ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (01/17/86)
>Let me think, isn't Joan Clayworth the person that brought us the >backwards motorcycle?! *** You bet. >I hear that she is now proposing roll bars and seatbelts!!:-) >Anybody for airbags!!???!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! *** This is not funny. Her organization came up with a prototype motorcycle that had roll bar and seat belts shortly after the fiasco with the backwards bike. There was a picture of it in a 1978 copy of Cycle. A really great feature was the rider position, which was more than a foot lower than a normal motorcycle, thereby neatly removing the biker's vision advantage. Clayworth's team had actually done tests with airbags on motorcycles, but discovered that their test dummies typically did a 1 1/2 gainer over the top of the bike in a head-on, missing the bag completely. This woman scares me. Ron PS: To the original author: Sorry about the junk I sent you. Either rn or I got confused. PPS: Notice that the followup line has been changed to net.cycle. This discussion doesn't belong here. -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (01/21/86)
I am sure I once read an article on some study being made to determine why bicycles are stable. They tried everything, including teeny front wheel, backwards bend in the front fork (which was used to _increase_ stability in early bicycle speed record runs (+100mph)), counter-rotating dummy front wheel, and so on. None decreased the stability markedly (they could draw no conclusions on the teeny front wheel idea, since the caster they used would burn up). Not until they put the steering in the rear did they create an "unridable" bike. Some people can ride a rear-steering bike, by crossing their hands on the handlebars and closing their eyes (try it on a normal pedal-bike: you will crash quickly. DO NOT try this on your KZ-900). I know why motorcycles keep rolling: they like to hear the wind in their mirrors. "Roll Streak" -beefheart
grego@athena.UUCP (Grego Sanguinetti) (01/22/86)
> >Let me think, isn't Joan Clayworth the person that brought us the > >backwards motorcycle?! > *** > > You bet. > > >I hear that she is now proposing roll bars and seatbelts!!:-) > >Anybody for airbags!!???!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! > *** > > This is not funny. Her organization came up with a prototype > motorcycle that had roll bar and seat belts shortly after the > fiasco with the backwards bike. There was a picture of it in > a 1978 copy of Cycle. A really great feature was the rider > position, which was more than a foot lower than a normal motorcycle, > thereby neatly removing the biker's vision advantage. not to mention lost leverage. > > Clayworth's team had actually done tests with airbags on motorcycles, > but discovered that their test dummies typically did a 1 1/2 gainer > over the top of the bike in a head-on, missing the bag completely. > > This woman scares me. > > Ron Oh gawd, and here I thought I was kidding!? Oh please save us NO on second thought don't save us, please let us crash in piece! Me thinks Joan Claybrook and the gang at NHSTA need airbags! Think of the elevation they could achieve. Think of the elevation they need!? grego@tek the puns expressed herein are better than those of my employer
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (01/23/86)
In article <577@amiga.amiga.UUCP>, jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes: >I am sure I once read an article on some study being made to determine why >bicycles are stable. They tried everything, including teeny front >wheel, backwards bend in the front fork (which was used to _increase_ >stability in early bicycle speed record runs (+100mph)), counter-rotating >dummy front wheel, and so on. None decreased the stability markedly (they >could draw no conclusions on the teeny front wheel idea, since the caster >they used would burn up). > Bicycles, motorcycles, unicycles stay up because the rotating wheels are in effect gyroscopes. They resist any attempt to push them directly sideways. I thought this was common knowledge.... >Not until they put the steering in the rear did they create an "unridable" >bike. > This is indeed an unstable situation much like the modern fighter jets which need constant computer control to keep them from breaking up almost immediately. In the case of the rear-steering bike, any steering away from a dead straight course quickly magnifies itself till the bike is out of control. Now if the cycle steering could be computer controlled then the rear steering might be a viable idea :-). I cannot see why anyone WHO KNOWS PHYSICS AND CONTROL THEORY could envision a stable, directly human controlled rear-steering two-wheeled cycle. The physics is just wrong for stable control. I still can't lead myself to believe this Joan whatsherface who proposed it had even a physics background, and that nobody caught that fiasco of an experiment until it actually failed. Any mechanical engineer could have caught it at once. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
phil@osiris.UUCP (Philip Kos) (01/27/86)
Dan Levy: > > Now if the cycle steering could be computer controlled then the rear > steering might be a viable idea :-). Dan, you fool! No more of this talk, or Joan and her cronies might hear you! (We all KNOW that nobody at the NHTSA understands a :-).) If they get this notion into their heads, it's all over. "It's viable, so you have to do it. So there." (NO :-)!) "Oh, drat these computers, Phil Kos they're so naughty and so The Johns Hopkins Hospital complex! I could pinch Baltimore, MD them." - A. Martian
rep@panda.UUCP (Pete Peterson) (01/29/86)
In article <687@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >In article <577@amiga.amiga.UUCP>, jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes: >>I am sure I once read an article on some study being made to determine why >>bicycles are stable. They tried everything, including teeny front >>wheel, backwards bend in the front fork (which was used to _increase_ >>stability in early bicycle speed record runs (+100mph)), counter-rotating >>dummy front wheel, and so on. None decreased the stability markedly (they >>could draw no conclusions on the teeny front wheel idea, since the caster >>they used would burn up). >> > >Bicycles, motorcycles, unicycles stay up because the rotating wheels are >in effect gyroscopes. They resist any attempt to push them directly >sideways. I thought this was common knowledge.... > I read the article mentioned by Jim Mackraz and remember that the authors found that it was NOT the gyroscope effect that made the bicycle stable. They made bicycles with counter-rotating wheels to cancel gyroscopic effects and found that the bicycles were still quite stable. The fascinating thing about that study was that they found it extremely difficult to make a really unstable bicycle. My recollection is that the stability on a bicycle/motorcycle resulted from the fact that tilting the cycle caused the front wheel to turn in a dir- ection to correct the tilt and right the cycle. Both bicycles and motorcycles are quite stable at very slow speeds where one wouldn't expect much gyroscopic effect. Unicycles are another matter. I believe they are kept upright by supernatural powers of the rider! pete peterson
hsc@mtuxo.UUCP (h.cohen) (01/29/86)
Joan Claybrook is no longer with NHSTA. She runs a group called Public Citizen, which periodically sends me somewhat nutty tracts about how the Telephone Companies and the various competing long distance services are conspiring to rip off the consumer, and requesting **my money** to help fight the problem. She is also in her second term on Consumer's Union's board of directors, which makes me a little suspicious of that otherwise fine organization.