured that out to this day, like this video implies, then science should truly be ashamed of itself.
This is what I thought this video would be about. Not, we don't know. We do know they work and why they work. We can explain everything. And by we, I mean people that understand the forces a bicycle undergoes
Wow, Johnny Sins has grown a beard and has ventured into yet another discipline - a youtube presenter. So versatile and talented, this man.
First time I saw this guy I thought it was Babish
No, this is -patrick- Vsauce
Michael : hey, Vsauce, how many your doppelgangers are?
Wish you'd included images of all these interesting-sounding experimental bicycles!
Silly boy, bicycles work because of...
Magic.
Good to see another that is familiar with the high sciences. Magic was discovered in a collider as a particle known as a magitron. It is what keeps planes in the sky and bicycles upright. Since the discovery that gravity is an illusion, the particle known as the gravitron might actually be an anti-magitron and thus balancing and often cancelling the magitrons effects.
Keep the rubber side down
OMG we were magicians all along.
And magic is HERESY
@@edmundthespiffing2920 only to a racist
I have NEVER EVER in my 34 years alive thought about this until now and im am thoroughly annoyed by it.
I'm am not.
@Jan Brady i feel part of it has to do with the rareness of sharp corners on the front edges of the bike, making air resistance actually help as well. the rounded tire and frame is possibly creating a small envelope around the bike, assisting in it staying upright. .. we may need to wind tunnel test a bike on a treadmill...
Bike is the best invention of the 1800s , airplane is best of 1900 s , I'm gonna guess...the best of the 2000s is as yet unstarted - electric bikes ?
Ain't the interwebs wunnerful? 😉🤣
I thought to myself reading the “clickbait” title: I’ll bet my college-level physics books knows how bicycles work.
@Wolverinedodge35 the bikes got him
Angular momentum of the wheels reduces any lateral forces applied on the bike, making it easier to balance on. The bike becomes more resistant to lateral forces the heavier the wheel is and the faster the wheels turn.
Rip the CIA got him
@@Oridemic This is the exact same conclusion that I came to when I was wondering about this later this day. The inertia of the wheels and equal distribution of mass explain the phenomena. The question is why should the bike fall down?
“So you spent 10 years on your PhD! What did you study?”
“How to ride a bicycle!”
😳
Now thats a Boss Level PhD
"Allowing all four wheels of a shopping cart to steer at once." That's funny. The rear wheels are fixed. And in my experience, there is always one front wheel that does whatever the fuck it wants to.
EDIT: I'm informed that in some parts of the world shopping carts (trollies, buggies, caddies) have four castering wheels. Great for drifting around corners I assume.
The shopping carts common in Europe (at least in my limited experience) have casters on all 4 wheels.
Indeed, scott nix, my experience of the dynamics of shopping trolleys (carts) in Australia is exactly as you describe!
@@lifelonglearner56 God I love the English language. Where I'm from we call them buggies. How weird is that?
@@scottnix4991 In England we call them trollies
IKEA carts has four wheel casters.
"It's as easy as falling off a bicycle.'
Actually, it’s falling off a log.
@@suzukibn1131 actually its a quote, genius.
He said "as easy as riding a bike" but nobody says that. It's when you never forget something that you've learned, it's like riding a bike.
@@suzukibn1131 It's a malaphor.
@@markdavis7397 Not the bicycles I was riding.
The bicycle is one of the longest standing “of it ain’t broke don’t fix it” examples, we don’t need a bike with power steering and AC 😂
Power steering easy enough to dismiss, but AC is not!
I wouldn’t be surprised if bikes go through a drastic change in the future.
Tell that to Harley Davidson 😂
Tell that to the person who invented motorcycles
As a Canadian, AC on a bike would hilariously redundant, even in summer
Easy, we're living in a simulation. The player put in a cheat code that grants physics to bicycles and bumblebees.
The thing about bees isn't true.
I know it isn't@@MrEazyE357 but bicycles and bumblebees sound good together...
Aaaa. . . so that explains it. Thanks. 😆
we actually figured the bumblebee thing out. it's because they flap their wings in such a way that they provid a little bit of lift on the upwards movement as well as on the downwards.
i said when they put bike physics, id stop playing games.
*Scientists:* "We know how the very universe we live in came to be!"
*Scientists:* "Yeah, we still have some questions about how bicycles work."
science: we have a problem.
science: problem solved.
Trying to just understand the fundamentals of science has been absolutely torturous to some. Science and maths are tools for understanding. They don’t just tell you truths, though; you have to do the work yourself using those tools. And no real scientist uses absolutes in their conclusions or uses words like “consensus”. The scientific method doesn’t allow for such things because its end goal is truth , as opposed to just making someone feel good because they don’t think that they’re ignorant of that certain thing anymore. I know your post is supposed to be somewhat humorous but it perpetuates ignorance. You’re misrepresenting that scientists don’t still have questions about the beginning of the universe. And also, just because science hasn’t produced all the answers doesn’t mean that we should throw out the scientific progress that has been made. We can enjoy riding bikes without understanding exactly how they work scientifically.
@@dadgadify I agree with you. I think the problem isn't the scientists themselves, but more the way science is taught. In school they teach about evolution and the theories on how the universe came to be. But the way its presented is very absolute. As if the origins of life and the universe are already known and we are really just working out some of the small questions. Its all taught as fact, even though they use the word theory. And if you question it at all you must be too stupid to understand science, or you are anti-science. In many ways science has started to become a religion of sorts to people who aren't religious. Not the actual scientists of course, but many others.
@@Adamant4160 "It's all taught as fact even though they use the word theory" "you must be too stupid to understand science, or are anti-science".... I feel like your anecdotes are common misconceptions that just spread because... something in hollywood... or from someone who never set foot in any academic setting let alone a general biology course.
Whos calling who stupid ? Scientists calling people stupid? Calling someone anti-science if they dont agree with them? What!? Where are you getting these statements from? This couldn't be further from the truth even in actual literature. Scientists debate the theory of evolution with each other constantly. Even the origins of life are widely debated amongst scientists. You are able to be critical in the classroom just fine, as long as you can rationalize your statement with evidence. Exams in biology for these kind of questions are open for interpretation, as long as you provide a sufficient answer and reasoning for them.
@@Granulomacure I was just speaking from personal experience. That's how science was taught to me. No teacher actually called me or others stupid, but that was certainly the vibe. And like I was saying, it's not the fault of actual scientists, it's the teachers teaching it. Also, I didn't mention it in the above post but I'm mainly speaking of elementary school and middle school level of science class. Once I got into higher levels of science it was different. I am speaking from personal experience, but I do know of many people who have had the same experience.
I didn't know we were looking for the Grand unified bicycle theory.
😂
maybe every different design means it is a different vehicle. Since it changes some of the variables so wouldn't it be best to treat each case as a separate study rather than unifying it.
"Science is inherently interesting, but writing things down is boring."
- Jim Papadopoulos
Even without reading his ridiculous surname, you could tell this man has Greek heritage from that quote alone.
That's probably a Socrates quote, but he never wrote it down.
Maybe a Greek person could, but I personally have no idea about general Greek feelings about documentation and couldn't tell anything from that quote
"Sharing quotes is fun, but waiting until 7:45 in the video to find out that they basically included this quote is boring"
-George Perakis
:P
That is a man after my own heart. Love creating stories but writing them is a pain
《Laughs in Abbasid》
5:20 Oh come on, the casters on shopping carts don't automatically align. On most carts, one caster just wants to spin around as you push the cart.
My theory is that that behaviour is by design. If shoppers were given trolleys that allowed them to reach the checkout quickly, they wouldn't spend munny on other things.
@@peNdantry that is actually 100% the reason
That also has something to do with how the wheels are actually attached to the cart. You have control over the front wheel because the front wheel is directly connected to the handle bars. But there are also other factors which allow it to stay balanced. The reason humans struggle is more to do with the human and their balance/lack of confidence paired with trying to start slow. That’s one reason it’s easier for people to learn when there’s someone helping them balance as they get up to speed. Fear is one of the main contributors to a person not being able to learn how to ride a bicycle. Makes people shaky and sometimes do opposite of what they’re supposed to do/ want to do.
Now...if they could just design a comfortable seat.
Buy a gel cover. My girlfriend has one
Get cycling shorts
Get a car
@@terrynixon2758 yeah, i think im just going to weld an office chair to my bike because even with a gel cover it's very uncomfortable 5 minutes in
Not sure why there isn't a pair of "cupped hands"! One for each cheek and nothing in the middle to gently cradle your bum! ;)
I think it's in part due to the minor gyroscopic force of the two rotating wheels and the self correcting is a moment of force. Where the front wheel can't topple the rest of the bike so the rear end straightens the front tire. The opposing weight of the rear end counter balances the front. It is a bit more complicated than that, but thats basically it. If you fix the steering of a bike it would fall over, the ease of movement in the front wheel is in part the cause of the self corrections.
I was hoping someone would comment this
Yes
Except the video said they tried fixing the steering so it wouldn’t turn and it still wouldn’t destabilize. I think that was the 1970s one.
Torque or gyroscopic procession (I think) is what I've always assumed caused the balancing phenomenon
@@TheTommyCraft 6:50 they built a bike that had eliminated the castor effect and was supposed to eliminate the gyroscopic effect, but it remained stable. There is no mention of fixing the front steering. You don't turn a bikes handle bars to steer it effectively, you lean, without a lean it stays upright until its momentum can no longer support the moment of force to correct the steering.
There's not a single force that keeps a bicycle upright in motion. It's a combination of forces. If you were to eliminate gyroscopic procession and run a bicycle on a treadmill, it would become far less stable, becoming completely dependent on the auto righting feature of the angle of the fork. When a motorcycle achieves high enough speeds to overcome its aerodynamic engineering, the air pressures overcome the gyroscopic procession and the bike becomes unstable. You're basically combining the forces of a gyroscope, a paper airplane and pendulum when you are riding a bike. (Gyroscope = wheels, paper airplane = air pressures due to the flat plane design of the vehicle, and pendulum = the steering angle and its predisposition to right it self /fall to center)
huh .. maybe that's why you get high speed wobble ?
@@jamesgibson5876 that has to do with the front wheel being out of round or alignment. Significant enough speed will cause your tire to expand from centrifugal force, and since they're not perfect, they will eventually be out of round which becomes progressively worse as it will then become out of balance as well until your speed is reduced. That's why when you get speed wobbles, you must accelerate to reduce stress/deformation of the front tire to stabilize it before decelerating.
So you solved it?
@@tbk2010 I didn't, motorcycle R&D and engineering departments have, for quite awhile now.
@@zg1k68 I don't think there's enough speed to make tires expand from centrifugal force when people ride their bikes in the common day, maybe for pro cyclists I would consider that to be true, but for a common person riding their bike and that is not in a hurry I'd say no.
This guy can do a 5 minute video in just 12 minutes. Talent.
😆
3 ads plus a sponsorship got do that grind
Chronomancy is the most powerful form of magic.
Monetization
Routing algorithm likes videos over ten minutes. Look at many big TH-camrs. They have so many 11 to 15 minute videos that could be done in 5 minutes at most
Why can't bicycles stand up on their own? They're too tired.
Brilliant!
Two tired
to tie herd
You are officially a dad
@@akshatverma5478 so true this is the epitome of a dad joke.
The reasons behind this phenomenon are simple. Ghost enjoy riding bicycles when the opportunity presents itself
Jesus just likes to f with scientists.
@Kuya Jay they use cold air to create updrafts of warm air
Or you know its poltergeists.... 👻
Ask a silly question 😜
One property that was not mentioned is the fact that the geometry of the front steering is arranged so that when the steering is turned, the center of gravity of the bicycle is raised. This effect will give a self-steering effect as the raised weight will try to go back to the minimum height when the steering is not turned. This is achieved by arranging for the castor angle to set its hinge line such that the hinge line projected line will project down to meet close to the point of contact of the wheel with the ground. There are other factors to consider. The turning of the steering will displace laterally the centre of gravity of the bicycle so that CG oscillates about the line on the ground joining the front and back wheels. It is this oscillation of the center of gravity of the bicycle about the line joining the point of ground contact of the front and back wheel.
All this is related to a tight rope walker riding a bicycle on the rope handling his own weight shift or that of a pole. Rather than turning the steering wheel to change the center of gravity about the tight rope, all the driver does is change his weight above the tight rope laterally to the tight rope below him.
Since the footprint below a bicycle is always a thin line then the center of gravity must always oscillate about the line.
All one needs to do to check this is to keep the bicycle stationary and turn the wheel to the right or left and one can easily note that the center of gravity is changing.
Also, the steering of a bicycle needs to be turned in the direction of the fall WHERE THE RATE OF CHANGE OF THE TURNING OF THE HANDLEBARS MUST BE FASTER THAN THE RATE OF FALL OF THE WEIGHT.
I find it difficult to believe that the mathematicians of the earlier centuries could not see these three-dimensional mathematics.
Note that the self-steering of a car is related to what was said above. The weight is lifted when the wheels are turned and when the steering wheel is free the weight of the car will drop down to the minimum height which is when the front wheels are pointing straight ahead.
It is very interesting that the projected hinge line with the point of contact changes with the inflation of the tires and so one should keep the tires blown up at the right pressure, for there are situations when the steering is turned beyond an angle the steering becomes unstable and does not return to facing the front,
When trying to understand the steering of a bicycle or a car, do all movements very slowly as there are at least three procedures going on at the same time. Note again the raising of the CG which this video did not mention.
Note that the gyroscopic effect of the rotating wheels of the bike is minor and can be totally eliminated at the slow speed we normally ride. It is the shifting of the CG about the line of wheel contact with the ground and the rate at which the handle is turned with respect to the falling of the CG. so that the CG jumps over the line joining the contacts points with the ground of the front and back wheel.
Yes, gyroscopic effect is minimal and NOT responsible for bicycle stability.
"Steer into the fall" is. With proper head tube angle, wheel offset, and resulting trail, a bicycle is stable. THIS is what's responsible for it. It's a "caster-wheel" design that's very effective.
I mean isn't this just the same thing that makes your steering wheel return to a straight position in your car if you continue to accelerate through a turn and let go of the wheel?
The most important thing I learned working in bike shops was how little most people know about their bikes. The second most important thing I learned was how to not be a dick about that.
(Edit: I'm surprised this comment is still getting replies. Seems like a lot of people found my comment to be judgmental. It's not. Theres plenty of things I don't know and plenty of jobs I'd rather have a pro do.)
Wise words. Here are some others I learned: An unhappy wife is an unhappy life.
better to be kind than right
What do you recommend for casual riders to know about their bikes?
@@microdesigns2000 a simp and his happiness are soon parted
That doesn’t work when you’re riding in the backcountry. Gotta know how to work on it then. But I know what you’re talking about. I worked in bike shops in college and it was mind blowing how many yuppies owned $5000 bikes and never bothered to learn how they work. They just took them to a shop when things didn’t work right.
While quite interesting and somewhat informative, I would have liked to seen more visual representations of the theories and ideas discussed.
Yes. Most of the bike descriptions and experimental models went over my head.
Watching a guy with a beard talk about riding a bicycle is a waste of time.
this
Uh huh... But this isn't a science show...
Get a bike, ride it.
Sadly, I don't think anyone would get a Nobel prize for cracking this one.
I think they would.
@@luukrutten1295 I agree. First thought: "Why not?"
@@Drteomas I see no reason why Nobel prize in Physics is not achievable. Of course its sound always less impressive than some astrophysics. But if you get it right I think you will get the recognition for it.
@@Drteomas Give me a valid reason why it will never happen.
“All of my remaining realisable assets are to be disbursed as follows: the capital, converted to safe securities by my executors, is to constitute a fund, the interest on which is to be distributed annually as prizes to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind. The interest is to be divided into five equal parts and distributed as follows: one part to the person who made the most important discovery or invention in the field of physics; one part to the person who made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who, in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction; and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing
Many inventions have not been made during the preceding years anyway. In many parts of the world. Bicycles are infinitely more important than cars, planes or mars rovers or even solar discoveries.
@@Drteomas Why switch the language up?
“Mathematicians began to seriously investigate the mysterious physics of the bicycle’s remarkable stability.”
Great sentence. Should be a rap.
That last burn. Dude called everyone out, worrying about dark matter. Dang.
I'm not sure what your getting at here, because funnily enough worrying about a gargantuan and poorly understood variety of matter that makes up 85% of our universe is probably more important than pondering on the way a bike automatically rights itself when rider-less and in motion.
@@ReaganKimberley, you never know... maybe they'll find something in the bicycle problem to solve the dark matter problem? 😉
@@ReaganKimberley ehhh it was a bad joke 🤷🏻♂️ I just thought the last quote was especially savage. Like dang man, settle down. We’ve got scientists who can study both!
@@ReaganKimberley Actually, there was an article the other day doubting the existence of Dark Matter.
@@johnthomas2485 You can find an article to doubt, or provide confidence, for literally any topic.
“Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle
I have hope for humanity.”
HG Wells
why tho
@@gabobo because humans do so much that makes no sense.
But cycling makes a lot of sense.
Whenever I see an adult on a 20" bmx I see a drug addict
@@theduderski2848 What if they're a professional? (Although I think that'd be obvious to see if they're doing tricks or racing).
"Whenever I see a preschool child learn to ride a bicycle in 30 minutes, I have hope for humanity.” They don't know it's supposed to be difficult the learn..
By Me :-)
"Well you got me. By all accounts it doesn't make sense." Kronk, talking about bicycle physics
After seeing this video, I have to wonder: is the same true if you propel the bike with the back wheel first (obviously allowing it to spin freely this way). Something tells me that the bike will be terribly unstable if you try that, but that might just be due to reverse cycl'ology.
ouch
Cyclology 🤣🤣🤣 that’s a good one
As someone who rides a bicycle very regularly (yes, I am Dutch), this was really fascinating. I had no clue there are people actually trying to improve upon the standard design, nor did I know said design was as old as it is!
“Auto te gast” is my favorite road sign.
Just a month ago had a bad accident with it (i mean with my bike, siclocated shoulder, fractured bone). Cant wait to actually be able to ride again, even if its just in the city. :)))
So, a _bicycle_ is _double-Dutch?_
It’s literally never occurred to me that it was a shape that even needs evolving. It almost seems like it’s a natural thing to exist
@@Boborjan1986 Quick recovery. I know some people would have stopped riding bikes.
4 old guys in a pot bar in Amsterdam, "We're the bicycle research institute, man!"
Nah, it are generally the tourists that smoke here. Also, we take our bikes a lot more seriously than that.
You don't mess with a Dutch person's bicycle.
If you do you've got a witch hunt coming.
So friendly reminder to take it serious.
Me: "How does a bicycle work?"
Todd Howard: "It just works!"
My explanation:
Sharks...
In this case, Todd is right.
Momentum
Did a class project on bicycle stability in Mech. Engineering class--it's surprisingly complex and difficult tho I managed to understand and explain most of it. It was entirely optimized via trial and error and can't be improved on, it can only provide trade offs between, say quick handling and high speed stability. 5 or 6 geometric/mass factors involved.
"Allowing all 4 wheels to steer at once"
WHEN?
When trainer wheels were introduced
@@thecollectorsinged113 I think this was in reference to why all 4 wheels on a shopping cart/trolley can all steer at the same time? Its been a while, I'm not so sure 😂
@@xxspookshowxbabyxx it is but still wont pass a joke
IKEA carts!!!!! So much fun!!!!!
Just before the trolley/cart crashes
I've done hundreds of hours of research, and I'd like to announce my findings: Bicycles work by pedaling your feet in a circle.
🤔 mind blown
Inaccurate. I know from experiments that only pedaling down also works. only pedalling up also works. Basically, any direction is good as long as it is clockwise when seen from the righ side of the bicycle.
@@bramvanduijn8086 Not completely true. You can only pedal up if your feet are strapped in otherwise you're always pedaling downwards.
Anyone seen the walking bike? Powered by a treadmill type belt, no pedalling required
keep going. u will get there.
Isn't it weird we had trains before we had bicycles? Wtf.
Because you can't pull tons of materials with a bike. Capitalism drives innovation and the train was hugely innovative, much more so than the bike.
There were bike-like objects before trains, but proper bicycles couldn't happen without advances in metallurgy that came out of the early industrial revolution. So trains kinda had to come first.
@@TheJMBon Capitalism drives suffering. Free time drives innovation.
Trains were actually 2 bicycles stuck together side by side.
@@onradioactivewaves This is so funny it must be true.
I'm skeptical that the counter gyroscopes disprove their effect. IT's not like a helicopter where the gyroscopic effect is to spin the copter and can just be reversed by another scope. That's not what the gyroscope in a bicycle wheel is doing
So what is it doing?
@@Sewblon keeping the bike more stable i think
@@forget6917 But how?
@@Sewblon I’m definitely not an expert but my guess is that 2 gyroscopes spinning in opposite directions don’t cancel each other out but are simply stabilizing themselves and in turn whatever object that they are attached to.
@@kirkretter9034 But that would imply that a bicycle with 2 sets of wheels each spinning in opposite directions would be stable. But the truth is the exact opposite.
I worked as an engineering technician for many years and I can tell you honestly we wouldn't have bicycles if someone tried to invent them today. Why, because I have run into far too many engineers with the attitude that, it didn't matter that we had a working prototype, unless we could prove the concept on paper it couldn't go into production.
we should tell those engineers to just build the thing and forget trying to explain it with science and instead explain the working principle behind it.
Boilermakers; hold my beer and watch this.
Some TH-camr like Colin Furze would do it anyway.
Honda or somebody were all over Japanese news a while back for making a (barely stable) flying motorcycle. I was just thinking "didn't Colin Furze do that years ago?". And he didn't have millions in R&D, just a garage!
As an engineer, I find some of this to ring as rather misleading. Someone concludes that bicycles stay upright through the "caster effect" due to the front fork having a "positive trail." This does not mean that A) only two wheel things with positive trails are stable. Or B) There are no "negative trail" designs leading to stability.
Physicists and engineers can easily calculate the effects of precession from the spinning wheels. We know it contributes slightly to stability. The caster effect helps self-correct a falling bike. In my mind, that explains the phenomenon fairly robustly.
Because some PhD can design a two wheeled device that cancels out the gyroscopic effects of the wheels and has a "negative trail," but compensates for these design changes by having a LARGR MASS BEYOND THE FRONT WHEEL, I see absolutely no reason to then make the claim, "therefore physicists still don't know how bikes work." It screams of dishonest interpretation of the experiments.
Perhaps there is more going on here; I afterall know nothing about bicycle physics. But just based on what he said and how he presented information, I feel it is rather misleading and trying to cause a stir or a mystery around something rather commonplace in hopes to spark curiosity and generate views. But this video sounds only a few degrees better than, "This one weird trick has Harvard linguists mad" to me. We could make any sort of video: "Physicists still don't understand vacuums" and then drag out the unsolved, full Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics, but what are we really saying at that point?
It's weird watching you holding back your chaotic energy in comparison to Business Blaze
What does that mean?
@@scottkanzelmeyer4474 maybe anothet of his channel, only god know how many channel he have
I started out with this channel and the ones like it, so I was actually totally taken aback by how Simon is on business blaze haha. I'm not so sure I'm a fan, but that's okay, because I have several dozens (heh) of other Simon channels to watch instead!
@@stinkytoy It's like they give him a strong methaccino and a script.
Didn’t know he had that channel. I got in through biographics and business blaze personality is something else
Very interesting that this is all on the most basic rigid bicycle on flat ground. I can’t imagine how much more difficult it would be to explain a full suspension on complicated terrain.
As a child, I remember thinking, after a long, frustrating time, what if I steer the front wheel into the direction it's starting to fall?
I immediately was riding a two-wheeler on my own.
Yes, and the amazing thing is that we have all this gobbledygook and nobody tells kids to steer the front wheel into the direction it is starting to fall.
I just remember telling myself that the trick is to get the bike moving forward, then it becomes stable.
The first time a car slid on me I was towing a trailer on gravel. My dad was in the passenger seat. I was making a fairly sharp left-hand turn and felt the back end (the trailer!) continue on even after I had stopped turning (I definitely took the corner too quickly). My instinctive reaction was to immediately throw the wheel to the right and then straighten up again. Nobody had ever told me how to control a slide, but I must have remembered from all those times as a kid that we'd race our BMXs to top speed, throw them into a turn and then slam on the back brake and immediately correct the steering, creating a great sliding stop. Anyway, I pulled out of the slide and continued home. Once I had parked Dad congratulated me on my reaction and told me to take the corner more slowly next time.
When I jumped over a creek once as a kid, I landed one foot in the water and had a wet foot for many years... After that I knew not to touch water
I didn’t hear the conclusion as being “we don’t understand how they work”, but as, “how they work isn’t adequately or fully explained by the more simple-minded ideas.” There are equations of motion that accurately model how bicycles work, and based on that, one can do computer modeling and create innovative designs. It’s not a “mystery”-it’s just not simple.
Ikr? I'm starting to dislike this channel now, it's becoming a bit clickbait-y
We don’t understand how they stay upright when in motion. We do not have equations of motion that accurately predict which changes in which variables would de-stabilize them when in motion. Therefore we cannot do computer modeling to create innovative designs with 100% confidence. We are still stuck building physical prototypes to accurately determine their stability in motion. It is a mystery.
Stephen Kaiser Do you have any links?
@@leexabyz Starting to agree. Any time he talks about something I know a little about, his script is just provably wrong.
No, fam, it's really SUPER simple. It's literally two gyroscopes.
“It’s boring to write it up”
I feel that
Cause he would just write, an object in motion stays in motion and would be the biggest Idiot amongst all so he says its complex and we dont understand so people that are dumber than the other 50% Fall for it
"Mathematicians began to study the physics of the bicycle."
No wonder we don't understand how they work. I have heard the goofiest, most wrong explanations for real world phenomena from mathematicians. Mathemeticians that work at the same physics lab as I.
Care to share one of those goofy explanations?
I think mathematicians go really balls deep in theory and forget that nature laws apply to the real world, that's why some things are better explained to people that actually use the tool that is math to try to create a model that "represents" our real world, engineers, for example, know that what they do is never 100% right that's why they always use safety factors for almost everything they build.
@@M2orNot there's a mathematician on the internet that has used math to "prove" the earth is flat
@@1mclv Seriously? Out of all significant contributors to physical sciences, you pick the one guy stating something provably false (by mathematical consensus no less) as representative of the entire profession?
@@M2orNot no lol, I think you missed my point there are several mathematicians that have done excellent work and contributed lots to science, I just pointed out why there are some wacky ones and my favorite example of one of those.
recommendations is faster than notifications... again.
@@patrickglaser1560 Me neither, i check my subsribtions and put them in a watch later playlist where i can watch whatever i have left.
Same but as check at least once a day
Meaning that youtubes shadow ban bs policy is working.
Still not notified yet.
I know right?
Everytime i see you pop up I'm like "oh look a new vsauce video"
😭🤣😭🤣
bri'ish VSauce
1:05 Not going to lie, when the price for Curiosity Stream first came up I read it as 2.99 MILLION DOLLARS.
I used to work for Bicycling Magazine in the 1980's. I met of heard of at least half of those engineering types.
I met one Crispin Miller, who knew (probably) all. As the low man on the
totem pole, all this math boggled the mind.
I learned to see geometric differences in bicycles at a glance. At this time, Mountain bikes were evolving from downhill coasters to all out performance bicycles that could handle everything Earth threw at them. The 80's were a remarkable time for the sport.
As an elder, I still ride... not the 200-300 miles per week... but per year... it's a goal now.
Loved this video. Will share with former coworkers.
Good on ya mate
You push down on the pedal. The pedal moves the chain, the chain moves the back tire.
I would like my nobel peace prize now
@Wade Williamson I know, but my way is better
If this continues, then half the channels I am subscribed to are narrated by Simon.
People: how do bicycles work?
Scientists: Hey, if it aint broke don’t fix it!
We should sometimes come in terms with the idea that some devices are simply engineered to the point of perfection with or without our thorough understanding of how it even works. Bicycle science is boring because there's nothing much to improve on.
For once.
I think a big part of why the mystery remains is that studying it is not worth economically, since bikes anyway work. This reminds me of the theory of planes, which was at least wrongly understood and explained in pilot schools during most years of airline companies. Also, makes me think of Swifts and the fact that they seem to sleep in the air, but we have no idea of details... who would invest in researching that?
The story of Papadopoulos being late even when the matter was his passion, and in the end losing it all, truly hits home :D
“Just like riding a bike”. It’s true. There’s something that happens with the brain once you’ve mastered it. Is it kinesiology? Probably.
I don't know what that is. So it must be smart. Yeah it's kinesiology. What she said!
Muscle memory
It’s weird man. Your brains constantly doing calculations in the background when you’re riding, learning how your velocity affects your transition through space, all subconsciously
@@mokkaveli The mind is amazing. It can do hundreds of processes in the background constantly, and yet I'll still walk into a room and forget exactly what it was I needed to do 2 minutes ago. Truly amazing.
@@HaggisDruid makes you think if the mind is a construct to facilitate the subconscious brains survival
Too bad that there were no images of these curious constructions that have proven that the gyroscopics wheren't the stabilizing factor all along.
yeah, i was missing too pretty bad, the so many lacking visual examples. this is quite the "moving" subject :P
He really didn't address gyroscopic forces???
I didn't even watched it, as I knew how bicycles work since like high school.
@@urosmarjanovic663 Well, why haven't you shared it with the rest of the bicycle-scientific community?
@@aaronrm92 Because it's Mechanics 101 - course taught at every university
@@urosmarjanovic663 Well he did address gyroscopic forces, and discussed proof that they aren't the stabilising factor of bicycles. He also proposed other factors such as the caster effect and how this was also proven not to contribute significantly to bike stabilisation. The original comment was rightfully lamenting a lack of included images in the video of the test contraptions used to secure these proofs, because they sound interesting. Sounds to me like you were taught information which has since been retracted, as research is still ongoing.
There's a reason they call it "ghost riding" your bike down a hill. No mystery at all!
Agreed. However, we should probably still burn bicyclists at the stake as a precaution.
I’m no mathematician, but I do have a decent grasp on physics and having looked at David Jones’ bicycle, I do not believe in his assertion that gyroscopic properties are unimportant. All he did was attach a second front wheel that does not touch the ground and spins in the opposite direction, but is otherwise oriented exactly the same as the original front wheel. If this newly added wheel were to have any affect at all, I believe it would improve stability, since there is now more mass spinning about a central point on the bike. The direction that the wheel spins has no bearing on it’s ability to stay upright nor would it “cancel” the others.
It seems that the gyroscopic theory working in tandem with the way a bike steers into it’s fall makes perfect sense. It doesn’t have to just be one variable that is the key to how it works. The whole bike is a system.
I could be wrong but it seems like David Jones’ dismissal of gyroscopic bicycle theory is based in a lack of understanding of gyroscopes.
Would love to hear thoughts.
Spinning masses have a lateral torque vector and it is related to the direction they spin, if there are 2 equal spinning masses spinning with the same velocity in opposite directions these lateral torque vectors will cancel out and inhibit gyroscopic stability
@@logangailey2997 Yes, since I made this comment I’ve been reading up because it’s been bugging me. I mistakenly believed that torque was going in both directions regardless of spin direction.
did they try a bike with a sideways facing wheel? My intuition just says that one should slighty turn either direction while staying upright. Or just tip over instantly. My intuition also tells me It's the path of least resistance that is stabilizing the bike. Ofc the gyroscopic effect, the shopping cart effect as well as aeordynamics help I guess. I.E all other directions and turning cost more energy than just going straight but at some point just falling over uses the least amount of energy.
On second thought I have no clue at all, my ideas simply explain why the bike keeps going forward and not why it doesn't just keep tilting into a fall as soon as the bike starts tilting one way.
[edit] changed left to either direction. no clue why i typed left.
Seems to me we don't exactly have our best minds working on the problem. Based on this story, we don't have an answer because no one competent has bothered to solve the problem.
or it is not a problem
@@whatsup3270 or at least not a problem that's worth caring about.
I think u underestimate the university of Delft
@@ResonNL xDddd
Its might be a problem, what dosent seems to be so big, but it actually could even connect to faster then light travels... Who knows?
You missed your chance to call it "Unified Bicycle Theory"
Scientists: We don't know how bicycles work.
Me: *peddling without hands* It's safe ! 😂😂😂
I love how the things that break science the most aren’t the things on the frontier of human technology but its stuff like bikes and dominos and breaking spaghetti
Smarter every day reference
when you accidentally invent something a century ahead of time
I think as a bicycle begins to lean , the front steers causing the bike to go in a shallow turn, this caused centrifugal force to help up right the bike and restoring the balance.
Wassup nigel love your videos bud. Glad to see you here.
@@taylormoore3400 Hello Taylor, I can't stay away from a cycling video!
@@TheBonsaiZone bonsai and bikes huh?
That would make sense, because if you’ve ever pushed a bike really hard, you’d watch the front wheel turn back and forth out of control before collapsing to the ground all together. Centripetal force would cause sudden over correction of the wheel, throwing balance to the other side, and this process would continue until the center of balance crosses the point of contact with the wheels. I think you just solved it. But what do I know, I’m not a physicist.
centrifugal force isnt a real force. if the bike is going a constant speed then centrifugal force doesnt exist for it
"The standard 72° angle of the fork"
The grim dounut: "Am I forgotten?"
Only mtb riders will get this one
The fork angle have nothing to do with it; it works with a straight vertical, even on ice skates replacing the wheels; dynamik23.com/home-2/2wheels/
@@brunoethier896 Exactly, because unicycle forks aren't 72 degrees
Us mtb laughing in our choppered out bikes.
@@s14tat 62 degrees seems to be the extreme right now. Blows that statement out of the water. Even modern road bikes have slacker angles.
Side note here, David Wilson was not the inventor of the Recumbent Bicycle, that was Charles Mochet in the 1930's.
First his Velocars, then the first performance Vélo Couché.
A Recumbent (Nazca Gaucho) and a Quest Velomobile are my normal bikes 😉
Taking the Gaucho to Zürich this week, cycling & camping to the Recumbent World Championships in Lustenau, Austria.
All races under our own IHPVA & WHPVA organisations, because the UCI doesn't consider our vehicles legal... 😏
"That's not a boike, it's a camp bed with wheels" - Crocodile UCI, 1986
'Three things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me. And bicycles.'
Think Friction. The ROLLING tire treads pulling against the STILL ground with enough speed and force to propel the bike forward, keeps the wheels upright. Same phenomenon happens with things like coins that fall out of your pocket, only to have to chase after one that happened to land upright. The act of pedaling generates, or simply pushing a bike generates these required vectors. In the case of the coin, falling generated the necessary speed and force. The most important giveaway is the fact that the surface that’s being rolled on has to be STILL. A bike won’t stand on it’s own on a treadmill, even if the wheels are spinning. This is because the treadmill belt is not only the generator of the required vectors, but it is applying them to the wheels, and not the other way around. The only way the bike will stay up in this scenario is if someone held it, or if they were brave enough to try and compensate by balancing it from a rider’s position.
You can ride a bike on a conveyor of sorts. “Rollers” are used sometimes to warm up for races, and are rolling drums that the bike sits on
@@jimhize oh yes. It’s very possible.. but it all boils down to that “brave enough to try” part though. Anybody can ride a bike, but those that can do so on “Rollers” are usually trained athletes
It’s clearly the wheel itself, a rolling tire acts the same way with the absence of the entire bike
Yes. As a moving wheel starts to fall to its left, it will turn left. But turning left puts it at odds with its forward momentum, so it begins to topple to the right, and this repeats for the other side. Stability as long as it's moving.
This is testable. Create a bicycle that runs on skates/skis instead of wheels and push it on ice/snow, see what happens.
A single wheel will fall over and not right-itself like two wheels connected. That's what the castor effect is...
@@darkmage35 I built one this fall. It's super fun to ride but it will fall over when you send it on its own. It's more comparable to skiing or snowboarding than it is to biking
@@ModernRedneck13 can you explain the design?
If you hold a bike wheel in each hand by the axle and spin it, then it's very difficult to turn it left or right. If you let go with one hand, then the wheel doesn't fall to the ground, it starts to twist around the hand that's holding it, that's precession. I've always thought it quite spooky and inexplicable.
Gyroscopic force
Centripetal/Centrifugal
"David Wilson inventor of the recumbent bicycle" I don't think so unless he's very old. There was one exhibited at Geneva in 1896.
I stumbled on this one, too.
David Wilson is known as the father of recumbent bicycles. He studied them and wrote books on them, but was not original inventor. I can't seem to find the original inventor for them but Charles Machet seems to be a name that shows up a lot early 1900s recumbent bicycles.
Im calling it , unlocking the mistery of bicycles is the key off building ufo's :))
👍🏻 I was thinking the same 🤔
UFO stands for "Unidentified Flying Object", but I'm guessing that's not what you meant.
@@taliesinriver Well, if we build a flying craft with the principles of the bike stability problem, with out first figuring out the problems solution. Once could say the object is flying unidentifiably.
@@oddvoid haha true
UFO, time travel machine, wormhole portal, even matter manipulator device, just name it. Unlocking the bicycles mystery is the key of the next industrial revolution
Me seeing title: "how is this a question? You get on, balance yourself, push pedals and go?"
Me watching video: "uhhhhhhhhhhhh why is this so complicated?"
Same, I come from aviation background so I thought, I understood aerodynamics and gyroscopic stability, that’s how bikes work, but apparently bikes don’t give a fuck about that.
@@MaxwellAerialPhotography well the Wright brothers were professional bicycle builders. They might not have had a clue about the whole focus section of math they were about to create but understood the concepts that seemed and ended up to matter the most.