Re: Science of cycling still largely mysterious

On Wed, 21 May 2025 18:42:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 5/21/2025 3:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:54:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 5/21/2025 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2025 12:58:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 5/21/2025 11:47 AM, cyclintom 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...

>
Tom, you have no idea how much there is that you don't know. Try reading
some of the work done by Jim Papadopoulos, who's probably the most
prominent researcher on bicycle dynamics. People have been studying
bicycle dynamics for many decades, trying to get precise understanding.
Science is not there yet.
>
Obviously, we can build bikes of roughly conventional geometry and have
them work well; but that's not due to precise engineering analysis. It's
been done through a long history of trial and error leading to rules of
thumb.

>
>
Unless a person is designing bicycles, that information is not worth
bothering with.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
While it's true that literally billions of people have
purchased a bicycle and ridden it (to some extent or
another) with no thought whatsoever about the magic dynamic
physics of keeping the thing upright, some, as I,  do find
that area of inquiry intriguing.  Some, like you and the
great majority of riders, do not.  Makes no difference to
riding a bicycle, and in fact there's not a consensus on why
bicycles work at all.

 
Many things are interesting enough for a person to want to know more.
The question I ask is whether or not it's necessary for them to pursue
that interest. I think, in most cases, it's a want, not a need.

>
You said "I've little time for learning about stuff I have no need to
know." That sounds like a statement defending absolutely minimal
learning, absolutely minimal curiosity.

Your opinions about what you think that "sounds" like are of no value.

Again, "Ignorance is bliss" for some people. I realized long ago that I
get great pleasure from learning.

I knew people years ago, who learned simply for the sake of learning.
They all turned out as useless, boring, and as insignificant as you. I
value people who accomplish things, not just blabber and brag about
what they know.

--
C'est bon
Soloman