Re: Science of cycling still largely mysterious

cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue May 20 16:43:34 2025 Frank Krygowski  wrote:

On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
 

"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
 
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012

 
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff
I have no need to know.

 
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!

 
 
 
 
What is unknown about bicycling? Even you know that balancing on a
bicycle is based upon balancing on two feet, upright. Or perhaps you
don't know that and accept the premise that it is magic that maintains
the balance of a bicycle.
 
If a bicycle starts to fall, your sense of balance even if pretty
damaged, will cause you to turn into the fall causing a force in the
opposite direction which with very little practice is very close to equal and opposite.

Mine is by some margin better on the bike where it’s broadly where I was,
at a high level such as riding along logs or top of ruts at speed the
vestibular system isn’t happy, but on the whole it’s as I was, unlike
walking or public transport and so on, it’s more happy walking in the
countryside than urban though my ability is by some degree much less than I
was, both in technical ability and distance I can walk.

Ie this sort of stuff isn’t simple.

I did ask the rehabilitation folks who weren’t sure why to be honest.

 
So what is it that you need to know> Or is your knowledge incomplete
without a billion dollars spent on a "scientific" study that says the same thing?
 

As ever going for Frank said it so I must disagree!

Roger Merriman