Hmmmmm? photo: @fat cyclist
This is perhaps painfully obvious to everyone but me and if so, sorry I’ve yet again wasted your time. The other day, after falling off another floating board in the ocean I had to admit my balance might suck. And my coordination too or I might have been good enough at baseball to actually like it and play it. Nope, ball sports are right out. What I want to celebrate is the fact that our bikes have two magic gyroscopes spinning underneath us. You want to sit up at 40 kph, casually reach behind and tuck your gilet under your jersey? Be my guest but you can only do that because of the gyroscopes, not your awesome balance. If good balance was required to ride bicycles every prat and his brother wouldn’t be chatting on their iphone while zipping down the lane.
Descending at great speed is so damn much fun because the bike is rock solid when hauling such mighty ass, until it isn’t and that is is pilot error, not the fault of your dualing gyroscopes. To quote one of Maine’s greatest exports, Yvon Chouinard, “speed is safety”. He was talking about mountaineering and the need quickly get across exposed couloirs to avoid potential rockfall or avalanche but it’s also true for cycling, to a point. OK, he could have said speed is stability if he was more of a cyclist.
Does this mean we shouldn’t own deep section carbone wheels, with their lighter rotating mass providing less momentum? No, folly my friends, the deep section wheels are spinning faster because you are going faster due to the aero-awesomeness of those wheels. A year into my tubular tire/50 mm Cancellara carbone wheels and I’m more chuffed than ever about them. Unless it’s raining heavily and I’m descending then, not as chuffed. But I digress, that is another lecture.
So far so good. What the hell is absent minded professor talking about? All this spin angle momentum and torque should have us riding in circles not going in straight lines. That is your weekend homework. Test on Monday. Buon weekend.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@Oli
When I was riding the Bear 100 gravel ride this weekend in Laona (northern WI), my speed wobble was caused by going about 40kms down a rather sandy, gravelly descent. I was adhering to the rule about descending at speeds considered ludicrous (something one of my companions remarked upon). Mind you, at one point I did think I was heading for big trouble, but saved the day at the last minute! Serious squeeky bum time. As well as this one turned out, a couple of winters ago I had a speed wobble. Fortunately there was a nice soft snow bank to tumble into.
Physics? Sat it twice in HS and failed both times. Nuff said.
@wiscot
I've been thinking more and more about how physicists, like mountain climbers, are mostly genetically gifted folks. Sure, you still gotta put in some work, but a rouleur will never be a goat and a creative, artistic person will never breeze through Calc III.
I worked my way up through Calculus II, Chemistry II, Physics II...but eventually hard work just couldn't crack the next level. Meanwhile, I know a person from high school who is an astrophysicist and never even tried, just came naturally. Everyone in her family and extended family also has a very strong, technical mind.
@Ron
but a rouleur will never be a goat and a creative, artistic person will never breeze through Calc III.
That's why I work in an art museum!
@wiscot
I did from what I remember, but it is all long forgotten. I ended up satisfied with being creative.
@tmgrasso
Physics is too predictable.
Here's another article just out on the subject.
@universo
Likewise here - Calc III was a breeze. It lead to disaster in differential equations - which require a more cookbook approach to the solution.
@Ron
Simply not true, Ron. Well, maybe the rouler/goat thing is. Many gifted with math and science abilities are also accomplished artists. Brian May and Brian Cox are two contemporary examples that come to mind, but there are many many more, and not all named Brian. Mathematics, for example, is a highly creative pursuit. I don't mean learning procedures and rules and applying them to slightly different problem sets. I mean generating mathematics. The same can be said for engineering. A lot of these folks simply never turn their attention to artistic endeavours.
The folks I've had worked with in mathematics that are the best, are often not as fast with the procedural stuff as I expected them to be. They are good, of course, but not stella. Walk into any large music store in a city, and you'll find teenagers would will run rings around Mark knopfler or Jeff Beck with their technical ability, but they will never generate music that will move millions of the next generation. Same deal.
Some interesting discussion here on math, sciences, engineering vs creative artistic kinda characteristics. I've always wondered about Italians and specifically what is it with the Italians and machines? A person has to admit that Italians have a long history of blending artistic craftsmanship and engineering together to form some beautiful machinery. Bikes and cars and motorcycles yes but also everything from shotguns and heavy steel making equipment. Such a classic element of style in their engineering and design. Very cool.
@Randy C
I've often thought that about the Italian approach to things, especially when spending time there. I don't know why it is, but it is clear that function and form are weighted more equally there than in many other places. I've noticed the same about the Japan, thought it might not seem as obvious to westerners.
You say "math, sciences, engineering vs creative artistic", and I know what you mean by it, but I don't see it like that. A quick check of the Meriam-Webster online definition of creative yields: "having or showing an ability to make new things or think of new ideas: using the ability to make or think of new things : involving the process by which new ideas, stories, etc., are created: done in an unusual and often dishonest way". Conjuring in the mind some new algorithm, new engineering approach, novel use of a statistical method, and the like, then bringing it into existence, is a creative act. Nowadays, people tend to think of 'creative' as synonymous with 'artistic', and this not only dilutes the meaning of 'creative', but by some trick of the mind leads us to make category errors that have consequences. But, it seems I'm in the minority on this. Rant over...
Interesting thread. I've been reading bout the bike and balance thing for a couple of hours. The guy from that youtube video with the backwards bike - I wonder if he can ride it without hands on the bars? I think I initiate turns by leaning then letting the bars compensate with rotation, not the other way around. This is the only way to navigate turns when riding 'look Mum, no hands!'. After riding a balance bike for a year or so, my son recently started learning how to ride a bike. I put training wheels on. At first, he found it difficult to turn, as he would lean and nothing would happen. On his balance bike, he seems to like to get up some good speed, lift his feet and put them on the chainstays, then lean and turn. The riding robot can keep balance and make turns, but does so by rotating the bars, so it is not really riding the way we do in full. Getting a robot to initiate turns by leaning seems a much more difficult challenge.