zlacker

Occam’s razor is for hypotheticals. You’re rejecting an actual physical demonstration, by a reader of engineering dynamics and vibration at Cambridge.

The feedback mechanism you’ve described is likely correct, and also a complete furphy, since the central nervous system is not part of the bicycle.

All of which is par for the course and rather confirms the point, viz. that people will happily hold forth on any explanation they care to latch on to, secure in the knowledge that the total absence of consensus makes it impossible to say, definitively, “that is wrong”

>>inopin+(OP)
Great discussion, I agree with inopinatus who, if I am not mistaken, supports my position that the science is not quite out on this topic yet. Many explanations exist, none seem to be all-encompassing.

That being said, it doesn't answer the question posed in this forum: "What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?"

Instead, it answers the question: "What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone could explain?"

>>itcrow+xp1
I guess my question on this specific topic would be, "What aspects of bicycle operation are not adequately explained by gyroscopic action under the control of a human rider?" That would give us a good basis for inquiry into other possible principles.

Sure, a bike could work some other way, but my point is, it doesn't need to. Anyone who has ever picked up a hard drive should understand how a bicycle remains upright. What else is there to know? It's not like an airplane wing, where the "obvious" conventional wisdom is inadequate, misleading, or incomplete.

>>Camper+Lq1
Well, apparently it is.