Originally Posted by
3alarmer(post #19)
Originally Posted by
3alarmer
... You want my genuine response ? Try post # 19.
Awesome. You linked your google search. Bravo.
Tell me. Have you read any of that stuff you linked to? Did you understand it? That first paper has me diving for my dynamics textbooks from college. Are you fluent in the subject? Eigenvalues and stability regions? Enlighten us. Please.
It is definitely not a simple model. But still, the bike is a pretty simple machine. Enlighten us with your thoughts about how a list of half a dozen design variables contemplates such a complex system.
Here's a hint. Yes... the system is complex to describe in its entirety. But a few design variables, trail and flop being two of them, are probably sufficient to fully describe a bicycle handling characteristic as is proven out by experiment. The modern bicycle is a stable and robust dynamic system, which is why the operating space of the design variables is so large. Maybe that's my response to the OP; for the road, these design variables have a wide range. But still, and it is extremely apparent on the track, these design variables play an important role in how the bike behaves and "feels". I've ridden bikes that are basically unrideable at speed on the banking. I've almost lost control of bikes that paired a track frame with a road fork, creating a short trail. Not fun to have the steering start oscillating in the middle of a 35+mph sprint on a 43 degree banking.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --
the tiniest sprinter