-
(although the contact patch is behind).
And its this patch the forces are exerted on, translating into a right turning force. Maybe Ed or Tester can explain it better then I do
...but it's not there when a forked bike is travelling in a straight line, because the wheels are vertical.
True, although theoretically there is hardly a second where a bike actually IS going in a straight line, still theoretically true
That additional requirement for the precise matching of forces is a really inelegant.
I totally agree with that.
I guess the whole point of my project has had a different objective. (it may even be called recalcitrant)
From the traditional perspective: The introduction of the off-trail torque matching sure is inelegant. Id go as far as calling it plain ugly!
From a construction perspective: The traditional fork can bee seen as inelegant... (when you compare it to a straight tube)
I appreciate both perspectives
is that riders are very good at subconsciously correcting for spurious lateral forces
Ok, so that's a more substantial problem!
Then following your first argument that problem is solved. I will admit it is a side effect that still annoys me and I havnt found a way around it (there probably isnt anyway)
Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Exactly my point.. It was an (silly)attempt by me to move discussion beyond your Yes/No argument and appreciate different perspectives
have learned something new from this
Thats nice, whatever it is that youve learned.. learning new stuff is nice it is
You are reading a single comment by @No_Fork and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
No_Fork
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?
...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.
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.
Ok, so that's a more substantial problem!
"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.