What was wrong with the original?

[oldtom]

The BBC has this item on its news pages today but I'm afraid this piece of technology is lost on me as I can't see that it's much different from the original method of learning to ride:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27685867

Tom

 

[D C]

Some days I could perhaps do with one of those myself
I agree, It strikes me that they are learning to ride a jyrobike and not learning to cycle, what happens when they change to a normal cycle?
I suppose it's only like using stabilisers then having to re-learn a bit when they are removed but it doesn't seem to be a great advantage to me.
It seems to me to be an expensive solution to a problem that didn't exist in the first place.
It was nice to see the delight on the child's face when he managed to ride unaided.
Dave.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Where a bike moves forward, the wheels become gyroscopes, which enable you to balance and control the bike. When the bike is stationary, there's no gyroscope, so you topple sideways. The faster you go, the more stability you get.

The above bike has a motor-powered gyroscope in the front wheel so you can balance when stationary and going slow. I would guess that the steering forces would be in the normal direction, so a beginner would be able to learn the necessary counter-steering direction without falling off, so it looks to me like a brilliant idea.

The problem with stabilisers is that they teach you to apply steering force to the handlebars in the wrong direction, so the beginner has to learn all over again when the stabilisers are removed.

If you ever get to ride one of those bikes that has a mechanism that reverses the steering direction, you'll get the idea. You can't go 10 ft, but after 10 minutes of practice, you can conquer it. They had one at Bristol last year. Perhaps it'll be there again at the event in a couple of weeks time.

 

[TREF]

I can't even remember what "the original method of learning to ride" was like

 

[trex]

I can't see the improvement from the original stabilizers that you bolt on to your kids bikes either, if anything, it's worse. Beside the extra cost, the feel of a front heavy wheel and dead heavy steering is certainly not natural if not frightening for the kids. The point is not so much to teach kids riding bikes in an afternoon, more to get them started young. The old method builds up their muscles, awareness and balance gradually. You won't forget the day you took the stabilizers away from your kids bike.
I'll put the Jyrobike in the same bin as the pedal motor.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

I can't see the improvement from the original stabilizers that you bolt on to your kids bikes either, if anything, it's worse. Beside the extra cost, the feel of a front heavy wheel and dead heavy steering is certainly not natural if not frightening for the kids. The point is not so much to teach kids riding bikes in an afternoon, more to get them started young. The old method builds up their muscles, awareness and balance gradually. You won't forget the day you took the stabilizers away from your kids bike.
I'll put the Jyrobike in the same bin as the pedal motor.

Read what I wrote. A clever bloke like you should get it!

 

[oldtom]

All of my three kids and both my grandchildren learned to ride a bike from me doing exactly what the bloke in the clip was doing. i.e., stabilising while jogging alongside, holding and not holding the saddle or with a hand on an arm or shoulder most of the time. Gradually, most of the time became some of the time then none of the time till.....look Daddy/Granddad! I can't remember it taking any more than maybe an hour including one or two partial falls to go through that process.

It is a nonsense invention in the mould of the mad professors like Sinclair. Talk about re-inventing the wheel!

Tom

 

[neptune]

I have always respected the opinions of d8veh. He has clearly forgotten more than i will ever know about electric bikes. However on this occasion I have to disagree with him. The theory of the part played by gyroscopic forces in balancing a bike is a myth,. The weight, and speed of rotation of bike wheels, and their light weight is insufficient to create sufficient force to be significant.

There is a video somewhere on the internet about a university investigating this theory. They built a bicycle that had two additional wheels placed above the existing wheels. The tyres of these additional wheels were in contact with the tyres of the normal wheels. This caused the additional wheels to rotate in the opposite direction to the normal wheels.

People riding this bike felt no additional difficulty in riding it, even though the total gyroscopic force would be zero. A bike is balanced by steering in the direction in which it leans, moving the bikes footprint back under its center of gravity.

The balance bike in the video would have its uses, and I like how it has several settings, to gradually reduce flywheel speed as the rider makes progress. The problem is that if the kid learns to ride in one afternoon, this bike is then redundant. More cost effective would be for a school to buy it, and teach one pupil a day.

I have taught a great many kids to ride bicycles. I find the best way is to use a pedal-less balance bike. Or better still. remove the pedals and cranks from a kids bike until balancing is learned. I used to "lag" the bottom bracket with foam rubber and duct tape to protect the riders legs.

Learning to ride entails three separate skills; balancing, pedaling, and braking. Balancing is the hardest skill, so get that out of the way first. Then teach the use of brakes. Finally, pedalling has to be learned. The secret of all learning, is that at any given stage, confidence must match ability.Those are my opinions, others may have other ideas.

 

[trex]

the bike is balanced by inertia. The gyroscope's spinning weight adds its inertia to the rider's own. The rider's (and the bike's) inertia gradually becomes stronger when the rider gains speed. My guess you could add an inverse throttle to the Jyrobike to help learners to become less dependent on the aid.

 

[D C]

The above bike has a motor-powered gyroscope in the front wheel so you can balance when stationary and going slow. I would guess that the steering forces would be in the normal direction, so a beginner would be able to learn the necessary counter-steering direction without falling off, so it looks to me like a brilliant idea.
The problem with stabilisers is that they teach you to apply steering force to the handlebars in the wrong direction, so the beginner has to learn all over again when the stabilisers are removed.

Good points.
I never had stabilisers, just kept falling off till I stopped falling off.
I wish I could say it was character building but I suspect not.
Dave.

 

[Croxden]

I was told not to ride my cousin's bike as I was to young, so while riding it I was so concerned not to be seen I kept looking over my shoulder and didn't see the lamppost someone had put in the road. Up to then hadn't fallen off.

Made for it since a few times.

 

[peerjay56]

I do remember a eureka moment with my own children, when they were able to stop looking down at the bike, and started looking forward instead - that was when 'balancing' began to happen.

 

[Artstu]

It's a lot simpler to take the pedals off for a very brief period and get the child to scoot until they get their balance.

 

[Alan Quay]

When I was teaching my lad, I read a lot about stabilizers and how they don't teach kids to ride a bike. Perhaps they don't teach the skill of balancing, but they do perform one very important function: They enable a child to go out cycling along side the adults, which gets them enthusiastic about the process.

Once my son was into the idea of cycling, the actual learning process was pretty straight forward. A few afternoons on the village green, and grass stained knees and he was away.

Fire up their enthusiasm and you'll be amazed what they can achieve.

As far as this device goes, well whatever works for you and your kids. You should probably try the traditional methods first though.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

I

There is a video somewhere on the internet about a university investigating this theory. They built a bicycle that had two additional wheels placed above the existing wheels. The tyres of these additional wheels were in contact with the tyres of the normal wheels. This caused the additional wheels to rotate in the opposite direction to the normal wheels.

People riding this bike felt no additional difficulty in riding it, even though the total gyroscopic force would be zero. A bike is balanced by steering in the direction in which it leans, moving the bikes footprint back under its center of gravity.

Was that video published on April 1st?

Take any bike wheel; hold it by the axle and get someone to spin it. You don't have to even spin it fast. Try and tilt it sideways like a bike falling over. Then come back here and tell me that there's no gyroscopic resistance to tilting.

 

[trex]

no, it's not April fool. The two arguments are not contradictory. In the video (I haven't seen it but I can guess), the wheels are light, the gyroscopic force of the spinning wheels, although easily felt, is not great in comparison to the inertia of the body and bike multiplied by its speed. In the case of the Jyrobike, the flywheel weighs a couple of kgs spinning at 2000 RPM will add a rotational moment of inertia about the same as of the rider plus bike's. To understand how the bike is balanced, it's easier to think in term of (inertial) moment vectors.

 

[neptune]

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/gyroscopic-effects-have-almost-nothing-to-do-with-your-ability-to-ride-a-bike/



http://home.phys.ntnu.no/brukdef/undervisning/tfy4145/diverse/UnridableBicycle.pdf


I cant find the original video. Opinions are polarised on this. It is a bit like religion, you either believe or you dont. I think Trex is right, in that under some circumstances, gyroscopic forces have a small part to play, but the effect is so small that you can still ride if it is eliminated. The second link is an in depth mathematical treatment of the subject, supported by practical experiments.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/gyroscopic-effects-have-almost-nothing-to-do-with-your-ability-to-ride-a-bike/

That theory goes out the window when you ride no-hands.

 

[Alan Quay]

That theory goes out the window when you ride no-hands.

No, it doesn't. When you ride no-hands, and go off balance to the left, the front wheel steers left. That's the key to this.

 

[neptune]

I am with mike on that. Riding no hands has more to do with steering geometry [rake and trail] than gyroscopic forces IMO. Older bikes, say a 1950s roadster were much easier to ride no hands. There was more rake on the forks than on a modern bike. Same amount of gyroscopic force, though.

On an old roadster, if you leaned the bike to one side, the steering would move in that direction, even with the bike stationary. With modern bikes, not so much.

The fact that the Jirobike works, shows that gyroscopic forces can play a part, but remember that it uses a flywheel rotating at 2,000 RPM.