-
The kind that you've provided
But??
which are in front of the steerer-axis
Its actually hehind the steerer-axis...
inelegant design solution to introduce a lateral force
Is didnt need any introduction, it was already there. Your bike even haz it :), and you make use of it with every turn you take. It makes your bike take turns in a comfortable way.
More importantly I don't think you can prove that you have perfectly achieved it because riders are so good at subconsciously compensating for lateral forces.
I dont see what these two have to do with each other.. You saying Ive been kidding myself all this time?
As @mdcc_tester said, it's really a question of whether you can do it well enough for riders not to notice, not whether it will ever be perfect.
True!
Your comment suggests that setting up needs to be done fairly precisely with regard to canting vs. offset.
I guess Im just a perfectionist... you may hold that against me any time
If you change tyre size, the wheel radius will change, which will change the offset, so the canting will then presumably need to be changed if you want to precisely match the opposing forces.
But not that much of a perfectionist..
Camber force is also affected by loads of things including load and tyre pressure, so if these change the camber force will change. Will the counteracting force change in proportion for the handling to remain truly neutral, rather than just good enough?
This depends on how picky you actually are (I mean the rider.. not you personally) If you'd change the wheel diameter with lets say 5 or 10 mm, you'd need to adjust the lateral with... oh maybe as much as 0.01 mm... I need to think about that...
There is another effect much more obvious to the rider in the difference in taking left and right turns ... It responds in a different (noticeable) way
however, you are doing yourself no favours with this kind of phrasing...
More importantly I don't think you can prove
You sport the same kind of phrasing the Pope was using in reference to Galileo, I guess Im just not into your type of church but suit yourself..
No_Fork-
Its actually hehind the steerer-axis...
The fork-ends are in front of the steerer axis (although the contact patch is behind). Presumably if a leftward force is exterted on the fork-ends by the hub, then doesn't that translate into a leftward turning force?
Is didnt need any introduction, it was already there. Your bike even haz it :) [a lateral force], and you make use of it with every turn you take. It makes your bike take turns in a comfortable way.
...but it's not there when a forked bike is travelling in a straight line, because the wheels are vertical. That's my whole point: you've introduced a lateral force even if the bike is travelling in a straight line, and you only create a genuinely neutral-handling bike if you exactly counteract it with a precisely matched counter-steering force. That additional requirement for the precise matching of forces is a really inelegant.
I dont see what these two have to do with each other.. You saying Ive been kidding myself all this time?
Of course they have something to do with each other, the only reason you can get away with the inherent problem of your design (as laid out above) is that riders are very good at subconsciously correcting for spurious lateral forces; their bike-handling skills (which have been practised so much as to become subconscious, automatic systems) deal with the bike's imperfections without letting your conscious self know about it, so they are fooling you.
There is another effect much more obvious to the rider in the difference in taking left and right turns ... It responds in a different (noticeable) way
Ok, so that's a more substantial problem!
You sport the same kind of phrasing the Pope was using in reference to Galileo, I guess Im just not into your type of church but suit yourself..
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Anyway, I'm guessing there's a healthy degree of daftness/trolling in this whole proposition, so I'm not going to get involved much more. I'm glad to have learned something new from this ridiculous bit of tinkering in any case.
ffm
The kind that you've provided over your last few replies, thank you; however, you are doing yourself no favours with this kind of phrasing...
...because that is the language of snake-oil and perpetual-motion-machine salesmen the world over. From the bulk of the thread, it's really not been clear what you've been claiming. At some points it seemed like you were saying that you'd worked out how to run a canted wheel such that it produced no camber thrust, which is obviously not true. What is clear from your more recent posts is that what you've done is some calculations as to how to counteract it with a contrary steering force. On that topic, this is not clear to me:
The wheel is canted to the (rider's) left, this exerts a force to the left on the fork-ends, which are in front of the steerer-axis, so how does that produce a turning force to the right? The answer to this isn't really relevant to the explanation, since I (think I) understand that what you're doing is moving the contact patch out of the plane of the frame (in whichever direction is necessary) to counteract the camber force. This was not at all clear, since I thought you were working within the constraint that the contact patch had to stay in the plane of the frame.
In general it seems to be a really inelegant design solution to introduce a lateral force (camber force from the wheel canting) that you then have to counteract, when the lateral force could simply be omitted in the first place (by having the wheel in the plane of the frame). Having to balance the two opposing forces perfectly in order to produce a truly neutral bike just seems like a lash-up. More importantly I don't think you can prove that you have perfectly achieved it because riders are so good at subconsciously compensating for lateral forces. We do it all the time with less-than-perfectly true or badly seated wheels, asymmetric loads, road camber etc. I did it for 3 years without it feeling strange enough for me to do anything about, even though I could see that my front wheel was out of whack. As @mdcc_tester said, it's really a question of whether you can do it well enough for riders not to notice, not whether it will ever be perfect. On a normal (forked) bike any lateral force is wrong; on a no-fork bike it could just be due to poor resolution of two intentionally generated forces.
The requirement for precisely matching the opposing forces also raises further questions:
Your comment suggests that setting up needs to be done fairly precisely with regard to canting vs. offset. If you change tyre size, the wheel radius will change, which will change the offset, so the canting will then presumably need to be changed if you want to precisely match the opposing forces.
Camber force is also affected by loads of things including load and tyre pressure, so if these change the camber force will change. Will the counteracting force change in proportion for the handling to remain truly neutral, rather than just good enough?