Re: [ST] Emile

["Sprint ST" <sprint_st@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm going to try to put my comments in your text.

-----Original Message-----

>I've also learned that James has a lot of errors and misassumptions in
>several discussions. He's not the only one, there are a lot of countersteer
>articles that show they don't grasp the full theory behind it.
I totally concur and believe a lot of what is in print theory or sometimes
speculation.

>James puts it at 80% influence though. You know that that is bullocks 
Again I concur.  I don't know what the amount is and am not so sure anyone
really does for that matter.  That has been my basis for discussion.  I know
there is gyroscopic precession but I believe that it is overstated.

> 2.) http://www.msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=76

>This article is also not very convincing. It states (like article 1) that
>below 6mph you can't countersteer because there is not enough centrifugal
>force. 
Here I disagee. In this state they have a stupid driving test with a portion
of weaving through cones at very low speed.  I have practiced it a lot
watching exactly what I was doing.  There is a point where you just turn the
bars in the direction you want to go.  This is where the steering component
design comes in.  You have to keep the gas on so that there is forward
momentum.  That's what's keeping the bike from falling over.   

>3.) http://www.msgroup.org/TIP066.html

>Same error in this article, at least that's my opinion. Even if precession
>would have such a huge influence in HELPING the roll, it would make no
>sense.
This is more of the same, I believe the counter steering is more rake, trail
and power assisted some by gyroscopic precision at the beginning but more to
do with distortion and position of the patch and camber thrust. 
  

>So far I haven't found as much BS as in James' countersteer articles. :-)
>On top of that they have already proven their theory in practice with
>that bike, although I would like to rear a lot more about it.
We can disagree about the theory of steering but I have not seen that they
have proven anything.  That’s way I smell snake oil when I read their stuff.
One point they hammer that is dead wrong is about the lateral instability.
I think everyone has seen the pictures of the bike going straight without
the rider AFTER a high side.

>But the velocity is only relative to an observer that's not on the bike.
This isn't the theory of relativity, we need a few more mph's for that :-)
>Does steering become heavier in your car with speed?
Yes it absolutely does!!!!  I think you are just accustomed to power
steering and power assisted steering.  Drive an old car and you will see
that it does.

>Why is there more force involved? Wouldn't your same theory apply to
>cars as well then (and not make sense)? 
While the mass of the bike remains a relative constant the velocity
increses.  Momentum is mass time velocity.  Now I'm getting into rusty
territory, but momentum is a vector quantity.  To change that vector in the
turn you have to apply force.  You have to add gas to maintain velocity
because it is getting scrubbed off by the camber thrust.  In this process
the bike is still trying to go straight so you have to keep applying force.
There is lots of problems comparing cars and motorcycle steering.  When a
car leans it usually isn't a good thing.  They don't have special front and
rear tires. Etc, etc.  Again, without power assist I do believe steering
does get harder with velocity in cars.

Something I did run across on the counter rotating brakes is some guy said
that someone tried this same idea back in the 1980's or 90's.  I don't
remember it, but he said it died from lack of interest.  

Drive safe,
Rod

 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/319 - Release Date: 4/19/2006
 
_______________________________________________
Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com